Skip to main content

Testing and Words

 

The other day I got tagged on a Twitter thread started by Wicked Witch of the Test about people with a background in linguistics who’ve ended up in testing. That prompted me to think about the language concepts I've found valuable in my day job, then I started listing them, and then realised how many of them I've mentioned here over the years.  

This post is one of an occasional series collecting some of those thoughts. 

--00--

In The Complete Plain Words, Ernest Gowers notes, acidly, that:

What appears to be a sloppy or meaningless use of words may well be a completely correct use of words to express sloppy or meaningless ideas.

It surely sounds trite to say it but our choice of words can make a significant difference to how well our message is understood, and how we are judged.

We choose from amongst those words we know, our lexicons. The more my lexicon agrees with yours, the greater our chance of us achieving a shared understanding when we converse.

But lexicons are also gatekeepers. As Russell Brand put it so succinctly on the Comedian's Comedian podcast:

Only things that there are words for are being said. A challenge ... is to make up different words if you want to say different and unusual things.

To improve collaboration, then, find a common vocabulary which covers all the concepts you need. 

Sounds simple, but giving serious thought to specific terminology choices is also important. Carefully selected names and naming conventions can make understanding a problem space straightforward. Not taking care can have the opposite effect, particularly for newcomers.

However, even if you've achieved a comprehensive vocabulary that is clear, logical, and known to everyone who needs to know it, don't relax. Why? Because language does not stand still.

Definitions change over time because the words that make them up change in meaning over time. But those definitions are definitions of words which are used in definitions of other words, so the meaning of them changes too. 

Words do not exist in isolation. They are part of a wider system, a wide and complex system, one in which words and the things they describe both change in more or less predictable ways over time. They also interact with and are altered by other parallel systems. Tough, but c'est la vie.

How does this knowledge help me as a tester?

When I joined my current company I talked to lots of people and read a lot of wiki pages. What I noticed, as I tried to build a set of coherent models, was the variability in the descriptions of the same software components, projects, or organisational structures. The axes that these varied along include:

  • time: how it was, how it is, or how it's going to be
  • perspective: actual, perceived, or desired
  • proximity: in our team, in our group, or in the whole company

To give just one tiny example: my team's component imports another team's code as a library. Variable and object names are very inconsistent between them despite many concepts overlapping significantly. It probably was closer early on but has diverged over time. Needless to say, this does not help us to collaborate.

Day to day, I try to stay alert to the fact I can't rely on the words meaning what I think they mean, or should mean. I will deliberately ask for clarification, I will summarise back to check my understanding, and I will choose a subset of my lexicon carefully to suit the people I am conversing with.

I also consciously date stamp and contextualise much of what I write down so there is at least a chance that the next reader along can know that Project X isn't some skunkworks secret from the past, just an earlier iteration of what they already know as Project Y.

If "contextualise" sounds like extra time and effort then you're right, it is. But I aim for it to be as little as writing a one-line Background section at the top of a page with links to material that already exists, or using tag, labels, or whatever metadata options are available to me in the system I'm working on.

I am also cautious about using certain kinds of words, particularly in bug reports. Compare these two sets of reproduction steps:

* Create one thingy
* Increase the X-parameter
* Create another thingy
* Move the thingy with the increased X into the panel for the first thingy

* Create a thingy (T1)
* Increase T1's X-parameter
* Create a thingy (T2)
* Move T2 into T1's panel

Which would you rather (a) write and (b) follow?

It can be tempting to go on a mission to squash all ambiguity, but sometimes a little greyness can encourage collaboration and move initiatives forward, so there's a judgement call to be made. My approach is to follow Postel's Law and strive to be strict in what I produce but accommodating to what I receive.

Finally, at CEWT a couple of years ago I attempted to argue that testers often don't know what they're doing, and that's fine. To illustrate my point, I asked the other workshop participants to give definitions of quality, bug, and testing. It probably won't surprise you to learn that they orbited around common cores but also differed significantly. We still managed to spend a day talking about those topics to one another!

Image: https://flic.kr/p/6MhvPf

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Notes on Testing Notes

Ben Dowen pinged me and others on Twitter last week , asking for "a nice concise resource to link to for a blog post - about taking good Testing notes." I didn't have one so I thought I'd write a few words on how I'm doing it at the moment for my work at Ada Health, alongside Ben. You may have read previously that I use a script to upload Markdown-based text files to Confluence . Here's the template that I start from: # Date + Title # Mission # Summary WIP! # Notes Then I fill out what I plan to do. The Mission can be as high or low level as I want it to be. Sometimes, if deeper context might be valuable I'll add a Background subsection to it. I don't fill in the Summary section until the end. It's a high-level overview of what I did, what I found, risks identified, value provided, and so on. Between the Mission and Summary I hope that a reader can see what I initially intended and what actually

Why Do They Test Software?

My friend Rachel Kibler asked me the other day "do you have a blog post about why we test software?" and I was surprised to find that, despite having touched on the topic many times, I haven't. So then I thought I'd write one. And then I thought it might be fun to crowdsource so I asked in the Association for Software Testing member's Slack, on LinkedIn , and on Twitter for reasons, one sentence each. And it was fun!  Here are the varied answers, a couple lightly edited, with thanks to everyone who contributed. Edit: I did a bit of analysis of the responses in Reasons to be Cheerful, Part 2 . --00-- Software is complicated, and the people that use it are even worse. — Andy Hird Because there is what software does, what people say it does, and what other people want it to do, and those are often not the same. — Andy Hird Because someone asked/told us to — Lee Hawkins To learn, and identify risks — Louise Perold sometimes: reducing the risk of harming people —

Enjoy Testing

  The testers at work had a lean coffee session this week. One of the questions was  "I like testing best because ..." I said that I find the combination of technical, intellectual, and social challenges endlessly enjoyable, fascinating, and stimulating. That's easy to say, and it sounds good too, but today I wondered whether my work actually reflects it. So I made a list of some of the things I did in the last working week: investigating a production problem and pairing to file an incident report finding problems in the incident reporting process feeding back in various ways to various people about the reporting process facilitating a cross-team retrospective on the Kubernetes issue that affected my team's service participating in several lengthy calibration workshops as my team merges with another trying to walk a line between presenting my perspective on things I find important and over-contributing providing feedback and advice on the process identifying a

Testing is Knowledge Work

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- "We need some productivity metrics from testers" OK. I'd like to help you meet your need if I can but to do that I'll need to ask a few questions. Let's start with these: Who needs the metrics? Is there a particular pr

My Favourite Tool

Last week I did a presentation to a software testing course at EC Utbildning in Sweden titled Exploring with Automation where I demoed ways in which I use software tools to help me to test. Following up later, one of the students asked whether I had a favourite tool. A favourite tool? Wow, so simple but sooo deep!  Asking for a favourite tool could make a great interview question, to understand the breadth and depth of a candidate's knowledge about tools, how they think about an apparently basic request with deep complexity beneath (favourite for what task, on what basis, in what contexts, over what timescale?  what is a tool anyway?) and how they formulate a response to take all of that into account. I could truthfully but unhelpfully answer this question with a curt Yes or No. Or I could try and give something more nuanced. I went for the latter. At an extremely meta level I would echo Jerry Weinberg in Perfect Software : The number one te

Trying to be CEWT

I attend, enjoy, hopefully contribute to, and get a lot from, the local tester meetups and Lean Coffee  in Cambridge. But I'd had the thought kicking around for a long time that I'd like to try a peer workshop inspired by MEWT , DEWT , LEWT and the like. I finally asked a few others, including the local meetup organisers, and got mostly positive noises, so I decided to give it a go. I wrote a short statement to frame the idea, based on LEWT's: CEWT ( Cambirdge Exploratory Workshop on Testing ) is an exploratory peer workshop. We take the view that discussions are more interesting than lectures. We enjoy diverse ideas, and limit some activities in order to work with more ideas. and proposed a mission for an initial attempt to validate it locally on a small scale. Other local testers helped to refine the details in usual the testing ways - you know: criticism, questions, thought experiments, challenges, comparisons, mockery and the rest - and a list of potential at

Done by Friday

The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00--  "Will the testing be done by Friday?" If the question relates to some prior discussion about scenarios we've agreed to run through before Friday then I'll do my best to base my answer on experience gathered so far . How sim

Use the Force Multiplier

On Fridays I pair with doctors from Ada 's medical quality team. It's a fun and productive collaboration where I gain deeper insight into the way that diagnostic information is encoded in our product and they get to see a testing perspective unhindered by domain knowledge. We meet at the same time each week and decide late on our focus, choosing something that one of us is working on that's in a state where it can be shared. This week we picked up a task that I'd been hoping to get to for a while: exploring an API which takes a list of symptoms and returns a list of potential medical conditions that are consistent with those symptoms.  I was interested to know whether I could find small input differences that led to large output differences. Without domain knowledge, though, I wasn't really sure what "small" and "large" might mean. I prepared an input payload and wrote a simple shell script which did the following: make a

Testing is not the Goal

  The Association for Software Testing is crowd-sourcing a book, Navigating the World as a Context-Driven Tester , which aims to provide responses to common questions and statements about testing from a context-driven perspective . It's being edited by Lee Hawkins who is posing questions on Twitter ,  LinkedIn ,  Slack , and the AST mailing list and then collating the replies, focusing on practice over theory. I've decided to contribute by answering briefly, and without a lot of editing or crafting, by imagining that I'm speaking to someone in software development who's acting in good faith, cares about their work and mine, but doesn't have much visibility of what testing can be. Perhaps you'd like to join me?   --00-- “Testing is a bottleneck” I'd really hope it isn't, but let's see if we can work out what's happening and how we could improve the situation. First, what are you seeing that makes you think testing is a bottleneck? When I