AST Lean Coffee

My second Lean Coffee in a week, this one online with the Association for Software Testing. Here's a few aggregated notes from the conversation.

Why do people want to speak at conferences, and can we support them to get what they need in other ways?

Lots of noise recently on Twitter about people being rejected, and discussion of tactics for getting in.
So why do people want to speak at conferences?
Increase their brand.
Be more employable.
Be better known.
Go to the conference for free.
Company will only pay if they are speaking.
Share what I've learned.
Share my story.
Challenge yourself.
Because they see others doing it
Personal access to "big names."
Conferences always have the same speakers.
Do people need better access to conferences?
Can be a vicious cycle: accepted because we know you; we know you because you speak.
Perhaps the return to in-person conferences has increased the demand for speaking slots.
People don't know how to sell their talk to conferences
Lots of people stick the same proposal into multiple conferences, not tailored
I get inspiration from conferences: testing is a lot bigger than I remember day-to-day.
If you want to get known, other platforms might not be so good.
Conference talks are often amplified widely on social media.
What else can we do to boost signal?
Magazines, Podcasts, Blogs, Twitter, LinkedIn, Peer Conference, YouTube, ...

What one thing would you prefer never to have to do again (as a tester)

Repeatedly explaining something to someone who is lazy or doesn't want to open their mind.
Justifying why it's useful having a tester on a team or doing testing.
... One of the best things is explaining to people who want to learn (teaching vs justifying).
... Many different people in project teams think they can tell testers how to work.
... I'm happy to question my own practices for improvemen.
... Providing good feedback and constructive criticism is positive
Explaining why you can't automate all the testing.
... Software development has an undercurrent that is trying to destroy good work by testers.
Being in a conference where some smartass explains why everyone can be as successful as them.
Sitting with a developer while they fix a bug I reported (because they feel they need that reassurance).
... or working with developers that think testing is someone else's job.

Working conditions for testers

Inspired by a Twitter thread.
The reputation of the gaming industry is dire.
Why are big-name companies apparently abusing game testers?
What is the culture like?
How can we change it?
What other industries are bad?
Outsourcing companies have been known to abuse juniors particularly.
I have worked with people who tell all sorts of tales about game testing.
... a culture of short-term contracts.
... a funding model that means they need to be able to drop people after product release.
Tech has a weird relationship to unions.
Reasonable pay in tech makes people think we don't need unions.
Geography is important, e.g. China and India have a reputation for poor worker conditions.
... e.g. 40 hour week contract but employers expect 996 work.
Is it worse for testers than other software professionals?
But some people have no choice.

Tactics for learning while testing

You have work to do and it has a deadline
But you also want to learn new tools, new approaches, new things about your domain
Be prepared to gamble some specific time on trying things.
... but abandon it if it's not working out in the time.
... and come back to it on another occasion.
Give yourself permission to learn
Developers give themselves time and spike tickets.
People with seniority need to get better at giving time to their staff.
Senior testers tend to be better at making time for learning.
Discipline is needed.
I only do it when the situation forces it because of time pressure.
Look for an opportunity to do something new.
You need to practice a thing to get deep with it.
Perhaps analyse tasks before jumping into them, for learning opportunities.
Ask "can I try this experiment in a different way?"
We have a Community Day at work.
If you don't have that, then use stealth approaches!
Unionise!

Image: https://flic.kr/p/63wFf7

Comments

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 (AI) is Testing

Last November I gave a talk, Random Exploration of a Chatbot API , at the BCS Testing, Diversity, AI Conference . It was a nice surprise afterwards to be offered a book from their catalogue and I chose Artificial Intelligence and Software Testing by Rex Black, James Davenport, Joanna Olszewska, Jeremias Rößler, Adam Leon Smith, and Jonathon Wright. This week, on a couple of train journeys around East Anglia, I read it and made sketchnotes. As someone not deeply into this field, but who has been experimenting with AI as a testing tool at work, I found the landscape view provided by the book interesting, particularly the lists: of challenges in testing AI, of approaches to testing AI, and of quality aspects to consider when evaluating AI. Despite the hype around the area right now there's much that any competent tester will be familiar with, and skills that translate directly. Where there's likely to be novelty is in the technology, and the technical domain, and the effect of

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

The Great Post Office Scandal

The Great Post Office Scandal by Nick Wallis is a depressing, dispiriting, and disheartening read. For anyone that cares about fairness and ethics in the relationship that business and technology has with individuals and wider society, at least. As a software tester working in the healthcare sector who has signed up to the ACM code of ethics through my membership of the Association for Software Testing I put myself firmly in that camp. Wallis does extraordinarily well to weave a compelling and readable narrative out of a years-long story with a large and constantly-changing cast and depth across subjects ranging from the intensely personal to extremely technical, and through procedure, jurisprudence, politics, and corporate governance. I won't try to summarise that story here (although Wikipedia takes a couple of stabs at it ) but I'll pull out a handful of threads that I think testers might be interested in: The unbelievable naivety which lead to Horizon (the system at th

Agile Testing Questioned

Zenzi Ali has been running a book club on the Association for Software Testing Slack and over the last few weeks we've read Agile Testing Condensed by Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispin. Each chapter was taken as a jumping off point for one or two discussion points and I really enjoyed the opportunity to think about the questions Zenzi posed and sometimes pop a question or two back into the conversation as well. This post reproduces the questions and my answers, lightly edited for formatting. --00-- Ten principles of agile testing are given in the book. Do you think there is a foundational principle that the others must be built upon? In your experience, do you find that some of these principles are less or more important than others? The text says they are for a team wanting to deliver the highest-quality product they can. If we can regard a motivation as a foundational principle, perhaps that could be it: each of the ten pr

Testers are Gate-Crashers

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 , Mastodon , 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-- "Testers are the gatekeepers of quality" Instinctively I don't like the sound of that, but I wonder what you mean by it. Perhaps one or more of these? Testers set the quality sta

Leaps and Boundary Objects

Brian Marick recently launched a new podcast, Oddly Influenced . I said this about it on Twitter: Boundary Objects, the first episode of @marick's podcast, is thought-provoking and densely-packed with some lovely turns of phrase. I played it twice in a row. Very roughly, boundary objects are things or concepts that help different interest groups to collaborate by being ambiguous enough to be meaningful and motivational to all parties. Wikipedia elaborates, somewhat formally: [boundary objects are] both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites ... The creation and management of boundary objects is key in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds. The podcast talks about boundary objects in general and then applies the idea to software development specifically, casting acceptance test

Where No-one Else Looks

In yesterday's post, Optimising start of your exploratory testing , Maaret Pyhäjärvi lists anti-patterns she's observed in testers that can lead to shallow outcomes of testing. She ends with this call: Go find (some of) what the others have missed! That strikes a chord. In Toujours Testing I recalled how my young daughter, in her self-appointed role as a Thing Searcher, had asked me how she could find things that no-one else finds. I replied Look where no-one else looks. Which made her happy, but also made me happy because that instinctive response externalised something that had previously been internal. The phrase has stuck, too, and I recall it when I'm working. It doesn't mean targeting the obscure, although it can mean that. It also doesn't mean not looking at areas that have previously been covered, although again it can mean that. More, for me, it is about seeking levels of granularity, or perspectives, or methods of engagement, or personas, or data, or im

Am I Wrong?

I happened across Exploratory Testing: Why Is It Not Ideal for Agile Projects? by Vitaly Prus this week and I was triggered. But why? I took a few minutes to think that through. Partly, I guess, I feel directly challenged. I work on an agile project (by the definition in the article) and I would say that I use exclusively exploratory testing. Naturally, I like to think I'm doing a good job. Am I wrong? After calming down, and re-reading the article a couple of times, I don't think so. 😸 From the start, even the title makes me tense. The ideal solution is a perfect solution, the best solution. My context-driven instincts are reluctant to accept the premise, and I wonder what the author thinks is an ideal solution for an agile project, or any project. I notice also that I slid so easily from "an approach is not ideal" into "I am not doing a good job" and, in retrospect, that makes me smile. It doesn't do any harm to be reminded that your cognitive bias

External Brains

A month or two ago, after seeing how I was taking notes and sharing information, a colleague pointed me at Tiego Forte's blog on Building a Second Brain : [BASB is] a methodology for saving and systematically reminding us of the ideas, inspirations, insights, and connections we’ve gained through our experience. It expands our memory and our intellect... That definitely sounded like my kind of thing so I ordered the upcoming book, waited for it to arrive, and then read it in a couple of sittings. Very crudely, I'd summarise it something like this: notes are atomic items, each one a single idea, and are not just textual notes should capture what your gut tells you could be valuable notes should capture what you think you need right now notes should preserve important context for restarting work notes on a topic are bundled in a folder for a Project, Area, or Resource and moved into Archive when they're done. ( PARA )

Hiccupps

Search This Blog