Hiccupps

At CEWT #6 we used Lean Coffee as a way to reflect on some of the threads we'd discussed during the day . Here's a few brief, aggregated comments and questions that came up. Different Perspectives Claire and Helen's talk was about how the testers and test manager on a project had a very different view on the quality of the testing. The developer perspective is also interesting, and often different. Whose needs are being met by the testing? Which lens are we looking through: experience, knowledge, context, ..? Good testing is inherently perspective-based. The relative rule . What about outside of software, e.g. in laboratory science? Stop Working and Start Thinking . What makes good tests? Consistent, deterministic, a specific outcome. Really? What about if the software is non-deterministic? Isn't testing about information? Is gathering data (e.g. performance data) testing? There needs to be a pass/fail. Really ? Is the tester the best per...

At CEWT #6  we discussed what good testing and good testers are. We didn't set ourselves the mission of coming up with some kind of definition, we didn't explicitly take that mission on during the course of the day, and to my mind we didn't converge on anything particularly concrete that could form the basis of one either. Reviewing my notes, I thought it might be interesting to just list some of the factors that were thrown into the conversation during the day. Here they are: Good relative to what? Good relative to who? Good relative to when? Good for what? Good for who? Good for when? Goodness can be quantified. The existence of bugs found by non-testers is a way to judge testers or testing. Goodness cannot be quantified. The existence of bugs found by non-testers is not a way to judge testers or testing. Goodness can't be separated from context. Goodness can't be separated from perspective. The value and quality of testing is subjective. Good t...

At CEWT #6 we were asking what constitutes good testing. Here's prettied-up versions of the notes I used for my talk. One line of argument that I've heard in this context and others is that even though it's hard to say what good testing is, we  know it when we see it . But there's an obvious potential chicken and egg problem with that. I'm going to simplify things by assuming that the chicken came first. In my scenario, we'll assert that we  can know what good testing would look like for a project which is very similar to projects we've done before, where the results of testing were praised by stakeholders. The problem I'll address is that we don't have anyone who can do that project, so we have to hire. The question is: What can we do as recruiters, during recruitment, to understand the potential for a candidate to deliver that good testing? I've been recruiting technical staff for around 15 years, predominantly testers in the last t...

I'll be quick. In the kitchen. With tea brewing. Talking to a developer about new code. Exploring  assumptions. An enjoyable conversation. A valuable five minutes. A third party provides an object identifier to our code. We use it as a key because it's our understanding that the identifier is unique. We have never seen identifier collision. Try again: we have never seen identifier collision at any given point in time . Do we know that the third party will not recycle identifiers as the objects they represent are discarded? What would happen if they did? No longer in the kitchen. Tea on desk. Image:  https://flic.kr/p/aCWUN5

Meticulous research, tireless reiteration of core concepts, and passion for the topic. You didn't ask, but if you had done that'd be what I'd say about the writing of Matthew Syed based on You Are Awesome — reviewed here a few months back — and now also Black Box Thinking . The basic thesis of the latter is captured nicely in a blog post of his from last year : Black Box Thinking can be summarised in one, deceptively simple sentence: learning from mistakes. This is the methodology of science, which has changed the world precisely because it is constantly updating its theories in the light of their failures. In a complex world, failure is inevitable. The question is: do we learn, or do we conceal and self-justify? Who wouldn't want to learn from their mistakes, you might ask? Lots of us, it turns out. The aviation industry tends to come out well in Syed's analysis. Accidents, mishaps, and near-misses are reviewed for ways in which future flights might be le...

Last year I read a bunch of Edward Tufte books: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Envisioning Information, Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative, Beautiful Evidence, and The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. I found them compelling and ended up writing  You've Got To See This  for the Gurock Blog.  In the intervening year I've found ways to incorporate aspects of what I learned into my work: I've tried hard to remove the junk from my figures and charts; I've noted that when we're talking about how to talk about our data, something like  small multiples  can help us to visualise more of it more easily; I've encouraged members of my team to think about the difference between exploring data in a tool such as Excel, and presenting data in a chart produced by Excel. After that experience, I thought it might be interesting to review the notes I took as I went through the books (which I did, and it was). Then I thought it ...

Last year I read a bunch of Edward Tufte books: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Envisioning Information, Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative, Beautiful Evidence, and The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. I found them compelling and ended up writing  You've Got To See This  for the Gurock Blog.  In the intervening year I've found ways to incorporate aspects of what I learned into my work: I've tried hard to remove the junk from my figures and charts; I've noted that when we're talking about how to talk about our data, something like  small multiples  can help us to visualise more of it more easily; I've encouraged members of my team to think about the difference between exploring data in a tool such as Excel, and presenting data in a chart produced by Excel. After that experience, I thought it might be interesting to review the notes I took as I went through the books (which I did, and it was). Then I thought it mig...

Last year I read a bunch of Edward Tufte books: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Envisioning Information, Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative, Beautiful Evidence, and The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. I found them compelling and ended up writing  You've Got To See This  for the Gurock Blog.  In the intervening year I've found ways to incorporate aspects of what I learned into my work: I've tried hard to remove the junk from my figures and charts; I've noted that when we're talking about how to talk about our data, something like  small multiples  can help us to visualise more of it more easily; I've encouraged members of my team to think about the difference between exploring data in a tool such as Excel, and presenting data in a chart produced by Excel. After that experience, I thought it might be interesting to review the notes I took as I went through the books (which I did, and it was). Then I thought it mi...

Last year I read a bunch of Edward Tufte books: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Envisioning Information, Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative, Beautiful Evidence, and The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. I found them compelling and ended up writing  You've Got To See This  for the Gurock Blog.  In the intervening year I've found ways to incorporate aspects of what I learned into my work: I've tried hard to remove the junk from my figures and charts; I've noted that when we're talking about how to talk about our data, something like  small multiples  can help us to visualise more of it more easily; I've encouraged members of my team to think about the difference between exploring data in a tool such as Excel, and presenting data in a chart produced by Excel. After that experience, I thought it might be interesting to review the notes I took as I went through the books (which I did, and it was). Then I thought it...

Last year I read a bunch of Edward Tufte books: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Envisioning Information, Visual Explanations: Images and Quantities, Evidence and Narrative, Beautiful Evidence, and The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint. I found them compelling and ended up writing You've Got To See This for the Gurock Blog.  In the intervening year I've found ways to incorporate aspects of what I learned into my work: I've tried hard to remove the junk from my figures and charts; I've noted that when we're talking about how to talk about our data, something like small multiples can help us to visualise more of it more easily; I've encouraged members of my team to think about the difference between exploring data in a tool such as Excel, and presenting data in a chart produced by Excel. After that experience, I thought it might be interesting to review the notes I took as I went through the books (which I did, and it was). Then I thought it mi...