Replacing QA Column in the Work Board

It was quite a journey. I started as a completely manual tester who could occasionally do exploratory testing. Then, I made a drastic change of transforming my work ethics, learning automation, using monitoring tools and moving my role towards the more generic QA role where testing in production is a part of the quality assessment. And now, with yet again a bigger change in my quality professional’s journey… I promote replacing QA column after development with something like “Desk Check”. 

I recently joined a new project engagement where we can build the product from scratch. This means that we also are creating our work culture from the bottom up. It looks like our favorite phrase nowadays is “adaptable to change”. With all this, we are trying to identify the first version of our work board.

When one of our team members automatically added a column called “QA” after development, I suggested to rename it to “Desk Check”. You may wonder why would I do that when I am still a part of the team with a role of QA?

Quality should be in-built, not tested in

Thinking of quality should start as early as the user story or feature is being created. How will we gain confidence that development was successful? What metrics will we use to measure implementation? Can we recover from the worst case scenarios easily? Questioning is a huge part of quality promoting. This should be done throughout the development process before even the desk check.

Desk check is not assigned to any role specifically

If development was successful can be evaluated not only by testers but also product owners or even other developers. Desk check is more of a concept where developers show their work (and their implemented checks), get asked questions, and sometimes pair test. It can be very useful to get a product owner to give feedback on the feature before it is marked as done.

Quality of the product is a shared responsibility

When I suggested using “Desk Check” instead of “QA”, one of the developers smiled and said “Oh, so you’re not a control freak gatekeeper. We all have to be responsible.”. This is exactly what I aim to promote. However, what matters here a lot is also the fact that your team is engaged in this.

Having the attitude that all the team is responsible for quality is quite a task and I won’t say you can do it on your own and change people overnight. You can’t. They have to be willing to work in these ways and it can be very challenging. Being responsible for quality as a developer has certain benefits: you gain confidence about your work’s reliability, learn to question your own work, get to collaborate and understand better other team members like product team, and, actually help with your developer skills to improve the automated checks. The drawback of this is: you need to put effort. Way more effort than if QA is responsible for quality.

In summary, it is a challenging change to actually shift left and not only talk about it. You may find yourself wondering what QA role does if the quality is inbuilt and developers write their own checks… And that’s normal. I did, too. What is important to understand is that teams still need Quality Evangelists to question, promote quality, investigate CI/CD clutter, analyze requirements, tackle misunderstandings and share their testing knowledge with others. 

Advertisements

5 Tips on How to Make Yourself Respected as a Tester in a Company

A lot of times testers feel like they are not valued enough or that their efforts are not visible. Good quality usually is an expected outcome so it is hard to show that the role of a tester is actually very helpful and added up to quality improvements.

Possibly the most challenging work environment I had as a tester was becoming the first full time tester in a startup. There was no testing awareness prior to my role. It took time and effort to prove my value, but in the end, when I was changing jobs, some people openly admitted that they felt that I was one of the most valuable people within the company. So, what tips would I have to reach this state and become actually respected and very valued working as a tester?

  1. Open up to learnings and collaborations

    Take every chance to collaborate with other team members. It does not matter what their role is – it is extremely beneficial to collaborate and learn from others. Be it a developer, sales person or manager. Be proactive in this – tell colleagues that you’d love to learn more and maybe just shadow then for a while. It can add up a lot to your domain knowledge as well as interpersonal relationships with team members. Sometimes a programmer may even think of you when they are working on a new feature and ask you for your input for unit tests, for example.

  2. Be transparent about what you work on and ask for feedback

    If you have daily standups, then during them share the summary of your findings: it has to be concrete and informative. Try to be specific and mention what areas were tested, what was overall quality, if there was a big issue found – feel free to share it. If your organisation does not have standups, try to communicate this information in other channels – be it weekly discussion, plannings or just certain quality reports. Why not to make a quality newsletter? Keep people updated. Also, if you need any help or think that testability was causing some issues – let the team know. Sometimes all the team needs is to know about the pain points in order to help you solve them. Another tip is to arrange regular learning sharing meetings or show-and-tell sessions on what you created – maybe you learned some tricks in test automation or found an interesting bug which had to have a lot of investigation. Let the team know.

  3. Promote pair testing

    Do some sessions with developers, managers, product team members or even sales people. It will help them to see your role differently as well as possibly uncover unexpected bugs. Every person has a different set of experience and their usage of the product may be different. A lot of times developers may even sense what parts of the product are buggy, while product or sales people know what is actually important and where to put extra attention when testing.

  4. Use analytics to prioritize and drive your testing

    Testing in production is more and more of a thing. It is very important for us as testers to get to know our users. A lot of times we cannot really cover all the test scenarios either, especially in the times of big data and microservices. If possible, get to know the monitoring systems – what is being monitored in production? Can you see what features are mainly used by users? What browsers are your users using? All this data can help you to identify what actually matters. You can then prioritize your testing based on learnings and even include impact numbers to JIRA tickets. For example, you could quantify how important the issue is on IE8 by looking at the analytics numbers for users. Same could be done for functionality related problems. If issue you reported is on IE11 and most of users are using it – it adds extra weight. In the long run, business teams will really respect your input as you will be able to provide quality insights based on actual KPIs (if they are related to user experiences). Ability to do testing driven by user data can help you to provide very well respect insights on quality which could be useful even to the CEO.

  5. Involve yourself in support and customer feedback analysis

    If there is feedback functionality or support team for your product, try to get involved there. This will help you to get to know the user and their pain points. Analysing the issues you will learn more about the product and also get asked to join further investigations. This way you will be learning a lot of valuable information about the actual users which will be really appreciated by anyone in the team.

These 5 points really help raise testing awareness and help transmit the value of testing to the company. In the end, we all are working for the same goal of having a high quality product and as testers we promote this mindset.

How Does the Product Make You Feel: Usability, Testing & Airports

Recently I have been thinking about the future of testing. More and more I think that the future of a tester’s profession won’t be about the technology choices or even automation, but rather adding a human quality to the products. We will be the ones to stay alert on ethical sides of products, question design, development and usability (ease of use of a product or service).

As a quite experienced question asker, I get to wear multiple hats and collaborate with various departments during the product development. From my experience, I would say as a QA, you get to work with (not limited to only these people of course):

  • R&D questioning algorithms and their output
  • UX designers questioning design choices and trying to wear user’s shoes
  • Business and product teams questioning requirements and acceptance
  • Development teams questioning implementation
  • Management questioning priorities
  • Sales teams questioning domain

All this questioning for me means representing the user. Making sure the quality of the product is satisfactory and user feels good using it. Usability when it comes to feelings is one of the top qualities.

I am not sure if it’s because of my recent thoughts on people vs. products, but I became very sharp on observing the world and, oh boy, how much it hurts when our lives are affected by poor usability and bad design.

Usability and Bad Design Adventures

I was flying into Munich airport recently and remembered one of the most interesting talks I’ve heard on EuroSTAR 2017 “The Sky Is The Limit! – Or How To Test A New Airport Terminal”. In this talk, Christian Brødsjø shared the experiences of testing Oslo Airport. And, of course, it involved people – they had to see the readiness of the airport, the ease to use and the operational abilities. Airport testing is not an easy task, it requires a lot of time and simulation of the actual airport activities in order to see what feedback people are giving and how it would actually work. Nobody wants to repeat the story of the disastrous opening day for Heathrow’s Terminal 5.

When I was searching for more information on the airports, I found many articles on failed airports and even airport representatives admitting that their airports are a mess. This makes me think that I am not alone having bad feelings about airports. Sometimes I need a reminder that bad user experience is something that we should talk about.

In the past month, I had a pleasure of getting to work in the same team with a very caring UX designer Shawn Lukas. We discussed many times how important it is to care about the actual users. A lot of times we don’t even know people for whom we are creating the product – we have to make sure to get to know them instead of guessing or assuming how they are as we are creating something for them. In addition, as users very often we tend to blame ourselves for the product issues. A lot of times we take products the way they are and deal with their imperfections: it may hurt to use them, we may get annoyed, but we stay silent and just try to find workarounds. It should not be this way, the way we feel about products matters and we should speak up.

So, coming back to the Munich airport… It is one of the busiest airports in the world and I am sure that a lot of people worked on making it a good experience and did as much as they could. However, I travel a lot and usually don’t expect much from airports, but certain design decisions left me a little bit annoyed, frustrated and even angry at some points. I am sure that my mum would get lost in that airport – that is not a good sign, because everyone should be able to use the airport. Especially that traveling already is a pretty stressful thing in itself.

How Munich airport managed to trigger my feelings?

Sunday. After waiting at the airport and traveling, I just wanted to get some rest and get out of the destination airport. After landing, I went to go get my luggage. It is a big airport, so gets rather tricky with turns and quite a bit of walking – that’s alright. However, the way to the exit had these things bothering me:

  • Confusing direction arrow signs. Unfortunately I did not take a photo, but imagine this – there is a space with many escalators, some going up (on the left), some down (straight). There is a sign that baggage claim is ⬆. Does it mean you should go to the left and up or straight down? Apparently you should go straight down even if arrow shows up – learnt it the hard way by first trying to get up.
  • No indications to explain certain experiences. Finally I get to the little room where I see no more baggage claim signs, but what I see is the train. Train going to other terminals, I assume. I hesitate, look around for more signs or where is the baggage claim as I just want my bag, not to fly somewhere else (even if I wish I could at that point) and an angry airport worker tells me to get on the train. And I tell “I need to get to the baggage claim” and he shows me the train and says angrily “This is the baggage claim”. I am already a bit frustrated by this – how could I know to take the train? So, I murmur back while getting on “No, this is the train”. A little bit of human understanding would be nice in this service: add a note that you need to take the train to get there rather than show the train and tell it’s baggage claim. It’s not. It’s the ridiculous train.
  • Green signs for forbidden exit. I reached the baggage claim. Got my bag and looked around – it was a big room with windows and doors and could see people walking outside in the parking lot. Would not expect to get out this easily usually – we always have to pass passages and official arrivals are in the airport, however, this time I decide to check if it’s some kind of shortcut because the doors have green signs on them. Only getting closer I see that actually if I opened this, I’d trigger an alarm and it’s just an emergency exit:
    32405524_10216146622644828_8922115278297366528_n.jpg
    Usually forbidden alarm controlled doors or emergency only exits are with red, so why is it green? I walked back from the door and managed to eventually leave the airport in a different way.

This experience I may not have noticed before, I may have taken it for granted or as is, but the more I work in tech, the more I realise that all we do and create is for people. It is not okay to make your users confused with bad design & usability. 

Why should we care about usability?

As QAs very often we get to see the whole image of the product/service. This adds a lot of responsibility to aim to feel the same way about the product as our users. The challenge here is that being involved in the actual development we know why certain design/tech choices were done in a certain way, and, this may add a familiarity bias and make us take things the way they are. However, we have to remember that products are developed for certain users and this means that their quality very often will be evaluated by feelings. As the saying goes:

People very often don’t remember what you did, but they remember how you made them feel. 

So, make sure to question usability and design. Catch any kind of feelings you may have about the experience and voice them. And, for the best result – get to know the actual users in order to understand their feelings.

P. S. Ironically, in order to write this post I had to login to my wordpress account and I was annoyed a bit again about user experience:

Screen Shot 2018-05-13 at 11.59.35Why would the field say “Email Address or Username” when only username is allowed? I used the correct e-mail and managed then to send a link to the very same e-mail and login via click there (as I could not guess the username field). This just sums up on how you should always think twice about the design: how users will interact with your product and feel afterwards. 

3 Tips for Thriving as a Tester: Impressions from “How to thrive as a Web Tester” by Rob Lambert

There is this one ultimate type of people that I adore the most in my life: smart, but humble. This does not sound like anything rare, right? Yet it is. In tech world there may be tension, competition, even stress-caused forgetting that others are humans, too.

I always get my inspiration from people who want to lift others up rather than bring themselves up. An example here is people who honestly care how you’re doing and actually provide feedback on how you could improve. These people share ideas and their keys to success to anyone who is willing to learn. In my testing career, I was amazed to meet so many professionals wanting to help you improve: be it a colleague programmer willing to share their ideas on how you could create a better automation checks framework, respected experts in the field supporting you on Twitter or sharing their books for free. 

This is how I came across How to thrive as a Web Tester by Rob Lambert: I really like Rob’s ideas on testing, especially on the social aspect of it, and a few weeks back I saw his tweet that you could download the book for free that day. I could not miss a chance: downloaded it immediately and actually read it in a few days.

“How to thrive as a Web Tester” is a collection of great tips and lessons learned by Rob Lambert who has been working in testing for more than 20 years. The book has two parts: social aspects of thriving as a tester and techniques on testing websites.

I found both parts great, but the first part was especially speaking to me. Rob shares a lot of realizations about work as a tester which are sometimes related to psychology and communication. Second part related to web testing had many practical tips which are especially useful for someone new in web testing. I really enjoyed reading the book and here is the summary of top 3 ideas I liked.

Top 3 my favorite lessons from “How to thrive as a Web Tester” by Rob Lambert

Be the best tester YOU can be

This point particularly spoke to me. We tend to compare ourselves to others constantly. Then sometimes we get unmotivated that we don’t know as much about something as person X does. Or we are not as smart as them or not as quick or not as good of a public speaker and this goes on… It is time to embrace ourselves for who we are. In the book Rob reminds us to confront our own beliefs on what a good tester is to us, not others. Where should we improve? How can we become the best version of OURSELVES? A brave advice that Rob is giving in the book is to avoid mediocrity in your workplace. In order to become the best version of yourself you must have an environment which allows you to experiment, fail, learn, succeed and grow. This means that you have to choose a healthy workplace which supports your growth.

Ask good questions

High quality questions generally lead to high quality answers. High quality questions are the hallmark of good testers.

I wrote down at least 5 quotes from “How to thrive as a Web Tester” which were related to questions. It really was something I aim to have at my work: ask more and by doing so, be more productive. Sometimes a question on implementation can open a lot of “we haven’t thought of that” and it saves a lot of time for you as a tester, too, because it all leads to conversation instead of many bug reports. In the end, we all are working for the same purpose – to build a high quality product.

It is not always around more testing

Sometimes there are tendencies to automate as much as we can, but this is not always necessary – automate where it makes sense. Also, your work can be more productive and faster if as mentioned above you ask questions and also if you use tools to test quicker.

What I liked a lot in the second part of the book was the suggestion to use various tools to ease testing. Rob has a support page for the book with all kinds of resources accessible to everyone and using tools is possibly a tip I would give to my younger self, too. A lot of times I have filled in text fields manually or done other test data preparation routine tasks which took a lot of time and were pretty error-prone. A way to a more productive testing can be as simple as having an extension on your browser which helps you fill in text input fields. One of my favorites is Bug Magnet Chrome extension by Gojko Adzic.

 

 

 

 

Testing to Make Product Better vs. Perfect

Reading Seth Godin’s post Perfect vs. important I realized that his idea is very relevant to testers. To rephrase, the main thought of his post is:

Spend more time on making something better (more useful) than polishing it to perfection

When it comes to testing, frequently testers jump into a habit of reporting every minor issue found which leads to quantity vs quality sometimes. Have you ever reported an ugly progress indicator or not the prettiest alignment of UI elements? I have. And I even fought for these to be fixed.

Obviously, UI is important. Distortion bug on IE9 can make you lose customers who use IE9, for example. Ugly UI is not inviting to be used. However, let’s stop for a minute – what is the actual importance of these issues for your product? Are they more important than a security bug where user can access different user’s account by changing their user id in the URL?

Sometimes we are wasting our energy, effort and even nerves with bugs which are for “polishing to perfection” rather than making the product better.

Think for a moment: what is the main purpose of the product?

The art of being a good tester is the ability to ask good questions, so let’s ask ourselves some questions when we test:

  • Does the product work as expected?
  • Are there any areas which may cause trouble and were not thoroughly tested?
  • Does my testing concentrate on making product better or perfect?
  • Do we (testing + other departments) have time to polish the product to perfection? (If yes – yay, there is time to fix minor issues as well!, if no – then concentrate on the important functionalities)

Sometimes you have to let go of the minor bugs – there are more important features to test/improve. Be smart with your priorities: work on making the product better, not perfect.

Dear tester! Others care about quality, too.

Dear tester,

I know that sometimes it feels like people you work with just want to mark the cards in JIRA as Done without proper testing. Sometimes they tell others “…once it passes the QA” or create tasks for you subjected “QA X” like it is being done just because “they have to”. The feeling of annoyance caused by urgency to complete the task immediately without reporting any bugs is inevitable because of the way they tell just to “pass the QA”. I did write of that before on why “pass the QA” makes me cringe, so I can feel your pain really well. Especially, that even after me trying to explain QA vs Testing vs Checking many times in my company and clarifying, the very same wording is still being used. I would like to share with you a story that happened to me which made me think that sometimes we exaggerate a little bit assuming that others do not care of quality as much as we do.

Today one of developers in my company came back with initial implementation and results to “QA”. The task was fairly simple – there is a lot of data generated by an algorithm and we should check it (I’m using here check consciously as it’s not really testing at this point): does it make sense, what patterns of fault we notice, does algo actually work? All of this should evaluate the quality of results produced by this new algorithm.

The wording of this task’s formulation and documentation with the data had QA mentioned around 5 times in various forms and I’m sure you are familiar with most of them: “data to be QAed”, “for the QAing” or my least favorite “pass the QA”. These terms do not feel too good as they are not correctly used and it may feel slightly insulting sometimes that your colleagues may not bother to even understand what you’re doing. However, you cannot teach all people to use the terms and it’s important to let it go sometimes. Remind yourself that we all have biases (and I do have a story on Managing your biases which made me slow down a little bit before judging). I decided not to exaggerate and think from that developer’s point of view: we both know what he wants as a result – the quality should be evaluated even if he is using the wrong terms.

Some colleagues may use the wrong terms and confuse testing/checking/QA, but don’t go and nit-pick on that. Words matter, but not everyone cares either how to name the rose: all you can do as an empathic quality specialist is to show people that you are open to explain to them, but only if they want to. 

This is not why I’m writing to you, though – this colleague of mine may have used the wrong wording, but letting go of that wasn’t the main takeaway I got.

When the colleague created the task description, it lacked one thing: any description of implementation details of algorithm. No documentation was yet created, no code mentioned, only thing provided was the generated data and vague explanation what should be done (compare columns and say if it’s okay or not using some human sense and research on each of options).

I really wanted to see implementation details: how else can I assess actual risks? Maybe there are areas and patterns that are design flaws and can be seen before even looking at the data generated. This developer tends to work alone as well, so there isn’t much of code review going on.

When I asked if there is any documentation on this algorithm, this was the response I got from the developer:
“Not yet, this is not ready for production yet. When it passes QA there will be a documentation page with all the changes that have come out of the QA process.”

This wasn’t something that I expected to be honest – I replied that to do the QA process we need to know the implementation details and this shouldn’t be made visible only when the algo goes to production. We shouldn’t check in the dark.

My reply has made this developer write to me personally and the words that were used by them again were a little bit rough I could say. The arguments on why the documentation wasn’t created were that “it is too big overhead” and then eventually “it seems that we disagree on the QA process here: for this task, there is no need for implementation details”. How would you react to this, my dear tester? Developer is claiming that as someone who is hired to test and give quality evaluations you shouldn’t look at implementation details at all.

As someone who recently encountered several design flaws in built products which caused issues and could have been spotted years ago, I felt ridiculed. Of course testers or QA (whatever way people want to call these specialists) should see implementation details. Is this developer really thinking that their design and implementation is perfect that we should look just at the results produced?

Issues can be spotted when getting to know algorithms and implementation: you may spot a logical error which causes certain bugs before you even look at the data obtained from running the algorithm

I stood my ground then, though. I tried to explain that I would love to see the implementation because it will help me to do the “QA processes” faster, more efficient and may display me some of issues before I actually look at the data. I want to be familiar with what it is actually doing.

And, to my surprise, it worked. This very same developer who was fighting that QA does not need any details on implementation shared with me the code they wrote to produce the results. It turns out that they thought I needed detailed documentation, but even code was enough which could easily be provided.

In the end, I realized that I could have given up. I could have closed myself up and exaggerated thinking that it’s only me who cares about proper quality judgement and people just assign tasks blindly without even considering that there may be issues in their logic of implementation. I could have felt hurt by the words used and impressions I got from this person, but in the end, even if we spoke in different terms, we both aim to finalize quality assesment (not to pass the QA, just understand if this implementation is good enough). I stood up for myself trying just to do my job better and I got help even if it took an extra step.

So, dear tester, believe that your colleagues are there to help you – you all want your products to be successful and of great quality. It is not only you, just sometimes others don’t know what you exactly need to do your tasks – open yourself up and ask for it. Only by sharing your needs and communicating you can make others understand your tasks better. 

 

 

 

Why phrase “pass the QA” makes me cringe

Today I heard someone say “pass the QA” and in this post I will share why I believe that we should cross out this phrase from all dictionaries where it is included because it is just wrong use of definitions.

Let’s break this phrase into two parts: QA and pass.

What is QA?
I am talking here in a sense of quality assurance. Okay, that sounds clear, however, what is quality assurance?

A lot of people mix up QA and testing on a daily basis. There have been various discussions about it and I mostly lean towards the point of Michael Bolton in his post Testers: Get Out of the Quality Assurance Business. It was an eye opener blog post for me: my first job as a tester even had it in the title “Software Quality Assurance Analyst”. Later on, I turned into QA Engineer. However, I am a tester.

Michael Bolton in that blog post gives so many valid points, it’s like a gold mine. It is one of my favorite ever posts about testing. It basically stresses that as a tester you cannot really assure quality. You just inspect it and help to improve it. You test.

QA is not a person or the department of certain type of professionals. It is a task of everyone in the company to work towards assuring quality. Tester may play a huge part in it, but the actual “action” assurers of quality usually are programmers because they actually are making changes to the quality level. And, let’s not forget the main part:

Assuring quality is an ongoing task/goal of the company.

What does it mean to pass?

In testing passing the test means that the test has passed based on its acceptance criteria.

Test may be built from multiple specific test cases or lead by charters. However, the defined acceptance criteria should be clear.

Passing of tests could be related to the common question in testing: how much is it enough to test? Sometimes the answer is not that obvious. There may be various scenarios, explorations to be made and a common standard should be discussed with product management team on what are the requirements and if edge cases should be addressed for the initial release/iteration.

Why don’t I like the phrase “pass the QA”?

After explaining both parts of this phrase, I can say that for me saying “pass the quality assurance” makes almost no sense.

Quality assuring is an ongoing task, so it is never going to end. You cannot pass the quality assurance as it is, but you can pass the test.

I do understand the intent of this phrase and why it was used: it was meant to say that testing will be completed with no show-stopper issues and will pass the acceptance criteria.

Let’s not underestimate the power of wording. Saying “pass the QA” can definitely be misleading. However, sad news are that this term is quite popular to describe the teams of testers. In this case, let’s spread the awareness of the differences between QA and testing – we all are doing QA in the company, but only testers do testing as their full time job (programmers do a fair deal of testing as well, but it is not their main responsibility usually).

 

 

 

My first pair testing session – Day 21 of 30 Days of Testing

PAIR TEST WITH SOMEONE

Some time ago I’ve read a great article by Katrina the Tester on Pair Testing. This topic since then would often pop up, but I never had a chance to actually try it out.

I am very grateful and lucky because I have super supportive colleagues when it comes to 30 days of testing challenge. Not only that they show a sincere interest and ask about the progress, but they also agree to get involved into some of the challenges. At the very start of July, I was talking to one of our great front-end developers and mentioned pair testing as one of the challenges. He immediately said “I can do it with you!”.

Ironically, today I did not have any specific task which we could pair test, so we thought of testing an existing feature.

In the very start it was a lot about seeing how he does testing. It is fairly different than my testing, so it was very beneficial to me. He showed how he configured dev environment locally for testing so he could fix any coming up issues as well immediately.

Then, we tried to specify on how this feature should be tested. This involved some UI tests verifying requirements, but not only that – we looked at monitoring, requests being sent. Usually, when I test, I concentrate on UI when the feature is mainly seen on the UI, but it was great to see how differently the very same feature is viewed by a developer who knows what events are being recorded and which requests should be sent for the feature to work. He as well showed me some of his unit tests for that feature.

To sum up, we asked when we can say that we have tested the feature completely. How much is enough? What should we do to be sure that it’s well tested?

This question is a challenging one. We decided that in addition to what we discussed, we should as well just try to be users for a while and try to use the product. Funny enough, trying a few of scenarios – we found a bug. In a tested released feature in production.

Here came in a very important point in testing: while testing one of the features you can have blind spots on some of inconsistencies on other existing features, so it’s best to stay alert and check for regressions which concentrate not only on the new feature.

Pair testing definitely exceeded all my expectations: I learned a lot new ways how to test, and, seeing the product with the help of different set of eyes even helped us to find a bug!

And, it was all about improvisation and sharing knowledge rather than dictating the rules.

128istqb

Illustration above taken from brilliant Cartoon Tester.

 

 

 

 

TestCast podcast “Testing is Dead”: Day 3 of 30 Days of Testing

LISTEN TO A TESTING PODCAST

I have never listened to a testing podcast before, so this was my first one ever -testing challenge is already yielding results in teaching me new things.

Not knowing where to start, I created a Google search with “testing podcasts”. One of the first results was a list of Software Testing Podcasts made by Ministry of Testing. I do trust this resource, so without further hesitation, I gave a go to #1 on the list – TestCast. The only problem with the list is that it’s pretty old – dating back to 2011.

I was looking for an interesting title for the first time podcaster and chose Testing is Dead. It is around 30 minutes discussion made by Bruce McLeod and Trish Khoo.

In the very start, they talk about some big names in the industry which claim that testing is dead. For example, Google or Facebook often would give examples in industry where testers are not present and developers do their own testing. Trish and Bruce gave some valid points that giant companies like that can give distorted view to other companies and it should be rather presented as their own way of looking at things and it does not mean that no testers approach would work for each company.

The way Google or Facebook can “reassure” their quality is users. They can be their first testers. If Google search does not work – a user may rather blame her own connection than the service itself. Nevertheless, Google can release their produt to one demographic only (let’s say a few thousands of users) and monitor the change. This approach may not work in other companies where pre-testing and quality is very important.

Later Trish and Bruce moved towards the fact that in many companies people don’t understand what testers are supposed to do. If management just wants a “safe net” because they feel that testing should be a part of the better quality, but they don’t really know what testing is, it may lead to test script writing, amount of work done estimated by checkmarks and actually, not testing, but checking.

To sum up my first podcast experience: it was a bit strange just to listen without seeing the presenters, it could have benefits of doing other task, but I am pretty bad at multitasking. Talking about the content, even if it’s back from 2011, but definitely we have same problems in 2016. Awareness of testing and what testers are supposed to do is a big problem and the approach to work with or without testers is just a choice. So far, testing is not dead and does not seem to be dying.

What I’m doing at work: Day 2 of 30 Days of Testing

TAKE A PHOTO OF SOMETHING YOU ARE DOING AT WORK

I had to cheat a bit on this one: it’s Saturday today, so I am not at work. I had to take a picture yesterday, however, I’ll share it now.

13570268_10209801873230058_84405356_o

This looks like a wonderful job for a woman – doesn’t it? All day looking at clothing. My boss sometimes remarks “You’re again shopping!”.

I am testing fit solutions and visual similarity algorithm. It is a pretty exciting task to do with many layers and challenges. This picture just reflects a common screen view you can see on my computer when you pass by.