*** Column published in Capgemini's COP IT Testing Newsletter ***
As I’m writing this column the snow that has been ‘harassing’ me the last couple of weeks is retreating slowly from the garden and the streets. You should think that would make me some kind of happy, but that isn’t the case, not entirely. It isn’t that the snow is finally going away, that’s the part that’s OK. But it is the way it’s going. It should have been a temperature rise and a bit of sun perhaps that would initiate ‘the melt’, but in this case it’s rain that causes it to disappear. And I guess I like rain even less, in combination with melting snow that is.
In a time that a lot of people have made resolutions for the new year and are spreading ‘best wishes’ it started me thinking. What if some of it came true, but the way you intended it to come true wasn’t exactly what you had in mind.
For example; you have a resolution that says ‘this year I’ll quit smoking’, a very common resolution as I may add and normally a very healthy one. I guess everybody agrees with this resolution, because most people have the frame of reference that the way this is done is by a live person not lighting a cigarette anymore. But it’s another story when one ‘quits’ smoking because they die. I’m certain that nobody had dying in mind when setting this resolution.
The key point here is -I think- the accuracy and completeness that has not been made. And then it occurred to me that ‘requirements’ for software- and systems are set in the same way and that in some cases when we get to testing these requirements are implemented exactly as they are described, but the client isn’t happy at all with the solution. A lot of times this causes incomprehension and even arguments. I think that it is important to remember in these cases that maybe the requirement itself isn’t the most important part, but the way that the solution to this requirement is implemented is.
I know it isn’t the job of a tester to set up the requirements, but as tester we do have a lot to do with them, and in my personal experience I do have the occasional argument with a client that the solution to the requirement is exactly implemented as described but the client persists in not being satisfied with the solution.
I think the requirement specifier should be very specific by adding the way a solution is – process wise- implemented and as a tester we should be extra aware that when testing solutions the description of the corresponding requirement is in such a way documented that it is clear what the solution should exactly be, including the expectations of the client. Having said this, I think we can deliver a more satisfying product to our customer when applying this knowledge.
With regards to 2010 intentions and best wishes I would like to conclude with a very known saying: Be careful what you wish for, it might come true!
maandag 1 februari 2010
vrijdag 8 januari 2010
Testing the Cloud, a thought on the fogginess.
***Column 'Capping IT Off', January 2010***
According to a large number of articles in different specialist journals ‘The Cloud’ will be (or already is) the next big thing in IT-land, so I guess it will be important in testing too. Most articles are very positive on the possibilities of this concept, but as is testers own, I get a little skeptic and weary.
Since the first publications on the subject a group of testers in Capgemini’s Community of Practice Testing started following the news. As I said; MOST articles are positive, but lately some doubts have risen. Companies seem to see the possibilities, but also have questions on subjects like ‘security’, ‘performance’ and ‘traceability’. These latter three are quality attributes typically covered by testing.
So will testing the cloud specifically for ones organization take away these doubts? Testing is all about giving the stakeholders insight in the degree of quality of their systems- and processes (and I mean this in ‘fit for purpose’-way, because there are a lot of definitions on quality). As a tester myself I find the name of this concept appropriate. One of the ‘–noun’ definitions in the dictionary states: “a dim or obscure area in something otherwise clear or transparent”. Things like system management that is normally in-house and controllable is now in some vague area out of sight of the organization itself.
Another one states: “a great number of insects, birds, etc., flying together: a cloud of locusts obscuring the sun.”, and I can’t help myself by thinking: THAT many bugs together? – that can’t be a good sign.
So does this cloud also has a silver lining? The process of testing itself will not be different, but the way testing is managed all the more, as are the emphasis on certain quality attributes. Is testing a regular complex system normally a challenge, testing a cloud related system will be more so, but certainly not impossible.
So yes, from a testers point of view, this cloud certainly has a silver lining, but it will take an experienced tester to make it so, else it will stay just as the dictionary also states: “anything that obscures or darkens something, or causes gloom, trouble, suspicion, disgrace, etc.” instead of being (-idioms definition): “on a cloud, Informal. exceedingly happy; in high spirits”
According to a large number of articles in different specialist journals ‘The Cloud’ will be (or already is) the next big thing in IT-land, so I guess it will be important in testing too. Most articles are very positive on the possibilities of this concept, but as is testers own, I get a little skeptic and weary.
Since the first publications on the subject a group of testers in Capgemini’s Community of Practice Testing started following the news. As I said; MOST articles are positive, but lately some doubts have risen. Companies seem to see the possibilities, but also have questions on subjects like ‘security’, ‘performance’ and ‘traceability’. These latter three are quality attributes typically covered by testing.
So will testing the cloud specifically for ones organization take away these doubts? Testing is all about giving the stakeholders insight in the degree of quality of their systems- and processes (and I mean this in ‘fit for purpose’-way, because there are a lot of definitions on quality). As a tester myself I find the name of this concept appropriate. One of the ‘–noun’ definitions in the dictionary states: “a dim or obscure area in something otherwise clear or transparent”. Things like system management that is normally in-house and controllable is now in some vague area out of sight of the organization itself.
Another one states: “a great number of insects, birds, etc., flying together: a cloud of locusts obscuring the sun.”, and I can’t help myself by thinking: THAT many bugs together? – that can’t be a good sign.
So does this cloud also has a silver lining? The process of testing itself will not be different, but the way testing is managed all the more, as are the emphasis on certain quality attributes. Is testing a regular complex system normally a challenge, testing a cloud related system will be more so, but certainly not impossible.
So yes, from a testers point of view, this cloud certainly has a silver lining, but it will take an experienced tester to make it so, else it will stay just as the dictionary also states: “anything that obscures or darkens something, or causes gloom, trouble, suspicion, disgrace, etc.” instead of being (-idioms definition): “on a cloud, Informal. exceedingly happy; in high spirits”
vrijdag 18 december 2009
Epilogue; EuroSTAR 2009, two weeks after
Currently I'm working from home, the snow and iciness made me think twice before commuting to Amsterdam again. Yesterday it took me two hours to get home, a journey that normally takes an hour. So I have (not so environmental friendly - I know) set the heater a degree higher, made myself I nice cup of coffee and started working on the planning and preparation of the chaintest which is to be executed next year March and will do some testing on a system.
It's been two weeks since EuroSTAR 2009 ended, and my mind has been racing with ideas since then. Not only that, I've been busy implementing a lot of stuff and tips I got in the conference too in my current projects.
Since I'm testing and managing a whole program, I really had use of the information provided in the 'Program Test Management- a survival kit' by Graham Thomas. I checked the 'best practices' lists in the sheets and checked the 'anti-practices' lists and set them beside the stuff I already did in my project.
One of the needed skills was negotiating and influencing, I noticed I hadn't been very strong in that department: I used the stuff learned in the workshop 'Chatterboxes and Cavedwellers' of Naomi Karten to pinpoint the problem; since I'm an introvert at doing things and my 'audience' is mostly extrovert, I suddenly understood why my message may not have been landing as I thought it did.
One of the other things in 'Survival kit' was that there should be a 'clear test organisation structure with matrixedrelationships' and another 'Clear and agreed interface with stakeholders and sponsors' and a third 'To ensure that your stakeholders and sponsors clearly understand what testing is doing for them', I realized that a part was missing: namely the program itself. I decided to combine all four (three from the track and my addition). In one large overview of the program: picturing the systems, what the connections are, who is responsible (owner, tester and users) and dates that are important. I'll also use these as 'talk-images' to align all stakeholders (first try-out was very positive!). In addendum with these images, I made a scenario with activities, time, input needed, output needed and who is responsible. Thirdly I made a gannt-diagram for time-overview. All three parts are aligned to eachother by use of colors, so the process of one piece may be 'blue' in all three documents. On the way I also made use of the things learned in 'Rik Teubens track; Many can quarrel, fewer can argue.
My 'testcase' pointed out that he really liked the overview; since he was able to place himself in the bigger picture in relation to other parts in the program (which was normally out of scope for him), he also like that he was able to easily identify the timelines and activities in the other documents because he only had to find 'his' colour.
(and I've been also thinking about another lay-over for the images like Neil Pandits' visualized Risk-based testing, heatmaps)
The second positive improvement I made in my workingarea, and this is the system I'm testing (not the program), Is the stuff on exploratory testing, the workshop of Michael Bolton really had loads of stuff in it I could use to stretch the abilities of the system under test. Resulting in some stress in the organisation though, but when I argued (;-) ) this was all beneficial to really get a good look on the quality of the system and preventing more 'pain' in the future, they were (mostly) convinced. And the secundary part of this, is that it made testing this (a bit dull but complex) system fun again.
So, I guess there's still a lot to implement from the EuroSTAR 2009 conference. I haven't been able to work out all the stuff yet, since I also had to catch up on the work I left behind when going to Stockholm, but I'm confident it will all has a place somewhere.
It's been two weeks since EuroSTAR 2009 ended, and my mind has been racing with ideas since then. Not only that, I've been busy implementing a lot of stuff and tips I got in the conference too in my current projects.
Since I'm testing and managing a whole program, I really had use of the information provided in the 'Program Test Management- a survival kit' by Graham Thomas. I checked the 'best practices' lists in the sheets and checked the 'anti-practices' lists and set them beside the stuff I already did in my project.
One of the needed skills was negotiating and influencing, I noticed I hadn't been very strong in that department: I used the stuff learned in the workshop 'Chatterboxes and Cavedwellers' of Naomi Karten to pinpoint the problem; since I'm an introvert at doing things and my 'audience' is mostly extrovert, I suddenly understood why my message may not have been landing as I thought it did.
One of the other things in 'Survival kit' was that there should be a 'clear test organisation structure with matrixedrelationships' and another 'Clear and agreed interface with stakeholders and sponsors' and a third 'To ensure that your stakeholders and sponsors clearly understand what testing is doing for them', I realized that a part was missing: namely the program itself. I decided to combine all four (three from the track and my addition). In one large overview of the program: picturing the systems, what the connections are, who is responsible (owner, tester and users) and dates that are important. I'll also use these as 'talk-images' to align all stakeholders (first try-out was very positive!). In addendum with these images, I made a scenario with activities, time, input needed, output needed and who is responsible. Thirdly I made a gannt-diagram for time-overview. All three parts are aligned to eachother by use of colors, so the process of one piece may be 'blue' in all three documents. On the way I also made use of the things learned in 'Rik Teubens track; Many can quarrel, fewer can argue.
My 'testcase' pointed out that he really liked the overview; since he was able to place himself in the bigger picture in relation to other parts in the program (which was normally out of scope for him), he also like that he was able to easily identify the timelines and activities in the other documents because he only had to find 'his' colour.
(and I've been also thinking about another lay-over for the images like Neil Pandits' visualized Risk-based testing, heatmaps)
The second positive improvement I made in my workingarea, and this is the system I'm testing (not the program), Is the stuff on exploratory testing, the workshop of Michael Bolton really had loads of stuff in it I could use to stretch the abilities of the system under test. Resulting in some stress in the organisation though, but when I argued (;-) ) this was all beneficial to really get a good look on the quality of the system and preventing more 'pain' in the future, they were (mostly) convinced. And the secundary part of this, is that it made testing this (a bit dull but complex) system fun again.
So, I guess there's still a lot to implement from the EuroSTAR 2009 conference. I haven't been able to work out all the stuff yet, since I also had to catch up on the work I left behind when going to Stockholm, but I'm confident it will all has a place somewhere.
donderdag 3 december 2009
FunTESTic goes EuroSTAR, part five: the final chapter
What a day, what a day!
Sorry I didn't tweet the first keynote, but I was a little busy with my own track at that moment (timetable etc), so you didn't miss it: it just wasn't there.
The first track I went to, was the track by Stuart Reid, about the ISO/IEC 29119 software testing standard. I'm quite sure I saw some of the stuff we as dutch workinggroup of TestNet issued after the last review were taken in consideration and put in there.
And then; it finally was the time for my own (double) session. Susan Windsor was my chair and she is really a great support and chair. The room was re-arranged so there were two opposite sides (in stead of rows). It wasn't very crowded, but the people who attended made it (far) worth the while! What a great debate it grew out to be! And our Mystery guest: Michael Bolton, did a very good piece on Ethics and Testing which was really good! I had fun, which is the most important and it was an excellent experience!
After the lunchbreak and some 'chilling' (literally because it's very cold outside!) I went to Graham Thomas' track on Test Program Managememt; a survival kit. I find Graham a very interesting speaker, easy to listen to and with lots of (a bit cynical) humor. This track provided me information on some key aspects that are to be considered at Test Program management, so in my current working situation very handy!
After that I went to a track that was called 'The supertesters - a slightly true story' and this was an absolutely brilliant track! I'm glad I chose this one to attend. If you EVER have the chance to see this track somewhere; GO SEE IT!!! it's a must-see by Anna and Linda Hoff and Jarl Kristoffer. It's to odd to describe but I definitely can recommend this track.
And then al the tracks were over and it was time to go to the close-up sessions of the day. This started with a summary of the testlab (which I didn't visit :-( ). James Lindsay and Bart Knaack did the hosting of that and as I heard it, I regretted a bit that I didn't go.
The next slot was for a panel discussion. And I was one of the panel members! I was asked by Julian Harty (host to the session) to participate because of my twittering. The only 'catch' was that I had to answer in 140 characters because a tweet is 140 too. I was on the panel together with Geoff Thompson (last year's winner of the Testing Excellence award), John Fodeh (next year's chair for EuroSTAR 2010), Tobias Fors (my fellow-tweeter and DEVELOPER!!!) and me. We got questions from the hot-topics-board (whiteboard were people could write down topics) which we got to answer. It seemed a good idea when Julian asked me, but at that table... suddenly it didn't seem a good idea at all... suddenly there were 300+ people in the auditorium before me and sitting beside two major test'names', not to mention I'm not native AND I had to answer questions directly (which I'm not really good at cause I like to think a while on stuff). I guess there will be pictures of that on the ES site... and I guess it went well for the circumstances :-)
(btw I'm eating a muesli bar now which I bought in Stockholm C.; it's not recommendable...)
The next bit was the award-ceremony. I kind of forgot the most of the names, but I still now Anne-Mette Hass won the Excellence Award this year!
And with that Dorothy started the end-speech in which she announced that EuroSTAR 2010 will be held at Kopenhagen and that the chair will be John Fodeh.
My whole week has been an invigorating experience, which were for a large part also dominated by my nerves for today. Monday it seemed so far away, but now ES is over, it seems like it's over in the blink of an eye.
So maybe I'll be twittering next year too, maybe not, who knows... we'll see in time I guess.
(that muesli bar is REALLY terrible, but I'm really into a snack...hmmm)
(I also got promoted to Managing Consultant today!)
(I haven't uploaded any pictures of today yet, so please be patient to look on Flickr for impressions)
See you next year!
Sorry I didn't tweet the first keynote, but I was a little busy with my own track at that moment (timetable etc), so you didn't miss it: it just wasn't there.
The first track I went to, was the track by Stuart Reid, about the ISO/IEC 29119 software testing standard. I'm quite sure I saw some of the stuff we as dutch workinggroup of TestNet issued after the last review were taken in consideration and put in there.
And then; it finally was the time for my own (double) session. Susan Windsor was my chair and she is really a great support and chair. The room was re-arranged so there were two opposite sides (in stead of rows). It wasn't very crowded, but the people who attended made it (far) worth the while! What a great debate it grew out to be! And our Mystery guest: Michael Bolton, did a very good piece on Ethics and Testing which was really good! I had fun, which is the most important and it was an excellent experience!
After the lunchbreak and some 'chilling' (literally because it's very cold outside!) I went to Graham Thomas' track on Test Program Managememt; a survival kit. I find Graham a very interesting speaker, easy to listen to and with lots of (a bit cynical) humor. This track provided me information on some key aspects that are to be considered at Test Program management, so in my current working situation very handy!
After that I went to a track that was called 'The supertesters - a slightly true story' and this was an absolutely brilliant track! I'm glad I chose this one to attend. If you EVER have the chance to see this track somewhere; GO SEE IT!!! it's a must-see by Anna and Linda Hoff and Jarl Kristoffer. It's to odd to describe but I definitely can recommend this track.
And then al the tracks were over and it was time to go to the close-up sessions of the day. This started with a summary of the testlab (which I didn't visit :-( ). James Lindsay and Bart Knaack did the hosting of that and as I heard it, I regretted a bit that I didn't go.
The next slot was for a panel discussion. And I was one of the panel members! I was asked by Julian Harty (host to the session) to participate because of my twittering. The only 'catch' was that I had to answer in 140 characters because a tweet is 140 too. I was on the panel together with Geoff Thompson (last year's winner of the Testing Excellence award), John Fodeh (next year's chair for EuroSTAR 2010), Tobias Fors (my fellow-tweeter and DEVELOPER!!!) and me. We got questions from the hot-topics-board (whiteboard were people could write down topics) which we got to answer. It seemed a good idea when Julian asked me, but at that table... suddenly it didn't seem a good idea at all... suddenly there were 300+ people in the auditorium before me and sitting beside two major test'names', not to mention I'm not native AND I had to answer questions directly (which I'm not really good at cause I like to think a while on stuff). I guess there will be pictures of that on the ES site... and I guess it went well for the circumstances :-)
(btw I'm eating a muesli bar now which I bought in Stockholm C.; it's not recommendable...)
The next bit was the award-ceremony. I kind of forgot the most of the names, but I still now Anne-Mette Hass won the Excellence Award this year!
And with that Dorothy started the end-speech in which she announced that EuroSTAR 2010 will be held at Kopenhagen and that the chair will be John Fodeh.
My whole week has been an invigorating experience, which were for a large part also dominated by my nerves for today. Monday it seemed so far away, but now ES is over, it seems like it's over in the blink of an eye.
So maybe I'll be twittering next year too, maybe not, who knows... we'll see in time I guess.
(that muesli bar is REALLY terrible, but I'm really into a snack...hmmm)
(I also got promoted to Managing Consultant today!)
(I haven't uploaded any pictures of today yet, so please be patient to look on Flickr for impressions)
See you next year!
FunTESTic goes EuroSTAR part four: in the middle of it
So, this was already the second conference day. Time really flies! So much to see, to learn, to do and so many people to meet, so little time!
Today I planned a full program, but as the day went along I changed my mind a couple of times. One reason is I'm getting nervous and can't always focus on the subject of the track, the second one is that I wanted some 'easy time' in between :-)
I started early today. The opening keynote of today was of Naomi Karten. I went to Naomi's tutorial on Tuesday and - just like that day- I really liked the contents of this track. This keynote was about the process of change and how to communicate and manage this. Naomi used a model which made this very visual. You have status quo, then the 'POW', then chaos, some adjustment etc. and only after time there's a new status quo.
The first track I visited was that of Matthias Ratert. His subject was Incremental Scenario Testing; beyond exploratory testing. At first - I have to admit- I didn't really see the use, but later on as I discussed the track again with a testing colleague, it suddenly occurred to me that what was said was really 'nifty'! Maybe I can't use it in my current project, but it certainly has potential in other situations.
After this session I took a looooong break to get back at my track-record ;-) at Erik Boelen's track on 'the power of risk'. It was interesting to hear about the practical appliance en the proven advantages of a risk based teststrategy and plan.
The lunch was a bit short today, or at least it seemed shorter because in no-time I had taken seat in the T5 room where Rik Teuben held a track about ‘Many can quarrel, fewer can argue’. I like the sheets of Rik, they are nice and clean, just like the steps explained that a stakeholder has to be ‘classified’, then the arguestyle has to be chosen and last part the connected communication.
I sort of then stayed in the room, because after the afternoonbreak I had the honour to chair the track of Susan Windsor; ‘Don’t shoot the messenger’. This was a double track with exercises and it was really fun! The audience was very active in – for example- an exercise where one had to draw a circle put in communication means which you normally use (comfort zone) and then a second circle with communication means written down in that one that you would like to use (getting out of your comfort zone). And what about a topic on ‘story telling’! You got to love that! So this double track was over before I knew it.
The closing keynote of the day was the winning track of last year; Gitte Ottosen with ‘Agile and Process Maturity – of course they mix!’. I went to this track in The Hague, so I knew the contents. It was nice to hear that some of the ‘under construction’ parts of last year had developed further. Like the development and test team becoming a fully integrated group now.
Tomorrow I’ll probably will not tweet at much I guess. Since I have my own track after Stuart Reids’ ISO 29119 track. I’m really excited at this moment! I’ll probably will have a short sleep.
ps: since my internetconnection suddenly failed last night, I'm currently posting on a public computer so I don't have the time to add all the photo's I took, so take a look at my Flickr fotostream to get a visual impression!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/funtestic/sets/72157622905897826/
Today I planned a full program, but as the day went along I changed my mind a couple of times. One reason is I'm getting nervous and can't always focus on the subject of the track, the second one is that I wanted some 'easy time' in between :-)
I started early today. The opening keynote of today was of Naomi Karten. I went to Naomi's tutorial on Tuesday and - just like that day- I really liked the contents of this track. This keynote was about the process of change and how to communicate and manage this. Naomi used a model which made this very visual. You have status quo, then the 'POW', then chaos, some adjustment etc. and only after time there's a new status quo.
The first track I visited was that of Matthias Ratert. His subject was Incremental Scenario Testing; beyond exploratory testing. At first - I have to admit- I didn't really see the use, but later on as I discussed the track again with a testing colleague, it suddenly occurred to me that what was said was really 'nifty'! Maybe I can't use it in my current project, but it certainly has potential in other situations.
After this session I took a looooong break to get back at my track-record ;-) at Erik Boelen's track on 'the power of risk'. It was interesting to hear about the practical appliance en the proven advantages of a risk based teststrategy and plan.
The lunch was a bit short today, or at least it seemed shorter because in no-time I had taken seat in the T5 room where Rik Teuben held a track about ‘Many can quarrel, fewer can argue’. I like the sheets of Rik, they are nice and clean, just like the steps explained that a stakeholder has to be ‘classified’, then the arguestyle has to be chosen and last part the connected communication.
I sort of then stayed in the room, because after the afternoonbreak I had the honour to chair the track of Susan Windsor; ‘Don’t shoot the messenger’. This was a double track with exercises and it was really fun! The audience was very active in – for example- an exercise where one had to draw a circle put in communication means which you normally use (comfort zone) and then a second circle with communication means written down in that one that you would like to use (getting out of your comfort zone). And what about a topic on ‘story telling’! You got to love that! So this double track was over before I knew it.
The closing keynote of the day was the winning track of last year; Gitte Ottosen with ‘Agile and Process Maturity – of course they mix!’. I went to this track in The Hague, so I knew the contents. It was nice to hear that some of the ‘under construction’ parts of last year had developed further. Like the development and test team becoming a fully integrated group now.
Tomorrow I’ll probably will not tweet at much I guess. Since I have my own track after Stuart Reids’ ISO 29119 track. I’m really excited at this moment! I’ll probably will have a short sleep.
ps: since my internetconnection suddenly failed last night, I'm currently posting on a public computer so I don't have the time to add all the photo's I took, so take a look at my Flickr fotostream to get a visual impression!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/funtestic/sets/72157622905897826/
dinsdag 1 december 2009
FunTESTic goes to EuroSTAR - part three; the startingday of the conference
Hello everybody, here I am again with news from Stockholm. I just arrived at my hotel after a very nice dinner with 4 Dutch testing colleagues in the old center of Stockholm and read all my e-mail and answered it where necessary, so now I have time to write my blog again.
It was a very dynamic day today. I got to the Mässan at about 8.15 and had plenty of time to get to my tutorial. A great start of the day with Naomi Karten's tutorial on 'cavedwellers and chatterboxes' also known as 'introverts and extraverts'(not a type-o!) I learned a lot from that session, for one reason why my messages by mail (introverts tend so set important things in writing) aren't perceived as important by an extravert, who wants to be informed on important things verbally. But also on how my behaviour is perceived by an introvert.
After the lunch it was time for Doroty Graham to open the EuroSTAR 2009 conference. It was fun to see some history of IT 17 years ago when Dorothy was first chair of EuroSTAR.
Lee Copeland had the honour of opening with the first keynote, which was on software testing innovations. If you look very closely to the picture below, you can see that there are nine points, where among others are 'good books', crowdtesting, testing in the cloud and virtualisation.
I then had the oppurtunity to visit different short tracks (track of 20 minutes). Personnally I found them a bit short wich resulted in a bit of chaotic day, but nonetheless I saw some great stuff. Of Paula O'Grady, Geoff Thompson (what a great speaker he is!), Michael Bolton (burning issues) and Neil Pandit. The last track of the day track I didn't go to, firstly I couldn't choose and secondly I wanted to walk around a bit too and organise my thoughts. Below are the pictures I took during the different sessions. I've taken quite a bit more, but they were directly posted on my twitterstream (@funTESTic with hashtag 'esconfs')
More to be written and shown tomorrow!
God natt!
It was a very dynamic day today. I got to the Mässan at about 8.15 and had plenty of time to get to my tutorial. A great start of the day with Naomi Karten's tutorial on 'cavedwellers and chatterboxes' also known as 'introverts and extraverts'(not a type-o!) I learned a lot from that session, for one reason why my messages by mail (introverts tend so set important things in writing) aren't perceived as important by an extravert, who wants to be informed on important things verbally. But also on how my behaviour is perceived by an introvert.
After the lunch it was time for Doroty Graham to open the EuroSTAR 2009 conference. It was fun to see some history of IT 17 years ago when Dorothy was first chair of EuroSTAR.
Lee Copeland had the honour of opening with the first keynote, which was on software testing innovations. If you look very closely to the picture below, you can see that there are nine points, where among others are 'good books', crowdtesting, testing in the cloud and virtualisation.
I then had the oppurtunity to visit different short tracks (track of 20 minutes). Personnally I found them a bit short wich resulted in a bit of chaotic day, but nonetheless I saw some great stuff. Of Paula O'Grady, Geoff Thompson (what a great speaker he is!), Michael Bolton (burning issues) and Neil Pandit. The last track of the day track I didn't go to, firstly I couldn't choose and secondly I wanted to walk around a bit too and organise my thoughts. Below are the pictures I took during the different sessions. I've taken quite a bit more, but they were directly posted on my twitterstream (@funTESTic with hashtag 'esconfs')
More to be written and shown tomorrow!
God natt!
maandag 30 november 2009
FunTESTic goes to EuroSTAR - part two; the Tutorial Day
It's now 20.30h and my first day in Stockholm is coming to an end. It's been an inspiring day to say at least.
I woke up at about 6.30 this morning, after a terrible almost sleepless night (what fluffy beds they have here!) and went to breakfast (or 'Frukost' as they call it here). I've never seen so much types of food for breakfast! There was an whole Japanese buffet (with tofu, misosoup and seaweed) and a Skandanavian buffet (with pickled herring, cottagecheese and other strange stuff) and an English type breakfast.. I saw six very thin stewardesses in purple tenues with such large piles of food on their plate that I guess they won't be flying for much longer or have a type of boulimia.
After breakfast I took the train to the Stockholmsmässan, which is about ten minutes from here and was on time for registration. How cool to register at the 'speakersdesk'! I got a cool toy for thanx, it's an USB stick with a laserpointer in it and I got a poloshirt (not a sweater this time ;-) ) which has - for me - the extra word 'trackchair' embroidered on the back.
Coffee is not that bad here, so I got a big mug of coffee and went to hall T1 where Michael Bolton was about to give the tutorial: 'Masterclass Exploratory Testing'.
I was very much inspired by the tutorial and learned a lot this day. One of the things I also 'twittered' today was that apparently 'boundary' in 'boundary value analysis' is foremost applicable to the testers mind or the scope of his/her testing and less to the technique itself. Michael showed that there are dynamics in boundaries which makes the -1, boundary, +1 rather silly. I also learned a lot of tips and tricks that I could apply in my own testing and also that exploratory testing can be much more lucrative (and has larger ROI) then scripted testing.
He also showed that a lot of the so called automated testing we do, is no more then checking. There was a fun anekdote of 'the point of view' (reference) and that this can be limiting.
The Turkey finds the farmer a cool guy. He gets food every day, gets shelter and gets to run around outside a bit with the other turkeys. Every day the turkey has the same reference and he finds the farmer more and more a great guy. Untill, one day, right before Thanksgiving the turkey is in for a big and unpleasant surprise...
Expect the unexpected, don't repeat the same test every day for it narrows your scope of view. That is wat automated scripts are all about.
Another part of the tutorial was an exercise where we had to write down all kinds of characteristics/ values of a wineglass which could be important the some user at some time. The exercise was rounded up by a sheet which contained the ISO standard for wine tasting glasses and a picture of a wineglass found in Pompeï, which showed the controversary of both.
And so I had more then eight hours of revealing insights and thoughts (he stopped at 17.30 in stead of 17.00), which are too many to write down in this blog. Please also look at Michael Bolton's website where you can find lots of information and presentations on this subject! (www.developsense.com).
After the Tutorial I took the train back to Stockholm Central and I decided to eat at the 'Stockholm FISK' in my hotel, which is apparently a popular fish restaurant. I had 'stockfish' (stokvis) which is typical Skandinavian and found it very good! (I had to admit I was a bit reluctant because of my 'knowledge' of the process to get to stockfish). I didn't stay for dessert but went to a coffeebar instead to have a large coffee (with chai syrup) and a 'Morotkaka' (carrotcake) which I found a pleasant surprise too! It's nice and sweet.
So now I've just finished my coffee and am ready to take a shower and then go to bed. Tomorrow I'll be attending a tutorial and a lot of tracks and I want to be fresh at the start of the day.
God natt!
I woke up at about 6.30 this morning, after a terrible almost sleepless night (what fluffy beds they have here!) and went to breakfast (or 'Frukost' as they call it here). I've never seen so much types of food for breakfast! There was an whole Japanese buffet (with tofu, misosoup and seaweed) and a Skandanavian buffet (with pickled herring, cottagecheese and other strange stuff) and an English type breakfast.. I saw six very thin stewardesses in purple tenues with such large piles of food on their plate that I guess they won't be flying for much longer or have a type of boulimia.
After breakfast I took the train to the Stockholmsmässan, which is about ten minutes from here and was on time for registration. How cool to register at the 'speakersdesk'! I got a cool toy for thanx, it's an USB stick with a laserpointer in it and I got a poloshirt (not a sweater this time ;-) ) which has - for me - the extra word 'trackchair' embroidered on the back.
Coffee is not that bad here, so I got a big mug of coffee and went to hall T1 where Michael Bolton was about to give the tutorial: 'Masterclass Exploratory Testing'.
I was very much inspired by the tutorial and learned a lot this day. One of the things I also 'twittered' today was that apparently 'boundary' in 'boundary value analysis' is foremost applicable to the testers mind or the scope of his/her testing and less to the technique itself. Michael showed that there are dynamics in boundaries which makes the -1, boundary, +1 rather silly. I also learned a lot of tips and tricks that I could apply in my own testing and also that exploratory testing can be much more lucrative (and has larger ROI) then scripted testing.
He also showed that a lot of the so called automated testing we do, is no more then checking. There was a fun anekdote of 'the point of view' (reference) and that this can be limiting.
The Turkey finds the farmer a cool guy. He gets food every day, gets shelter and gets to run around outside a bit with the other turkeys. Every day the turkey has the same reference and he finds the farmer more and more a great guy. Untill, one day, right before Thanksgiving the turkey is in for a big and unpleasant surprise...
Expect the unexpected, don't repeat the same test every day for it narrows your scope of view. That is wat automated scripts are all about.
Another part of the tutorial was an exercise where we had to write down all kinds of characteristics/ values of a wineglass which could be important the some user at some time. The exercise was rounded up by a sheet which contained the ISO standard for wine tasting glasses and a picture of a wineglass found in Pompeï, which showed the controversary of both.
And so I had more then eight hours of revealing insights and thoughts (he stopped at 17.30 in stead of 17.00), which are too many to write down in this blog. Please also look at Michael Bolton's website where you can find lots of information and presentations on this subject! (www.developsense.com).
After the Tutorial I took the train back to Stockholm Central and I decided to eat at the 'Stockholm FISK' in my hotel, which is apparently a popular fish restaurant. I had 'stockfish' (stokvis) which is typical Skandinavian and found it very good! (I had to admit I was a bit reluctant because of my 'knowledge' of the process to get to stockfish). I didn't stay for dessert but went to a coffeebar instead to have a large coffee (with chai syrup) and a 'Morotkaka' (carrotcake) which I found a pleasant surprise too! It's nice and sweet.
So now I've just finished my coffee and am ready to take a shower and then go to bed. Tomorrow I'll be attending a tutorial and a lot of tracks and I want to be fresh at the start of the day.
God natt!
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)