What I learned about Testing from a crazy ex-girlfriend

I was reminiscing with a tester colleague today about how our mothers used to mess with our stuff when we were younger and how it really got on our nerves.

Picture the scene: you have a desk in your room that's plastered with papers and stuff everywhere. And you know precisely where everything is. It's your mess after all.

Enter the mom. She looks around, maybe she's come in to drop off some laundry or to complain about the state of your room or whatever. You aren't around. She starts to tidy. She tidies the papers on your desk and arranges your action figures/books/pencils/Lego/rubber band collection/whatever into a neat arrangement of some kind.

You return. "Ahhhh! Where's my stuff?!?! You changed the order! I can't find anything now! Don't touch my stuff!!"

Your mom, now hurt because she was "only trying to help," vows to never touch your stuff again unless someone's life depends on it. Maybe. We'll see next week.


We chuckled over the memories, but the connection my colleague made was how that ability to memorise tiny details and the placement of certain pieces of information in a messy desk was perhaps already the mark of a good tester. When you look at a computer screen, you take in all the details and it becomes a new mess of our own design that we track in our heads. We notice when details are moved or changed. If we think there might be something different, if we have a hunch, we can use tools to help us verify it or we can check with an oracle of some kind. It's that ability to make a connection, develop a hunch and act on it, that makes a good tester.

So, you're probably wondering "where does the crazy ex-girlfriend come into the story here?" Good question. No, I haven't forgotten. This is the spot.

In university I had .. er, how would I describe it now.. a short-lived relationship with a girl who was definitely the outgoing/extrovert type. One morning, I met her before classes started and didn't meet up with her again until after lunch when we both had a free spot in our schedules. When I saw her after lunch, I did a double-take but I wasn't sure what I was noticing. Something was different but I couldn't put my finger on it.

Then it hit me! Her earrings were different. She had two piercings in each ear and in the morning she had studs and stars (in that order) and in the afternoon they were reversed - stars and studs.

Being the attentive boyfriend, I asked her if her earrings had changed their places or if I was just losing my mind. She looked at me and didn't say anything for a minute. Then she said 'yes', she was bored in one of her morning classes and decided to switch the order. Then she got mad at me. She was upset that I had noticed because she didn't want anyone to notice that she had changed them.

Umm, really? That includes me? So, I don't get any points for noticing you and paying attention? Okay, I don't get this relationship stuff. I think our relationship lasted perhaps another 48 hours. Oh well. C'est la vie.

In retrospect, that was another example where somewhere in my head I had made the connection - something was different even if I didn't know what. Then I began the process of methodically going through the list of possibilities and checking them off one by one - was it her hair? her eyes? makeup? lipstick? top? something she was carrying? a scent? a mark? necklace? wait, did I check the ears? hey, there are 2 thingies there - could they have changed? Spider sense tingling.. better consult the oracle and check if we have a match. Bingo!

Success in finding the difference! Failure at love. =( You win some, you lose some.

I didn't know it at the time but the best relationship was still to come! =) And on that note, sometimes you notice the little things, and sometimes someone has to hit you over the head with a frying pan to tell you to open your eyes and see what's right in front of you!

Ah, but love makes you blind, doesn't it? ;)

Read More

What skill does Exploratory Testing require?

I've just been challenged with a sobering reality.

I've heard the term "Exploratory Testing" used many times over the last few years by developers and testers at various gatherings. I've practiced it myself for over 6 years in various black-box system testing efforts. When training new testers on my team, I provided them with foundational concepts in context, risk, scientific method, test techniques and communication. Then over the course of several weeks, I reviewed their test sessions and provided feedback during debrief sessions to improve their understanding and application of the various testing skills required to be efficient and effective.

People have told me that I have really high standards, and perhaps I do. To me, testing is a passion and fun, and quality is an ideal achieved through effective communication and interactions with all the stakeholders on a project.

But that's all besides the point. If the question is "what is Exploratory Testing and how do you do it?" then my standards and expectations from team members are irrelevant.

ET is simply an approach to testing software where the tests are not predefined and the focus is on iterative learning, test design and execution (to paraphrase a simplified definition).

How someone learns, how someone designs tests, how someone executes those tests - these things are not defined by any standard; they are applied differently by different people. ET can be performed by anyone. There aren't any requirements for how well or thoroughly someone should perform it.

To quote from the animated movie "Ratatouille": "Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."

So, when I hear the term ET thrown around, I have about as much understanding of how they're testing as I do from a development shop that uses the term "Agile". That is, I don't know anything about what it means to them, how they're applying it, how effective it is, or how it compares to my standards/expectations.

I've been reading articles and research lately comparing ET and Test Case-driven Testing (TCT) approaches, and it never ceases to amaze me how stats and research may be twisted to support everyone's beliefs about which is better than the other.

Developers and Product Managers who have worked with me understand the quality of the information and feedback that my testing style provides. They have said that it is a whole new level of testing feedback they've never seen before. It makes me feel good to hear that - that I'm providing a valuable service.

But when I read one of these comparison articles, I have to assume that the ET applied in the research studies aren't at the same level that I apply it. I have to accept that. I may not like it, but that's the reality. To me, the same research applied would likely show that Agile and Waterfall aren't really all that different in terms of produced output. Sigh.

Am I missing something?

Read More