Archive for April, 2010

The details and the whole Rikard Edgren 5 Comments

Testers are often in a unique position because we know a lot about the system as a whole, but also a lot about the details of the operating software. There are interesting dynamics between the small and the large, and with a human mind in between, a lot of important information will emerge. “The distinction […]

Growing test teams: Uncertain team composition Martin Jansson 13 Comments

This is a follow up from previous articles on Growing test teams based on the ideas from Peopleware by Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister. Uncertain team composition If you are newly assigned to be a team leader there is a big chance that you also have a team, but that is not always the case. Just […]

Is your testing saturated? Rikard Edgren 7 Comments

There are many names for software testing strategies/activities/ approaches/processes; they can be risk-based, coverage-focused, exploratory, requirements-based, Super-TPI, TMM 5 The names generally come from how the testing is performed or initiated, so I thought we should look at it from another angle, from the end of testing, from the results that we might know […]

Exploratory Testing is not a test technique Henrik Emilsson 7 Comments

Well, to many people this is nothing new. But still, there are a lot of testers, and indeed test leads, that still think that Exploratory Testing is a technique that can be used in testing. To some extent, it has to do with that both Cem Kaner and James Bach have used this term amongst […]

Exploratory Testing is not a controlled process Rikard Edgren 8 Comments

Exploratory Testing is not as widely used as it could be, because management doesn’t want it. Stated reasons for this could be unaccountable, unstructured, sloppy, non-scientific etc, reasons that can be refuted by communication. But I think the real reason is something Exploratory Testing can’t have: a controlled process. Management/Companies want to have a plan […]

Testing Clichés Part III: “We can’t test those requirements” Rikard Edgren 12 Comments

It is good to strive for better requirements by critical analysis (and looking for what’s missing), but there is a danger in complaining about untestable requirements. If those vague requirements are changed (made too specific) or removed, the words in the requirements document have less meaning, and less chance of guiding towards great software. And […]

Where are you going with testing? Martin Jansson 3 Comments

In order to determine where you are heading with your test department it is good to understand where you are currently standing as a group and as individuals in the group. Understand which way of working with quality that you tend to lean the most against. Use Brett Petticord’s Four Schools of Testing [1] as a […]

The 100th thought from the test eye the test eye 3 Comments

Today we celebrate our 100th post on this blog! It has been an interesting journey for us so far; and we realize that we have only begun this ride, a ride with no destination but to enrich ourselves with wisdom and knowledge through discussions and by sharing thoughts. And you, our readers, are a very […]