thoughts from the test eye

We have now finalized the Swedish translation of 37 Sources for Test Ideas. Neither the translation nor the original is perfect, but we think they can be useful to many. If you are interested in translating 37 Sources, or Software Quality Characteristics (Swedish version), let us know. Cheers, Henrik, Martin & Rikard

Due to all spam comments not being stopped by our automatic checkers, we are unfortunately forced to moderate all comments. We will do this as quick as possible, but there might be some delay before your comment appears. Hope that you understand this, from our point of view, drastic decision. Cheers, Henrik, Martin & Rikard

I am curious about how the system works I look at details and the whole, and at many places I use many sources to learn what is important I am creative and see many testing possibilities I test in many different ways, and adjust to the situation I am good at finding important problems fast […]

Suppose you have a risk assessment fully agreed by stakeholders, and their relatives. Create a stable sampling across all adjacent perspectives, and let the corresponding tests be executed on best representatives platforms, theoretically covering 99.5% of potential future usage. Now, let any opposites conglomerate, and hold their best fit tempo, until the sounds dissolve into […]

I hope many of you are using SFDPOT (James Bach) and CRUCSPIC STMP (thetesteye.com) in order to investigate what to test. SFDPOT describes elements of the product, and CRUCSPIC STMP describes sought attributes of the system. They are very powerful ways to identify things to test, plus to be able to communicate it effectively. Both […]

One heavyweight way of testing charisma is to use dozens of potential users on dozens of alternative product solutions/prototypes. For lightweight charisma testing, it is often fast and fruitful with an awareness of charisma violations. This method requires an understanding of the unique charisma for your product. Testers probably won’t be in charge of developing […]

I want to open for a discussion on pair testing or at least widen the concept. By saying pair, we say two people, but why should we limit us to that? Depending what your objective is a different number might be more applicable? Several of the referred authors in this article have elaborated around pair […]

I have been doing and teaching quite a lot of scenario testing lately. I have been surprised by the ease and speed, and ability to find important problems, (also giving an embryo to a compelling bug report.) Maybe it can be useful for you as well, probably as a complementary technique, or as a powerful […]

As everyone else, I fell into testing by chance. I wanted to work as a developer, and saw testing as a stepping stone (this quickly changed, though.) My first day I tested a Service Pack of a big, localized product. An experienced tester guided me at the start, and I can still remember the conversation. […]

Last week I entered the first bug in a bug system for a new service that I just started to work on. Me and my team spent quite some time in getting it right, setting the standard for bugs to come. If the first bug is crappy, the rest can be as well. We considered […]