Comments on: Putting Subtitles to Testing http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/310 The Consulting Software Tester Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:21:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Issi http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/310/comment-page-1#comment-192680 Issi Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:52:25 +0000 http://www.satisfice.com/blog/?p=310#comment-192680 Following is an IM conversation between me and a another tester, Shmuel who is the Legal testing expert in our department, I liked how a sub subject in video with one aim could develop into a new testing idea (and pardon about the over criticizing the hammer work :-)) Me(after forwarding this link): BTW – he also talk’s about testing legal aspects with an interesting idea we did not tried in our group (AFAIK). Shmuel: He is correct in bringing that legal aspect. I am not sure “Easy Button” can really be understood as Service Mark, it is more a Trade Mark. But I am no lawyer! ? Which actually, was the only bright test James did in the video. All the rest was hammer banging. Jonathan was more methodical (even if more boring, without hammers ?). We do have marks tests in, and we even have bugs, as YYY and ZZZ never got TM&B clearance :). Me: Sure – but are you actually testing that the marks are registered as JB suggested? Shmuel: More than checking with TM&M and their online database not. :-) But it would be funny if we caught them lying. :-) I checked now the XXX™ trademark, it is registered. The rest of our names are not registered as far as I know, we just get clearance to use them (and even if we want to claim ownership you don’t really need to register it to own it, but it is an added protection). <em> [James' Reply: The video condenses 20 minutes down to 4, and the clips are out of order. I didn't show all of what both of us did. My hammering happened at the eight minute mark, after I exhausted all of the other things I wanted to do with the button. The method I used was to begin by reviewing the package and doing what I could do without destroying anything. I got a lot of ideas, some of which I wrote down for future reference (notice that, unlike Jon, I had a notebook). I then proceeded to functional testing and structural analysis just like Jon did (but I showed Jon doing those things in the video). Jon thought of getting it wet. Later I took one of them apart and immersed it in water. It stopped working until it dried out. I focused on the hammer part because I thought it was funny, and that humor would help.]</em> Following is an IM conversation between me and a another tester, Shmuel who is the Legal testing expert in our department,
I liked how a sub subject in video with one aim could develop into a new testing idea (and pardon about the over criticizing the hammer work :-) )

Me(after forwarding this link):
BTW – he also talk’s about testing legal aspects with an interesting idea we did not tried in our group (AFAIK).

Shmuel:
He is correct in bringing that legal aspect. I am not sure “Easy Button” can really be understood as Service Mark, it is more a Trade Mark. But I am no lawyer! ?

Which actually, was the only bright test James did in the video. All the rest was hammer banging. Jonathan was more methodical (even if more boring, without hammers ?).

We do have marks tests in, and we even have bugs, as YYY and ZZZ never got TM&B clearance :) .

Me:
Sure – but are you actually testing that the marks are registered as JB suggested?

Shmuel:
More than checking with TM&M and their online database not. :-)
But it would be funny if we caught them lying. :-)

I checked now the XXX™ trademark, it is registered. The rest of our names are not registered as far as I know, we just get clearance to use them (and even if we want to claim ownership you don’t really need to register it to own it, but it is an added protection).

[James' Reply: The video condenses 20 minutes down to 4, and the clips are out of order. I didn't show all of what both of us did. My hammering happened at the eight minute mark, after I exhausted all of the other things I wanted to do with the button.

The method I used was to begin by reviewing the package and doing what I could do without destroying anything. I got a lot of ideas, some of which I wrote down for future reference (notice that, unlike Jon, I had a notebook). I then proceeded to functional testing and structural analysis just like Jon did (but I showed Jon doing those things in the video).

Jon thought of getting it wet. Later I took one of them apart and immersed it in water. It stopped working until it dried out.

I focused on the hammer part because I thought it was funny, and that humor would help.]

]]> By: Joe Harter http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/310/comment-page-1#comment-192284 Joe Harter Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:26:46 +0000 http://www.satisfice.com/blog/?p=310#comment-192284 James, I have a question. You were able to reflect upon, explain, and defend your work, but I sometimes find that when I'm in the moment I'm not really thinking "Now I am doing configuration testing.", "Now I am stress testing." unless that was the purpose of my charter. I don't really have subtitles in real-time. In retrospect were you thinking, "Let me get this rock hammer and stress test this Easy Button"? <em> [James' Reply: My credibility as a tester depends on me being able to reflect upon what I do and why I'm doing it. It depends on being able to explain my work, as necessary. I brought the rock hammer with me to the test, because I knew I wanted to do a shock-to-failure stress test. As you see from the video, I am talking about what I'm doing as I'm doing it (see my remark about the shoe test) and in the 16 minutes not shown, Jon and I both are explaining as we go. For instance, Jon announces that he will do state-based testing, and then begins doing it.]</em> James, I have a question.

You were able to reflect upon, explain, and defend your work, but I sometimes find that when I’m in the moment I’m not really thinking “Now I am doing configuration testing.”, “Now I am stress testing.” unless that was the purpose of my charter. I don’t really have subtitles in real-time. In retrospect were you thinking, “Let me get this rock hammer and stress test this Easy Button”?

[James' Reply: My credibility as a tester depends on me being able to reflect upon what I do and why I'm doing it. It depends on being able to explain my work, as necessary.

I brought the rock hammer with me to the test, because I knew I wanted to do a shock-to-failure stress test. As you see from the video, I am talking about what I'm doing as I'm doing it (see my remark about the shoe test) and in the 16 minutes not shown, Jon and I both are explaining as we go. For instance, Jon announces that he will do state-based testing, and then begins doing it.]

]]> By: Jon Bach http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/310/comment-page-1#comment-191853 Jon Bach Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:56:54 +0000 http://www.satisfice.com/blog/?p=310#comment-191853 I've used a lot of physical objects, too -- especially good are obscure objects from a kitchen store or a hardware store -- little things that aren't obvious as to their function. I look for the ability to describe, analyze dimensions, conjecture (and corroborate and refute those conjectures), and imagine test ideas once they either discern (or I tell them) what the object does. Mostly in interviews, I have used software. It's not hard to have a laptop with absolutely anything (notepad, mspaint, a browser, the File/Open a dialog) and stand at the whiteboard the whole time as you take notes in front of them, just as you might do for software you test. I document their test ideas, executed tests, issues, and bugs. The point is to interact with them as they explore, to get them out of their resume and put them and their ideas in a working context. I’ve used a lot of physical objects, too — especially good are obscure objects from a kitchen store or a hardware store — little things that aren’t obvious as to their function. I look for the ability to describe, analyze dimensions, conjecture (and corroborate and refute those conjectures), and imagine test ideas once they either discern (or I tell them) what the object does.

Mostly in interviews, I have used software. It’s not hard to have a laptop with absolutely anything (notepad, mspaint, a browser, the File/Open a dialog) and stand at the whiteboard the whole time as you take notes in front of them, just as you might do for software you test. I document their test ideas, executed tests, issues, and bugs. The point is to interact with them as they explore, to get them out of their resume and put them and their ideas in a working context.

]]> By: Michael Bolton http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/310/comment-page-1#comment-191502 Michael Bolton Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:40:08 +0000 http://www.satisfice.com/blog/?p=310#comment-191502 Far more than just in interviews, James and I use this approach in class (with brave volunteers) and in coaching sessions, using various odd objects. We deliberately raise obstacles and traps, not only for diagnosis of potential problems but also to give testers the experience of wrestling their way out of the trap. Both class participants and instructors learn a ton from this approach. ---Michael B. Far more than just in interviews, James and I use this approach in class (with brave volunteers) and in coaching sessions, using various odd objects. We deliberately raise obstacles and traps, not only for diagnosis of potential problems but also to give testers the experience of wrestling their way out of the trap. Both class participants and instructors learn a ton from this approach.

—Michael B.

]]> By: Darren Ryan http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/310/comment-page-1#comment-191474 Darren Ryan Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:49:36 +0000 http://www.satisfice.com/blog/?p=310#comment-191474 Interesting post and video, a few months ago when my team were hiring new testers a few of us thought of placing a drink bottle in front of the candidate and asking them how they would test it. Similar situation you and your brother put yourselves in. Have you ever done this in a job interview? <em> [James' Reply: That's a common tactic, and it can be quite revealing if you know what to look for. It's the testing equivalent of a Rorschach test. I've used black rubber balls, staplers, whiteboard pens, pictures of screens, and of course, actual software. Once I even used the software that my group was actually testing.]</em> Interesting post and video, a few months ago when my team were hiring new testers a few of us thought of placing a drink bottle in front of the candidate and asking them how they would test it. Similar situation you and your brother put yourselves in. Have you ever done this in a job interview?

[James' Reply: That's a common tactic, and it can be quite revealing if you know what to look for. It's the testing equivalent of a Rorschach test. I've used black rubber balls, staplers, whiteboard pens, pictures of screens, and of course, actual software. Once I even used the software that my group was actually testing.]

]]>