• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Satisfice, Inc.

Software Testing for Serious People

Rapid Software Testing A Context-Driven Methodology
  • Home
  • About
    • Privacy Policy
  • Methodology
    • Exploratory Testing
    • Reasons to Repeat Tests
  • Consulting
  • Classes
    • James Bach’s Testing Challenge
    • Testimonials
    • RST Courses Offered
    • Testers and Automation: Avoiding the Traps
    • Rapid Software Testing Explored
    • Rapid Software Testing Applied
    • Rapid Software Testing Managed
    • Rapid Software Testing Coached
    • Rapid Software Testing Focused: Risk
    • Rapid Software Testing Focused: Strategy
  • Schedule
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Resources
    • Downloads
    • Bibliography: Exploratory Process
    • Bibliography: Risk Analysis
    • Bibliography: Coaching
    • Bibliography: Usability
    • Bibliography: My Stuff From IEEE Computer and IEEE Software Magazines
    • Bibliography: The Sociology of Harry Collins

Mechanical or Magical? Noah Says “Neither.”

Published: March 20, 2012 by James Bach 4 Comments

As I was having dinner with Noah Höjeberg tonight, he said an interesting thing. “Some people think testing is mechanical, and that’s bad enough. But a lot of people seem to think the alternative to mechanical is magical.”

(Noah is the new test strategist at Scila AB, in Stockholm. Interesting guy. I’ve played a lot of testing dice with him, in the past. I meant to do the Art Show game with him, too, but we got so much into our conversation that I completely forgot.)

Mechanical and magical are false opposites. In Rapid Testing, we pursue another path: Heuristical. In other words, skilled testing, achieved through systematic study and the deliberate application of heuristics. This is neither a mechanical, algorithmic process, not is it magical, mystical. We can show it, talk about it, etc. And yet it cannot be automated.

Filed Under: Heuristics, Language, Scientific Method, Testing Culture

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Dave McNulla says

    20 March 2012 at 10:35 pm

    Beauty. I get irritated with both of those views, just as much as I am tired of the walls put up between automation and manual testing.

    I appreciate your approach to thought-based testing. I am trying to improve my own skills in that area.

    I also appreciate automating tasks that are mindless, whether it’s pumping data into a system to support my next test, piping a log tail into a grep to be notified of a potential problem, or firing off some web service calls to create certain conditions. When should I automate the entire test? When I believe the risk is low enough for me to make the entire process “mindless” or mechanical.

    Dave

    Reply
  2. Jasminka says

    21 March 2012 at 1:15 am

    I too fail to see how it is the opposite. Well I don’t even understand how that is meant and how it is supposed to go. If it’s not mechanical then how do I do magical testing? But thanks for posting, interesting to read how a lot of people think. Have a super exciting time here in Sweden.

    Reply
  3. Phil L says

    31 March 2012 at 4:54 pm

    Magical, heuristical, mechanical… Rather than Neither, how about all of the above. Testing is all of the above. Let’s try on holistic and comprehensive. We sometimes forget that the goal of testing is raising quality. Whatever way you can use to get there counts as testing. Sometimes, you must do the mechanical stuff, other times you need heuristics especially in reducing risk in an intelligent way. Magical, Socrates may have thought that test automation is magical. Sapient seems to be a term used often these days in terms of describing what is needed in testing. Coming from Homo Sapiens, I guess that means intelligent testing. We all have to be as intelligent as possible when we test, applying ourselves in the best way possible to turn out the highest quality software, given the time and resources at hand.

    Reply
  4. nicheljohnson says

    4 December 2012 at 5:12 am

    I also appreciate automating tasks that are mindless, whether it’s pumping data into a system to support my next test, piping a log tail into a grep to be notified of a potential problem.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Search

Categories

  • About Me (17)
  • Agile Methodology (14)
  • AI and Testing (4)
  • Automation (20)
  • Bug Investigation and Reporting (9)
  • Buggy Products (24)
  • Certification (10)
  • Context-Driven Testing (44)
  • Critique (46)
  • Ethics (22)
  • Exploratory Testing (34)
  • FAQ (5)
  • For Newbies (25)
  • Heuristics (28)
  • Important! (20)
  • Language (35)
  • Management (20)
  • Metrics (3)
  • Process Dynamics (27)
  • Quality (8)
  • Rapid Software Testing Methodology (23)
  • Risk Analysis (13)
  • RST (5)
  • Scientific Method (3)
  • Skills (30)
  • Test Coverage (8)
  • Test Documentation (8)
  • Test Oracles (5)
  • Test Reporting (11)
  • Test Strategy (26)
  • Testability (4)
  • Testing Culture (96)
  • Testing vs. Checking (18)
  • Uncategorized (12)
  • Working with Non-Testers (7)

Blog Archives

Footer

  • About James Bach
  • Satisfice Blog
  • Bibliography: Bach on IEEE
  • Contact James
  • Consulting
  • Privacy Policy
  • RST Courses
  • RST Explored
  • RST Applied
  • RST Managed
  • RST Coached
  • RST Focused: Risk
  • RST Focused: Strategy
  • RST Methodology
  • Exploratory Testing
  • Testing Training
  • Resources
  • Bibliography: Exploratory
  • Bibliography: Risk Analysis
  • Bibliography: Coaching
  • Bibliography: Usability
  • Bibliography: The Sociology of Harry Collins
  • Schedule
  • Upcoming Public Classes
  • Upcoming Online Classes
  • Public Events
  • Tester MeetUps

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in