The first day of uTest’s stop at the STAREAST expo has been a whirlwind. After attending the James Bach / Michael Bolton session called “The New Testing Agile Quadrants: Bringing Skilled Testers and Developers Together” (see tweets below), we caught up with uTest/TechWell contest winner Anna Momatava in the beautiful lobby of the Gaylord Palms Resort to see how her STAREAST experience is going so far:
Tag Archives | Michael Bolton
So we had to dig back deep into the archives to see when the last time was that we featured some testing quotes worthy of hanging up on the ol’ refrigerator. To our horror, it was over three years ago, so we decided it was time again for another roundup. Without further ado:
“Testing means learning. Learning requires faith in one’s ignorance combined with the confidence that it can be extinguished.” – James Bach
“Testing is organized skepticism.”— James Bach (A double dose of Bach!)
“Be a yardstick of quality. Some people aren’t used to an environment where excellence is expected.” – Steve Jobs
“There are only two things that seem to be even close to universally true when it comes to testing – things are constantly changing, and if you put three testers in a room with a testing term or topic to discuss, no more than two of them will ever agree at the same time.” – Scott Barber
“A ‘passing’ test doesn’t mean ‘no problem.’ It means no problem *observed*. This time. With these inputs. So far. On my machine.” – Michael Bolton
April 18, 2012 by Mike Brown /
As I scan the software testing stories of the day, I’m amazed at the frequency of certain misconceptions. While there are too many to list, I wanted to share five of the most common testing myths (in my brief experience). The first three I find to be prevalent in mainstream news articles, while the other two are more common within the tech industry in general.
Take a look and see if you agree with me.
Myth 1. Testing is boring: It’s been said that “Testing is like sex. If it’s not fun, then you’re doing it wrong.” The myth of testing as a monotonous, boring activity is seen frequently in mainstream media articles, which regard testers as the assembly line workers of the software business. In reality, testing presents new and exciting challenges every day. Here’s a nice quote from Michael Bolton that pretty much sums it up:
“Testing is something that we do with the motivation of finding new information. Testing is a process of exploration, discovery, investigation, and learning. When we configure, operate, and observe a product with the intention of evaluating it, or with the intention of recognizing a problem that we hadn’t anticipated, we’re testing. We’re testing when we’re trying to find out about the extents and limitations of the product and its design, and when we’re largely driven by questions that haven’t been answered or even asked before.”
Myth 2. Testing is easy: It’s often assumed testing cannot be that difficult, since everyday users find bugs all the time. In truth, testing is a very complex craft that’s not suited for your average Joe. Here’s Google’s Patrick Copeland on the qualities of a great tester:
February 22, 2012 by Mike Brown /
This month, in place of our standard Testing the Limits interview, we decided to hit up a few of our past guests for a “testing roundtable” discussion. The topic: What is the biggest weakness in the way companies test software? Below are some extremely insightful answers from testing experts Michael Bolton, James Bach, Noah Sussman, Dan Bartow, Rex Black, Jim Sivak and Cem Kaner. Enjoy!
Michael Bolton, Principal at DevelopSense:
So far as I can tell, most companies treat software development as implementation of highly idealized business processes, and they treat testing as an exercise in showing that the software models those processes in a way that’s technically correct. At the same time, companies treat the people who use the software as an abstraction. The consequence is that we’re creating software that delays and frustrates the people who use it or are affected by it. When testing is focused almost entirely on checking the functions in the software, we miss enormous opportunities to learn about the real problems that people encounter as they go about their business. Why are testers so often isolated from actual end-users?
Today I was traveling through the airport. When I checked in using the online service, I had accidentally noted that I’d be checking two bags, but I only brought one with me. In addition, my flight was cancelled, and I had to be put on a later flight. The customer service representative could get me onto that flight, but she had serious trouble in printing a boarding pass associated with only one bag; apparently there was a warning message that couldn’t be dismissed, such that her choices were to accept either three bags or none at all. It took fifteen minutes and two other representatives to figure out how to work around the problem. What’s worse is that the woman who was trying to help me apologized for not being able to figure it out, as if it were her responsibility. Software development organizations have managed to convince our customers that they’re responsible for bugs and unforgiving and unhelpful designs.
The success of a software product is only partly based on how it handles the happy path. That’s relatively easy to develop, and it’s relatively easy to check. Real testing, to me, should be based on investigating how the software allows people to deal with what we call “exceptions” or “corner cases”. That’s what we call them, but if we bothered to look, we’d find out that they were a lot more common than we realize; routine, even. Part of my vision of testing is to include a new discipline in which we do significant field research and participant observation. Instead of occasionally inviting customers to the lab (never mind sitting in the lab all by ourselves), we testers—and our organizations—could learn a lot through direct interaction with people who use the software every day; by close collaboration with technical support; and by testing rich and complex scenarios that are a lot closer to real life than simplified, idealized use cases.
James Bach, Author and Consultant, Satisfice:
There is a cluster of issues that each might qualify as the biggest weakness. I’ll pick one of those issues: chronic lack of skill, coupled with the chronic lack of any system for acquiring skill.
Pretty good testing is easy to do (that’s partly why some people like to say “testing is dead”– they think testing isn’t needed as a special focus because they note that anyone can find at least some bugs some of the time).
Excellent testing is quite *hard* to do.
Yet as I travel all over the world, teaching testing and consulting in testing organizations, I see the same pattern almost *everywhere*: testing groups who have but a vague, wispy idea what they are trying to do; experienced testers who barely read about and don’t systematically practice their craft beyond the minimum needed to keep their employers from firing them; testers whose practice is dominated by irrational and ignorant demands of their management, because those testers have done nothing to develop their own credibility; programmers who think their automated checks will save them from disaster in the field.
How does one learn to test? You can’t get an undergraduate degree in testing. I know of two people who have a PhD in testing, one of whom I admire (Meeta Prakash), the other one is, in my view, an active danger to himself and the craft. I personally know, by name, about 150 testers who are systematically and diligently improving their skills. There are probably another several hundred I’ve met over the years and lost touch with. About three thousand people regularly read my blog, so maybe there are a lot of lurkers. A relative handful of the people I know are part of a program of study/mentoring that is sanctioned by their employers. I know of two large companies that are attempting to systematically implement the Rapid Testing methodology, which is organized around skill development, rather than memorizing vocabulary words and templates. Most testers are doing it independently, however, or even in defiance of their employers.
Yes, there is TMap, TPI, ISTQB, ISEB, and many proprietary testing methodologies out there. I see them as crystallized blobs of uncritical folklore; confused thinking about testing frozen in place like fossilized tree sap. These models and procedures have been created by consultants and consulting companies to justify themselves. They neither promote skill or require skill. They promote what I call “ceremonial software testing” rather than systematic critical thinking about complex technology.
Just about the best thing a tester can do to begin to develop testing skill in a big way is not to read or study any test methodology. Ignore vocabulary words. Toss aside templates. No, what that tester should do is read Introduction to General Systems Thinking, by Gerald M. Weinberg. Read it all the way through. Read it, young tester, and feel your mind get blown. Read it, and meditate on its messages, and do the exercises it recommends, and you will find yourself on a new path to testing excellence.
Noah Sussman, Technical Lead, Etsy:
A surprising number of organizations seem to dramatically underestimate the costs of software testing.
Testability is a feature and tests are a second feature. Having tests depends on the testability of an application. Thus, “testing” entails the implementation and maintenance of two separate but dependent application features. It makes sense then that testing should be difficult and expensive. Yet many enterprise testing efforts do not seem to take into account the fact that testing an application incurs the cost of adding two new, non-trivial features to that application.
There also seems to be a widespread misconception that testing somehow makes application development easier. In fact the opposite is true.
If I may mangle Kernighan: testing is much more difficult than writing the code in the first place. To implement testability and then write tests, one needs first to understand the architecture of the application under test. But testing also requires doing hard things — like input partitioning and path reduction — that are beyond the scope of the application. The reality is that to get good tests, you’re going to have to ask some of your best people to work on the problem (instead of having them work on user-facing application features). Yet many organizations seem not yet to have recognized this.
October 25, 2011 by Mike Brown /
In Part II of our Testing the Limits interview with Michael Bolton, we get his opinions on the corporate fear of Rapid Software Testing; the challenges of coaching testers; the similarities between testing and sex; why programmers should learn to test; writing about testing; negotiating with the other Michael Bolton and more. Did you miss Part I? Then you can find it here.
uTest: It seems that your primary audience is fairly open the principles of RST. But for those who aren’t, what are their main objections? Have the skeptics made you rethink or refine any aspect of RST?
MB: The primary objection appears to be that people are reluctant to give up their safety blankets. They’re frightened of reducing bureaucracy and paperwork, because those things appear to make testing work more legible. But that’s an illusion: bureaucracy and paperwork make illusions about testing work more legible. (Have a look at James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State for a wonderful description of legibility and how the neo-Platonists and the high modernists get it wrong for everyone except—sometimes–for themselves.) People seem frightened to invest in skill, because even though skillful work can be very well documented, it doesn’t necessarily leave a familiar kind of paper trail.
People seem frightened of telling a different kind of testing story in a different way, because managers have become used to a certain kind of test reporting. I think most companies are frightened of finding out what’s really going on in a product or a project, because the truth would be pretty horrifying in a lot of cases. People are frightened of acknowledging the role of skill and tacit knowledge in technical work, because they’re frightened of having to replace people who leave. The assumption there is that the new hire only learns through documentation, but that’s clearly false; we learn through social interactions, by interaction with our products, and by doing meaningful work for which we’re held responsible.
One more thing: many people whose jobs are titled “quality assurance” seem unwilling to give up their perception of their own authority. People want to be “influential”, to “own quality”, to “be the gatekeeper”, to “speak for the customer”. I don’t have authority over the project unless I’m the project manager. As a tester, I don’t have that authority, nor can I claim to speak for the customer more credibly than anyone else. I’ve met testers who believe that it’s their prerogative to tell programmers what to do or how to do it. I recommend that such testers reflect on how they feel when they’re told what to do by people who’ve never done testing work.
As for what we’ve done to rethink or refine things, that’s a continuous process. James and I are currently working on a few important threads. I learned a great lesson from Jerry Weinberg in his Problem Solving Leadership workshop a few years back. Someone accounted for a less-than-successful attempt at problem solving by saying “The complexity of the problem screwed us up.” Jerry peered over the top of his glasses and replied, “Your reaction to the complexity of the problem screwed you up.” So in the delivery of the class, we’re trying to focus on helping testers to see the simplicity behind complex situations, so the testers can be more confident in their ability to deal with them. On the other hand, we’re also focusing on helping testers to see the complexity behind apparently simple situations, so the testers have the wariness that they need to avoid being fooled too easily. We’re also working on showing how to use Rapid Testing approaches in highly formalized or highly regulated environments, pointing to our experiences in financial and medical contexts. Excellent format testing (which is often confirmatory or demonstrative) begins with excellent informal testing. Consistent with that, we’re trying to make people aware that the bulk of their work is exploratory in nature, even though they might not have noticed it. “Formal testing”, which often takes the form of dog-and-pony shows for regulators or auditors, is one thing. Testing to make sure that people don’t die or lose a fortune or pile on some horrible risk is another thing. Excellent testing of the former kind of testing depends on excellent testing of the latter kind.
uTest: If the Context-Driven School of Testing were a traditional school, there’d be a lot of students on the waiting list. In other words, the community is growing rapidly every day. What’s surprised you the most about the emergence of the Context-Driven community thus far?
October 24, 2011 by Mike Brown /
Our Testing the Limits “reunion tour” rolls on this month with Michael Bolton, back for another lively session of Q&A. Michael is best known as the founder of DevelopSense, his Toronto-based testing consulting firm, and as a leading figure in Rapid Testing and the Context-Driven school of testing. In short, he’s one of the industry’s most highly regarded writers, speakers and teachers – and it’s a real pleasure to have him back. For more on Michael, be sure to check out his website, blog or follow him on Twitter.
In part I of our healthy two-part interview, we get his thoughts on test cases not being related to testing; the sub-par debate skills of testers; the quality chain of command; objections to Rapid Testing and much more. Be sure to check back tomorrow for Part II. Enjoy!
uTest: It’s been almost two years since our last interview. Where does the time go? We’ve followed you pretty closely during that time (on Twitter, don’t worry), but for those who haven’t, what have they missed? New publications? New courses? New ideas on testing? What’s new with Michael Bolton?
MB: I’ve been traveling like crazy this year, and I’m booked pretty heavily through the end of the year. I’m beginning to set up my schedule for next year—so if people would like to schedule an in-house class, now is a great time to ask. For new publications How to Reduce the Cost of Testing, a new book edited by Matt Heusser and Govind Kulkarni, has just been released. I’m pleased to say that I’ve got a chapter in there, with a number of other members of our community.
I don’t specialize in new ideas in testing so much, but rather in refining and reframing ideas we’ve had for years in more specific and, I hope, more useful ways. The other thing that I love to do is to bring ideas from elsewhere into testing. Currently I’m fascinated by the work of Harry Collins, who studies the sociology of science and the ways in which people develop knowledge and skill. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge is his most recent book; The Shape of Actions is older. I’m most interested in the idea of repair, which is Collins’ notion for the ways in which people fix up information as they prepare to send it, or as they receive and interpret it.
As an example, I’m 5’ 8” tall. If I ask you how tall I am in centimeters (and provide you with the ratio of 2.54 centimeters to the inch), you’ll probably do a little math in your head to translate 5’ 8” into 68 inches. If you do that, it’s because you have tacit knowledge that a foot is 12 inches, and it’s quicker to do five times 12 in your head and add eight than to work it out on the calculator. Then you’ll report that I’m 173 centimeters (or 172), rather than what the calculator tells you: 172.72. If you round the answer up or down to a whole centimeter, it’s because you have tacit knowledge that the extra precision is useless when my height changes more than that with every breath. The calculator doesn’t know that, but people often fix up the interaction with the tool, applying that kind of tacit knowledge without noticing that they’re doing it. Collins argues that we give calculators and computers and machines more credit than they deserve when we ascribe intelligence or knowledge to them, even when we do it casually or informally.
My latest hobby horse is definitely not new, but I’d like to have a go at it anyway. I’d like to skewer the idea of the test case having any serious relationship to testing. Test cases are typically examples of what the product should do. That’s important; we often need examples to help explicate requirements and desires. But examples are not tests, so I’d like to call those artifacts example cases or examples rather than test cases. They’re confirmatory, not exploratory; checks, not tests. Brian Marick has written a lot about examples; Matt Heusser has too; so has Gojko Adzic. James Bach has been railing about test cases for a long time. Often test cases are overly elaborate, expensive to prepare and maintain. They’d be even more expensive if testers didn’t repair them on the fly, inserting subtle variations making observations that the test case doesn’t specify. Just as Collins suggests about machines, test cases get more credit than they deserve. As Pradeep Soundarajan would say, the test case doesn’t find the bug. The tester finds the bug, and the test case has a role in that. Now: the development of checks and the interpretation of checks—those things require all kinds of sapience and skill.
A test, to me, is an investigation, not a bit of input and output for a function. Yet people tend to think of testing in terms of test cases. Even worse, people count test cases; and even worse than that, they count passing and failing test cases to measure the completeness of project work or testing work. It’s like evaluating the quality of a newspaper by counting the number of stories in it without reference to the content, the quality of the writing, the quality of the investigation, the relevance of the report, whether a given article contains one story or a dozen, and so forth. Counting stories would be a ludicrous way of measuring either the quality of the newspaper or the state of the world. Yet, it seems to me, many development and testing organizations try to observe and evaluate testing in this completely shallow and ridiculous way. They do that because seem to think about things in terms of units of production. Learning, discoveries, threats to value, management responses… none of these things are widgets. They not things, either, for that matter.
uTest: In a recent blog post, you wrote about the inability of some testers to properly frame tests, mainly because they haven’t been asked to. Generally speaking, what other qualities or skills do you find testers to be lacking in?
October 20, 2011 by Mike Brown /
Good question, right? Michael Bolton of DevelopSense and magician Jeff Pinsky demonstrate:
August 23, 2011 by Mike Brown /
Long-time readers of our blog will likely recall our three-part interview with software testing expert Michael Bolton, which remains one of the most popular installments of our Testing the Limits series. You can read the interviews here, here and here.
Naturally, the first thing we asked him about was the subject of sharing a name with Michael Bolton, the famous singer. See his funny response below the fold.
Anyway, Michael Bolton (the testing expert) was recently featured in a Toronto Star news story for not relinquishing his Twitter handle to Michael Bolton (the singer).
Here’s a hilarious excerpt:
Michael Bolton remembers the day he discovered Michael Bolton.
It was 1985, and he was in a record shop in Sudbury.
“I remember thinking two things,” said the 50-year old software consultant from Toronto. “‘Oh my God, I hope he’s not successful’ and ‘If he is my life is ruined.’”
As Michael Bolton unbuttoned his denim shirt and let his long hair blow in the wind for 90s music videos, the Toronto Bolton dealt with the repercussions. Every time he rented a car, there was a pause, a laugh, a comment.
And now, more than 25 years later, there is another wrinkle in the forced relationship: Twitter. Toronto’s Michael Bolton signed up for Twitter first, and he’s not willing to relinquish the username @michaelbolton, even if it means receiving random messages about his lovely voice or requests for autographs.
Classic. We generally don’t take sides on this blog, but this is one issue where we simply have no choice. Michael Bolton, we’re with you!
As mentioned, here’s what Michael told us back in early 2010:
February 28, 2011 by Mike Brown /
The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talked about Fight Club. Lucky for us, that rule does not apply to the Context-Driven School of Software Testing.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the context-driven school has amassed a global following in just a few short years years, despite some initial confusion on the part of newbies…What is a context-driven tester? What is the basic premise? How is it different from the other prominent “schools” of testing? And what does one have to do to become a member?
James Bach – the founding father of CDT – posted a great overview of the principles this past weekend in an article titled “The Dual Nature Of Context-Driven Testing.” He offers some key distinctions on what the term means, what it doesn’t mean, and how you can grow as a tester by learning more about its principles. Here are a few important excerpts (emphasis mine), beginning with an abridged definition:
The Context-Driven School of software testing is a way of thinking about testing, AND a small but world-wide community of like-minded testers. There are other, larger, schools of testing thought. But CDT represents my paradigm of testing. By paradigm, I mean an organizing worldview, an ontology, a set of fundamental beliefs.
CDT is not a style of testing. It’s not a toolbox of methods. It’s more fundamental than that. You could think of CDT partly as an ethical position about testing. All methods or styles are available to Context-Driven people, but our selection of methods and reactions to testing situations are conditioned by our ethical position. This position is defined here.
Reading further, it occurred to me that the context-driven school is well-represented on the uTest Blog. To illustrate this alliance, I’ve included links to the names of those “Jedi Knights” who have made contributions on this site. Here’s the excerpt:
January 17, 2011 by Mike Brown /
We often ask our Testing the Limits guests what they would do in a world with no need for software testers. So far, answers have included mandolin player, pilot, stand-up comedian, sports announcer, werewolf hunter and other typical trades. This got us to thinking, “what other careers would software testers be good at?”
Not that we’re encouraging you to leave the testing profession, but if you absolutely had to, here are a few options for you to consider:
1. Software developer / engineer: Aside from werewolf hunter, this is probably the most obvious career alternative, as great testers will eventually acquire the skills and understanding needed to succeed as a developer. But as a blog reader recently brought to my attention, this works both ways. He said that at his former place of employment, developers aspire to be testers, NOT the other way around. He writes, ” the Tester/QA path is the destination/pinnacle of the career path in SW development. You start out as a Jr. Programmer then… Sr. Programmer then… eventually Architect/System Designer…then…you eventually make it to Testing. Their thinking was that you can’t adequately test until you have proper understanding of the development process. In other words, you are truly considered an expert by the time you get to that level.”
2. Detective: Much like a detective, a tester’s bug-hunting prowess will depend largely on intuition – i.e. knowing the right questions to ask and having a sixth sense for odd irregularities. Testers are already possess the other traits found in successful detectives, including sound logic, analytical skills and patience. The only thing they are missing is an assistant named Watson and a trench coat. Both are available on Craigslist.
3. Journalist: There’s a very thin line between a tester and an investigative reporter. Like their journalistic counterparts, QA professionals must ask tough questions, dive deep into complex issues and report them to the layman in a clear, concise and objective manner. The hours stink and the pay is terrible, but there is some downside to the job however.
January 14, 2011 by Mike Brown /
Presented without further comment, in no particular order:
“The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back.” – Author Unknown
“A pinch of probability is worth a pound of perhaps.” – James Thurber
“Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you are as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?” – Brian Kernighan
“If you don’t care about quality, you can meet any other requirement.” – Gerald M. Weinberg
“Testing is an infinite process of comparing the invisible to the ambiguous in order to avoid the unthinkable happening to the anonymous.” – James Bach
“When your car is about to go off a cliff, it’s a weird time to be thinking about gas mileage and drag coefficients; better to take the right control action—look out the window and steer or use the brake until you’re back on course.” – Michael Bolton
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it.” – W. C. Fields
“I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones.” – John Peel
“Treat your password like your toothbrush. Don’t let anybody else use it, and get a new one every six months.” – Clifford Stoll
As you probably know, the latest uTest Bug Battle is officially underway. This means that for the next week, testers from around the world will be competing to find bugs in three prominent e-tail sites. But there’s a lot more to the competition than just submitting some random bugs and hoping for the win. In our latest guest post, uTester Anna Danchenko (a former Bug Battle winner herself) offers some advice to testers on how they can best position themselves for Bug Battle success – and of course, some prize money for good measure.
The Bug Battle is a software testing competition open to anyone on the uTest website. The essence of this quarterly competition is simple: You have about a week to find and report defects in the pre-selected websites or applications. The results will be judged on several criteria such as: the “clarity of the bug report”, the “innovativeness of the bug” and the “depth of understanding of the problem.” To put it simply, the more serious the bug found and the better its description, the greater your chances are of winning the battle. As a top tester in Q310 Bug Battle, I’m going to offer some advice on how to find the worst bugs and how to write the best bug descriptions.
I will start with an overview of the available materials that newcomers can use to get ready for the competition. After this, I will move to the main topics: how to find defects and how to write bug reports. Finally, I will write some recommendations on completing the final stage in the competition: feedback survey.
This section is a collection of the important links to be explored by uTest newcomers. I have divided it into 3 parts: “Registration”, “Bug Battle” and “Bug reporting in uTest”. To participate in the Bug Battle you need to be registered in uTest. In addition, I highly recommend that you become a member of uTest forum. This is an invaluable resource for learning about past Bug Battles, uTest and testing. In the “Bug Battle” section there are links to pages with the competition rules and advice from other participants on how to win. The last section on bug reporting contains the most important resources with uTest recommendations. I will comment on how to get the most out of these resources because a good bug report is one of the keys to getting the Best Bug award.