Testing the Limits With Ben Simo – Part II
In part II of our Testing the Limits interview with Ben Simo, we’ll discuss whether you should trust automated testing tools; the proliferation of testers on Twitter; the true meaning of “QA”; how testing evolves differently in each company; the long lost Bach brothers and much more. You can catch up on the conversation by reading part I. We’ll wrap things up tomorrow with part III.
********
uTest: Jon Bach mentioned that changing the meaning of “QA” to Quality Assistance would help outsiders (engineers, executives, et al) better understand the role of this discipline. Agree or disagree?
Simo: I believe I first heard “Quality Assistance” from Cem Kaner. I agree with Jon. When testers bear the title Quality Assurance, it often implies that they actually assure the quality of other people’s work. Testers are in a position to help assist quality; not assure it. Let’s not assist the setting of unrealistic expectations with inappropriate titles.
uTest: While we’re on the subject, are you anyway related to James and Jon Bach? The resemblance is uncanny.
Simo: I don’t think so. I’m available for adoption if the Bach family is interested. 
uTest: You’ve said that you frequently use automated tools, but that you don’t trust them entirely (back to that whole defensive pessimist thing again). What advice do you have for testers and managers wanting to strike a healthy balance? And what’s currently in your arsenal of automated tools?
Simo: My mistrust in tools is based on the fact that tools can’t think for me. Automated checking can only process whatever decision rules someone thought to program when the checks were created. Automation will consistently do what it is programmed to do and consistently not do what it is not explicitly programmed to do. I find test automation to be useful. In fact, there are some things I’d not want to even try to do manually. I do, however, distrust the green bar. When automated checking passes, I ask myself what the automation does not tell me. I also try to keep aware that people who don’t understand what the automation does are likely to assume that it does more than it does.
Tools are much more than test automation. Tools are essential for testing. I don’t want to test without tools. I have some old programming books that promote testing in which a programmer manually executes code, step-by-step, with pencil and paper in order verify that the code works as expected. This is manual testing. This is a testing practice that came from a time when computer time was rare and cost more than people. We’d now laugh at someone proposing testing in this manner.
Imagine a world where software testers are courted and wooed like 
“They want to know if the 91-shot Saturn Missile Battery really fires 91 shots,” writes Cory Matteson of the 
According to Twitter co-founder Biz Stone, Twitter now has 105,779,710 registered users—and is adding 300,000 new users a day. Attempting to weed through all of the fluff can be daunting! So, if you’re interested in jumping into the Twittersphere or are just looking to follow the leading journalists and thinkers in software testing today, check out our “Top 20 Software Testing Tweeps” list below (in no particular order)!
In part II of our interview with Scott Barber, we tackle the so-called “consensus” among the Context-Driven School; his start as a software tester; why software problems are mostly people problems; reporting out-scope-bugs and much more.
To say that uTester Ajay Balamurugadas has an impressive software testing resume would be an obvious understatement. Coached by 
Last week, we found out that our humble little Software Testing Blog won the 
In part II of our interview with Jon Bach, we get his thoughts on testing metrics; common tester stereotypes; the merit of certifications; the testing blogosphere; inventing Twitter in 1986, as well some rapid fire Q&A. We think you’ll like it. By the way, did you miss 
