• About
  • Giving Back

aclairefication

~ using my evil powers for good

Monthly Archives: May 2011

Name dropping

25 Wednesday May 2011

Posted by claire in Soft Skills

≈ 6 Comments

Hello my name is

Recently, my friend gave birth to a baby girl. Until their daughter arrived, she and her husband decided not to assign a name. Although they had candidates selected in advance, they wanted to wait until they saw her sweet little face to determine which name was the best fit. I don’t understand this approach since for me names do not seem to be tied to a person’s appearance. Shakespeare’s Juliet tells Romeo that a name “is nor hand nor foot, / Nor arm nor face, nor any other part / Belonging to a man.” When I named my own children, I chose names that I wanted to repeat for the rest of my life rather than trying to discern a name when first gazing upon them.

Remember that a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language. — Dale Carnegie

This particular point has been the bane of my existence. I love meeting people. I love talking to people. I love hearing their interesting and divergent points of view. I absolutely dread that moment at the end of the first (or even second) conversation where we pause and say, “It was nice meeting you …” and trail off into silence rather than being able to whip out the name that was proferred at the beginning of the conversation.

The strange part for me has been walking through crowds, picking out the faces of those I have met, remembering the topic of our discussions and wanting to continue the conversation but feeling somewhat reluctant to do so because I couldn’t call out to the person before he or she passed by.

The zenith of my name recall coincided with the first meeting of my husband’s extended family. There they were, arrayed in a circle and happily sipping on sweet tea. As they each nodded, smiled, and spoke their names, I felt my mental cache filling up. And yet! Somehow I pulled off the improbably feat of repeating every name as I went back around the circle, only failing at the last person. My mother-in-law has never forgotten this proud moment, though I think of it as a “stupid human trick.”

Knowing your own weaknesses is the first step to addressing them. I have tried a variety of approaches to name recognition over the years with varying degress of success.

When I was in college, my co-operative degree program employer hired me to start at their office in January. When I arrived for my first day, they gave me the tour and I noticed a pile of printed photos from the office Christmas party the month before. Later that day, I returned to the break room and sorted through the pile to find the faces of all the people I had met that day. I sat down with the company directory and turned those prints into human flashcards, quizzing myself over each one.

Once I graduated from college, I took my first quality job and was one of the youngest staff members, which seemed to lead others to think my memory would be better than theirs. Since I had recently purchased a digital camera, I kept it with me at work. When the development team pointed out the wiki had user pages for each of us, I took it upon myself to offer to take photographs of my coworkers and to post them on their user pages. This was an excellent opportunity to talk directly with each of the new people I met and the collaborative experience helped me to associate the names with the faces much more closely.

Fortunately for me, and perhaps for you as well, the spread of technology has resulted in the frequent pairing of photographs with people’s names in social media. In the absence of images, I find that even an e-mail address can add the visual cues needed to help me to associate the verbal and written exchanges, the essence of the dialogue, with the name of my collaborator. A tangible reminder such as a business card received at a conference is a convenient medium for a contemporaneous record, as James Bach uses in exploratory testing, of the matter at hand.

What tips and tricks help you to recall names?

Image credit

Esprit de corps

15 Sunday May 2011

Posted by claire in Soft Skills

≈ 3 Comments

If you ask someone for help, they may not refuse, or even ask for a reward.

One of the important things I work on every day is avoiding the “them versus us” sentiment that may once have been the norm between testers and developers. Although my dev team has long been pseudo-Agile, I am not embedded in the development team as a tester and so there is the opportunity to view each team as “the other” and form opinions that way. Thankfully, I work with some great folks who want to produce high quality software and who don’t want false assumptions to get in the way of that. We’re all rather likeable as geeks go and try to play to each other’s strengths.

When I was a co-op student during college, I decided to join my company’s Toastmasters group so that I would learn to be a better public speaker. What I didn’t anticipate was how well I came to know the other group members after hearing their speeches about topics that mattered to them. We were all rooting for each other to succeed at speech skill-building but what we did best was team-building.

Chit-chat is a less demanding and more readily accessible route for building bridges. When I find myself in a conversation about a topic I know nothing about, I enjoy it much more when my co-worker has a passion for the subject and is willing to teach me enough to appreciate his excitement. (I’m purposefully using the male article here since most of my co-workers over the years have been male.) The guys have talked me into joining the fantasy football league by lowering the perceived threshold of necessary knowledge and encouraging me to take risks. They like to tell me anecdotal evidence of novices winning the season (or at least doing surprisingly well) based on arbitrary methods like my selection of players whose names I liked.

While we don’t all share the same cultural shorthand, we make efforts to share each other’s interests. Television series and music are fair game, but I think movies are most germane to our history of developing software for the entertainment industry, especially movie theaters. Debating the merits of this character or that movie’s production value goes a long way toward smoothing any feather ruffled by defect reporting. This seems to be a particular favorite with our Creative team. We have occasionally had a company outing to the movie theater as well. We share links to articles or online deals relevant to each other’s hobbies. Webcomics are also a favorite, sharing humor from XKCD to Dilbert.

Other members of our team love more physically active pursuits and have put together hiking trips or lake outings. I have to be more careful about venturing out under “the daystar” with my pale skin, but I welcome the opportunity to get out of my routine. That’s usually the best way to get to know people.

Granted a new routine is easy to build. For a while, we had scheduled a Munchkin tournament over the course of many lunch breaks. After we burnt out on that game, many others followed, supplied by our resident board game and card game enthusiasts. For years now, we haven’t run out of options.

Finch: Do you have any hobbies?
Twimble: I’ve a hobby; I play gin with Mr. Bratt.
Finch: Mr. Bratt! And do you play it nicely?
Twimble: Play it nicely . . . still, he blitzes me
In every game, like that!
Finch: Why?
Twimble: ‘Cause I play it the company way.
— The Company Way, How To Succeed In Business Without Really Trying

Though I tend to do well the first time through when they coach me enough to get the hang of things, I don’t mind being trounced by more experienced players. Perhaps beating me at board games makes my constructive criticism more palatable? Either way, I don’t have as many opportunities for gaming in my personal life as I once had, so I enjoy it.

For those with colleagues less inclined to gaming, there are always the fascinating gadgets that entrance the early adopters. Sometimes we consider this research for work-related topics like mobile application testing, but the geek inside relishes this merely for the fun of it all.

As Andy Kaufman mentioned in his STAREast keynote, the more traditional route of asking after families, admiring photos of kids/grandkids, remembering birthdays, and the food – oh the food! – are available to all of us. Since I’m from the South, barbeque is the order of the day, any day of the week, around my office. Just be careful when professing your BBQ loyalties! You can stir up quite the debate that way.

At least we can all agree on the various baked goods that appear throughout the year. We had a baking contest with prizes at the office one year during the holiday season that was a threat to my waistline. My own contribution has occasionally made its appearance in the baking queue, but I prefer to tie the treats to a holiday: moonpies and bead necklaces for Mardi Gras, candy at Halloween, and the gourmet candy canes I bring to the annual Christmas party are legendary. Since I attended my first company Christmas party before I ever did a day of work, I knew I couldn’t show up empty handed and it was the logical choice, even if I got strange looks for flavors like blueberry. If there is ever a year that I show up without the candy canes, I would never hear the end of it!

I think the biggest part of all of this is to take a genuine interest in those around you and to find common ground.

How do you build team camaraderie?

Image credit

Skepticism: a case study

09 Monday May 2011

Posted by claire in Approaches

≈ 2 Comments

Under the hood

When Jon Bach asked me what one piece of advice I would give a new tester, I answered skepticism.  For example, the people who are giving you requirements may not have complete information.

Question your assumptions

This general approach to problem solving served me well today when my car’s maintenance light came on during my morning commute.  I called a local repair shop knowing it was time to have my oil changed and made an appointment.  Although the phone operator told me there would be a surcharge for my oil based on my car’s make and model, I questioned that judgment.  My questioning approach was affirmed when the two people at the desk each came up with a different recommended type of oil for my car based on their research.

We went back to basics and literally looked under the hood (white box testing anyone?) to check the system only to discover that it wasn’t working as expected: my oil cap was missing!  Lacking that source of confirmation, we broke out the owner’s manual and found the answer (i.e. checked requirements).

Not only did we resolve a pressing question of implementation for work that would be immediately completed but we discovered an existing problem that we assumed was not present (bug).

Most satisfying of all, because the shop providing the current service was part of the same parent company as my previous visit, they were able to provide feedback about problem results to the previous mechanics, thereby improving their system overall.

I think a key part of this interaction was shaped by my in-progress reading of Critical Conversations by Patterson, Grenny, McMillan, and Switzler, which Andy Kaufman recommended in his StarEast keynote.  I approached the conversation as an opportunity to learn about my vehicle and allowed the experts to teach me – though even experts disagreed! They taught me how to think through the problem for myself because they perceived this as a team effort.  They also provided the criticism of their counterparts at the other location.  I didn’t need to say anything negative and I saved some money based on their original quote for the work.  Best of all, I know today’s service was better because the people helping me were more conscious of potential problems.

What’s on your reading list that is helping you?

Image credit

Once bitten, twice shy

08 Sunday May 2011

Posted by claire in Approaches

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

Approaches

Take a bite

Back when I was in high school, my friend was driving down the highway late at night and leaned toward me, which momentarily sent us careening toward the concrete median.  I won’t say my life flashed before my eyes, but the panic must have been evident on my face since he immediately corrected the car’s path.  It left me with a lasting dread of driving in the left lane that plagues me to this day.  (Yes, I know the rest of the lanes have the excitement of other life-threatening opportunities courtesy of my fellow motorists.)

Not long ago, another friend of mine was driving through a construction zone and was pulled over for a speeding ticket.  They hit him with the maximum fine, which was double the norm due to the construction zone.  Although I wasn’t present for this occasion, it is a salient example of the sort of thing that can bite you on the road.

These examples were foremost in my mind as I was driving home from the StarEast conference last night.  I was driving in the left lane when a median and a construction zone simultaneously appeared before me, sending me retreating to the right lane where I set my cruise control to the speed limit displayed on the signs.

Although I deemed it unlikely that a cop would be waiting for someone to step out of line on that particular stretch of highway on a Saturday night, I certainly had no desire to find out by experimentation.  A co-worker of mine recently related her experience with being pulled over on a lonely stretch of highway when she had no time to argue with the officer’s judgment.  Honestly, who would want to be dragged back to the middle of nowhere to prove your innocence?  (Assuming you can…)

Sometimes, I think our test cases can adhere to the same algorithm I use in driving: That bit us once and the consequences were terrible!  We must test it every time!

James Bach mentioned in his Creative Thinking talk at StarEast that we have diminishing returns for this sort of testing.  When we know we will always test this area, we are more likely to implement correctly.

I think we as testers also can easily become complacent with areas we have tested over and over again.  This has definitely happened to me!

“Because the first bite always tastes best!” – Ramona Quimby

When we get a new feature, we think of all the interesting and malicious and foolish ways to use the system.  We get to take the first bite out of it and savor the sweetness of the quick payoff.

It’s so much more difficult to stick with testing regression cases by hand for each release that goes out the door.  We continue in our probably unnecessary task because we cannot bear the thought of missing the same consequence a second time.  We end up with additional cases that cover certain known error conditions that just lengthen our testing cycle.

Similarly, by limiting my speed and proceeding with caution to avoid the ticket, I lengthened my drive home so that my arrival time was after midnight.  Although I guaranteed that the hazards I was vigilantly monitoring did not occur, my time might have been better spent accomplishing the goal.

Likewise, I know the terrifying experience of veering toward a median, so I am much more likely to avoid that danger and the driving habits that would produce it, guarding against a known case.

Do you maintain cases that slow you down more than benefit your release cycle?  Do you continue to execute them manually?
Or do you automate these tests to free up your manual execution time for new approaches?

Image credit

Go with the flow – Exploratory Learning

06 Friday May 2011

Posted by claire in STAREast 2011, Training

≈ 9 Comments

Go with the flow

Registering for STAREAST nearly a year in advance gave me a lot of time to plan my conference schedule. At first, the website for the 2011 incarnation of the conference was just a stub, leaving me only previous conference sessions to peruse and time to speculate about which speakers might return.

Then, the website filled with a schedule and pages of session descriptions, allowing me to indulge in one of my favorite pastimes: juxtaposing classes in a week of schooling. My college roommate always found it a bit comical that I would happily push around little notecards with course names on them trying to see how to maximize my time for the semester’s courses. Since I have so many diverse interests, narrowing down the field of conferences sessions to those I could actually attend was a challenge. I finally highlighted some session names and tucked the pages into a file folder.

You can imagine my joy when the glossy printed copy of the conference materials arrived in my mailbox within months of the conference start date. Cue another round of reading, wrangling, circling, highlighting, and underlining. Wash, rinse, repeat. Of course, this list of session selections was different. I was sure these iterations were producing better and better approximations of the conference experience I wanted to have.

When I registered on the first day of tutorials, the registration folks handed me yet another source of scheduling bliss, the official course program. However, at this time, I had registered for specific tutorial classes and so considered my schedule set in stone for the first two days of the week. I attended my first day’s registered tutorial, which was a good refresher from my certification training last year. I had come out of my certification class all fired up to implement the new strategies I had discovered only to meet the reality of slow organizational change. This year, I could use a reminder to try again.

What I didn’t expect was Lee Copeland’s advice: if a session isn’t working for you, respectfully depart and find one that really speaks to your needs. I thought how nice that the conference scheduling chair is encouraging us to be flexible and went on my merry way.

The next morning, I arrived to find my morning tutorial and my afternoon tutorial actually had a conflict since my afternoon tutorial was really a full day in length. I decided to trade off the morning session for Dale Perry’s full day instruction on performance testing and went in ready to learn. After an hour of helpful instruction, I realized that this type of testing was not my company’s urgent need. Since I had already forgone one type of instruction for the other, I was a bit loathe to disrupt my schedule again until I thought about Lee’s suggestion.

So I gave myself permission to adopt a structured, exploratory approach to the conference and made a real-time decision for better learning. I happened to recognize the name James Bach and “crashed the party” of his session. Both presenters were clearly passionate about their subject matter and the audience had opportunities to interact and ask questions. One question that came up just before the break led to me approach both James Bach and Michael Bolton with a related question of my own. I had no idea how much that moment would affect my conference experience.

I ended up following Michael Bolton and pretty much taking over his lunch with Bernie Berger after Bernie mentioned an exercise that involved a critical thinking challenge. (Sorry, Bernie! I hope you found it entertaining to watch me flail through that exercise.) I must have said something worthwhile because Michael took me under his wing and introduced me to other great test professionals.

From that point on, I decided to design my schedule as my day – and the conference – progressed, abandoning all my careful selections and preconceived notions about what my conference experience should be. My focus changed from a script of training on specific topics that I could implement back at the office to a learning charter of growing in a more open way as a quality professional. I was simultaneously learning about my professional needs while designing and executing my conference schedule.

As the days of the conference progressed, my experience adapted the use of my limited time as I was coming to understand this skill of exploratory learning. Just as in exploratory testing, “through this process, one discovery leads to another and another as you explore.” (SQE training Exploratory Testing In Practice). I adopted a session-based framework for exploratory learning that included logging the discoveries I was making with each short interview of my talented and more experienced peers. These discussions were a highly interactive process organized into a series of time boxed missions: their generous listening and providing “suggestions that might work,” to quote Gojko Adzic.

I will be better able to add permanent value to my company through the practical notes I recorded during each session that are now helping me to develop into a more mature and well-rounded quality professional, but more importantly these kind people have reawakened my love for testing and changed the conference into a transformative experience for me.

Special thanks to my benefactors: Lee Copeland, Janet Gregory, Dale Perry, James Bach, Michael Bolton, Selena Delesie, Jon Bach, Dale Emery, Lisa Crispin, Greg Paskal, and Dawn Cannan. You all took time out of your busy schedule to encourage me to become excellent.

I enjoyed meeting speakers Bart Knaack, Andy Kaufman, Gojko Adzic, Robert Sabourin, Paul Cavalho, Naomi Karten, and Bindu Laxminarayan as well as hearing Julie Gardiner speak.

I also enjoyed meeting my fellow conference attendees Andrew Dempster, Greg Johnson, Roy Francis, Richard Michaels, Jeremy Hart, Yvette Francino, Susan Clever, and Niclas Reimertz.

Someday I hope to meet these additional test professionals I am now following on Twitter: Lanette Creamer, Karen Johnson, Fiona Charles, Lynn McKee, Nancy Kelln, Anne-Marie Charrette, Jerry Weinberg, Brett Pettichord, Johanna Rothman, Don Gray, Esther Derby, and Elisabeth Hendrickson.

Image credit

♣ Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

♣ Archives

  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • November 2018
  • August 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2017
  • August 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011

♣ Categories

  • #testchat
  • Acceptance Criteria
  • Agile
  • Agile Testing Days USA
  • Agile2013
  • Agile2018
  • AgileConnection
  • Approaches
  • Automation
  • Better Software
  • CAST 2011
  • CAST 2012
  • CAST 2013
  • CAST2016
  • Certification
  • Change Agent
  • Coaching
  • Context
  • DeliverAgile2018
  • Design
  • Developer Experience
  • DevNexus2019
  • DevOps
  • Events
  • Experiences
  • Experiments
  • Exploratory Testing
  • Hackathon
  • ISST
  • ISTQB
  • Lean Coffee
  • Metrics
  • Mob Programming
  • Personas
  • Podcast
  • Protip
  • Publications
  • Retrospective
  • Scrum
  • Skype Test Chat
  • Social media
  • Soft Skills
  • Software Testing Club Atlanta
  • Speaking
  • SpringOne2019
  • STAREast 2011
  • STAREast 2012
  • STARWest 2011
  • STARWest 2013
  • Tea-time With Testers
  • Techwell
  • Test Retreat
  • TestCoachCamp 2012
  • Tester Merit Badges
  • Testing Circus
  • Testing Games
  • Testing Humor
  • Training
  • TWiST
  • Uncategorized
  • Unconference
  • User Experience
  • User Stories
  • Visualization
  • Volunteering
  • Weekend Testing

♣ Meta

  • Log in

Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.