• About
  • Giving Back

aclairefication

~ using my evil powers for good

Monthly Archives: February 2012

Tester Merit Badges live with 1 week to go for February!

22 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by claire in Approaches, Experiments, Exploratory Testing, Techwell, Tester Merit Badges, Training

≈ 1 Comment

With only a week left in February, I’ll be wrapping up my own trial of the first Tester Merit Badge and posting my results, so I encourage you to try it for yourself. Do let me know if you’re playing along at home!

For reference, here is the introduction and here is the motivation.

Originally posted on the Techwell blog, the badge description is reposted here for convenience:

Tester Merit Badge - Explorer

Tester Merit Badge: Explorer

Skill challenge: Try exploratory testing
Requirements
1. Know Your Maps.

Be able to explain different approaches to exploratory testing (e.g. testing tours, chartered session-based testing, freestyle)

Some web resources:
Session-based testing
Scenario testing
Exploratory testing in agile

Some books:
Crispin, Lisa; Gregory, Janet (2009). Agile Testing
Whittaker, James (2009). Exploratory Software Testing

2. North, South, East, West.

Who says scripted test cases can’t be exploratory? Just because you have a protocol written down doesn’t mean your brain turned off when you began to execute it. As you go along working through a set of instructions, perhaps drawing from a user manual if you lack test scripts or specific test cases, keep your eyes open for what is going on around you, not just what fits the happy path of the case. Make notes of testing ideas and chase down something that’s off-script and keep track of what you do as you go along. If no test scripts or highly structured test cases exist for a particular aspect you want to test, skip ahead to requirement #3.

3. How Long and How Far.

Using an existing reference (if any) estimate the time to exploratory test an aspect of a feature of a software product. If you have been using test cases or test scripts for this testing, then use those as jumping off points for your exploration but don’t follow them. I tend to make a list of some test ideas and then pick and choose which ones to attempt during a particular exploratory session. If no ready-made resources exist for a particular aspect you want to test, skip ahead to requirement #4.

4. Walk the Distance.

Estimate time exploratory test an aspect of a feature of a software product without the aid of any existing materials. Use your knowledge and experience to take an educated guess at what needs to be done and build up a guess-timate. We’re going for ballpark and not precision here. Then, try it and see how close you were. That’s the beauty of iterative learning.

5. Map Maker. Map of the Place. Make a Model.

I see these physical representations of travel as essentially the same when it comes to software testing. This one is about precisely describing what you observe, which makes it a perfect artifact of your exploratory session. This could be a site map, a pairing of requirements description snippets with implemented user interface components, or even a sketch of different paths through a block of code (if you’re doing some white box preparation for your exploratory testing). We want to show what we observed rather than what we expect, so you can explicitly record your expectations if that helps you to clear your mind for the road ahead.

6. Finding Your Way Without Map or Compass.

Freestyle! Do some testing without any more explicit structure than a time box. Give yourself 15 minutes to wander around in an application without stating a particular agenda. You might even try accessing a piece of software through a less favored access point (e.g. a traditional website viewed from a smart phone).

7. Trail Signs Traffic.

This is an opportunity to write a different kind of test guide for another tester to follow. If we stick to the trail metaphor, you want to provide indications of the way out of the woods but you don’t dictate how the hiker travels between the boles of the trees bearing the blaze (or if you’re a big nature nerd the piles of rocks and sticks with their encoded messages about the trail ahead). I think Whittaker’s landmark tour is particularly apt for this example, so I recommend picking a part of your app to extract some landmarks. Avoid step-by-step instructions about how to wander between these milestones! You want to recognize the variation in execution that naturally occurs, even in the presence of a test script. In this case, doing it differently is a strength since you collectively will cover more of the application over time, although you may not encounter exactly the same scenery along the way.

8. Bus and Train Maps.

Use a publicly available source to map out a test. If you have a user manual for the application under test, that would be a good source for producing an expected route through an application. Just like a driver stuck in traffic, you don’t need to adhere to the planned route, so feel free to follow any detours that seem like better alternatives if you are feeling blocked or just want to take a more scenic route. Lacking a user manual for this particular product, try a description of some similar or competing product. Again, we’re exploring here, so having an inexact guide is no barrier to the experiment.

 

When you complete any or all parts of these badge “requirements” take a moment to reflect on whether the technique could be helpful to you in your regular testing work. You don’t have to migrate away from your current approach, but having some options always helps me to switch it up a bit when testing starts to feel monotonous – and I really think I’m doing it wrong when testing bores me! There is always too much testing to complete, so I certainly need to go exploring more often.

Drop me a line or post a comment here to let me know how the experiment went for you and I’ll post my own results here within the month.

Happy testing!

Image source (embroidered version of this image)

This could be real good

03 Friday Feb 2012

Posted by claire in Agile, Experiments, Retrospective, Scrum

≈ Leave a Comment

It's Groundhog Day!

Something is different.
– Good or bad? (Rita)
Anything different is good…
but this could be real good. (Phil)
— Groundhog Day

I’m a relatively young ScrumMaster, so I adopted a retrospective pattern that a colleague suggested to me at the beginning of my tenure. We have been using that same approach for sprint retros for 6 months and it gets the job done. Still, I found myself bored with doing the same old thing for our release retro this month and was concerned about not getting the desired benefit from the process. So I grabbed a promising technique from the Agile Retrospective Resource Wiki called the Four L’s, which Mary Gorman and Ellen Gottesdiener of EGB Consulting developed as a variation of the World CafĂ© since they “wanted some variety in eliciting feedback, collectively sharing that feedback and exploring action possibilities.”

The wiki suggests using the Four L’s for “iteration and project retrospectives as well as for retrospection of training and conference events” with a duration of 30 minutes to 2 hours. My 6-member cross-functional team used this technique to reflect on a release and limited our time to an hour, though that wasn’t a hard cutoff. In the context of our release retrospective and the hospitable space of our team meeting room, we gathered our diverse perspectives to explore questions that mattered about how our release went. I titled each of 4 large sticky notes Liked, Learned, Lacked, and Longed For, hanging them side-by-side on a single wall, which was a variation of the suggestion to move around the room. We set a timer of 15 minutes to generate initial feedback for all 4 categories simultaneously and began scribbling madly on uniformly yellow stickies with our Sharpies. Our team ran dry of serious contributions before the time was up, but I think time-boxing activities tends to drive us to get ideas out more quickly.

We read each sticky note’s single idea aloud and then clustered the notes around themes when there was overlap, listening together for patterns and insights. Then, we discussed the whole category among ourselves, hearing out each person’s comments with understanding and humor (we don’t take ourselves too seriously) since we encourage everyone’s contribution to the conversation. We were happy with our technical skills and technologies, but more importantly we have jelled as a team, or made it through the Norming phase of Tuckman’s model. Characteristically, my team identified our successes but did not dwell on them as much as our areas for improvement. We decided we might use the gathered data to satisfy the lacked or longed for items. We posted the following collective discoveries prominently in our team room:

  • Iteration
  • Continuous Planning
  • Continuous Research
  • Communication
  • Feedback (outside the walls)

These needs resonate with some of the Agile Manifesto principles:

  • Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage.
  • Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.
  • The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.
  • Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.
  • At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

In our efforts to optimize our agility, we are learning from our team’s past and planning for the future so that our results could be real good.

♣ Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

♣ Archives

  • November 2024
  • 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
    • Reliability
  • 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.