• About

aclairefication

~ using my evil powers for good

Category Archives: Testing Humor

Ash-ceptance Criteria

29 Monday Apr 2013

Posted by claire in Acceptance Criteria, Approaches, Context, Testing Humor, User Stories

≈ Leave a Comment

Ash-2Weapons
Someone asked me for examples of testable acceptance criteria… Alright. Who wants some?

User story:
As Ash, I want to defend myself against deadites (undead creatures) so that I can retrieve pages from the Book of the Dead.

Acceptance criteria:
- defend from a distance
- defend at close range

Two distinct pieces of value, huh? Clearly, we need a story split here!

User story:
As Ash, I want to repurpose the stump of my right arm into a fearsome weapon so that I can defend myself against undead creatures at close range.

Acceptance criteria:
- portable
- well supported, weight-balanced
- hands-free operation
- use available materials
- holds up under stress
- close-range fighting

Technical implementation:
- leather harness
- chainsaw mounted on handcuff
- chainsaw pull operated via bracket on harness

User story:
As Ash, I want another weapon for my left hand so that I can defend myself against undead creatures at a distance.

Acceptance criteria:
- portable
- easy storage
- one-handed operation
- uses available materials
- distance fighting

Technical implementation:
- sawed-off shotgun
- uses right-hand-mounted chainsaw to saw off shotgun (story dependency or taking advantage of existing features?)
- convenient back holster

Bonus feature/discovered value:
- clever shorthand terminology: “Boomstick”

By now, the distinction between testable user story acceptance criteria focused on user value and the resulting technical implementation should be painfully clear. Groovy?

Tonight’s episode is brought to you by: the beauty of claymation, the number 2, and the words Klaatu… verata… n… Necktie. Nectar. Nickel. Noodle.

Image source

Wedding Crashers

27 Friday Jul 2012

Posted by claire in Experiences, Testing Humor

≈ 1 Comment

There comes a time in every woman’s life when her friends announce their engagements. The joy she feels about the momentous occasion of the wedding carries her through the mundane details of choosing what to wear and shopping for a gift to wish the newlyweds well. With wedding showers appearing on the horizon, I knew it was time to go back into the fray of shopping at the mall.

American custom encourages couples settling down into a life together into a frenzy of spending. Aside from the gorgeous dress, lovely ceremony, and honeymoon in some secluded far away place, couples select the accoutrement needed to establish their joint household. For younger couples who have not had long to establish their own independent living situations, these gift registries can be quite extensive. Even for couples in which the man and woman have been on their own for a while, there’s the temptation to upgrade furnishings or to plan for the grand entertaining they will do together in the future.

Granted, not all of the domestic needs are so thrilling as fine china. A house needs brooms, wastebaskets, and the like to function well, so some kind friend or wedding guest is likely to select these items as practical assistance. While it might not make for a thrilling hunt, for me it has always been an adventure to find the right items, in the right price range, in the right store.

Last night was one such quest. I steeled myself for the arduous task of tracking down registry items and then plunged in. Wielding my trusty laptop, I expertly navigated to the wedding website and found the registry links. Although I only had experience with single-retailer registries, I encountered the innovation of aggregate registry websites in all their glory, allowing couples to gather treasures from far-flung places together into a unified whole. After some contemplation, I decided upon some likely candidates and clicked the links to review the items more closely.

One aspect of registries that makes them so appealing is the automated coordination of purchases. Since so many well-wishers like to provide gifts a couple really need or want, some items are more likely candidates than others. Desired quantities, purchased quantities, and quantities remaining abound, requiring real-time accurate updates. It has been my experience that these quantities are seldom correct and that the updates are slow and unreliable. Therefore, I resolved to pursue a defensive shopping strategy.

First, I found the item of interest on the registry site. Then, I searched for the most convenient location with the item available. Next, since I would rather not venture out after work only to fruitlessly tug on locked doors, I carefully read over the store hours. As it turned out, the online registry location functionality for this particular retailer’s site did not synchronize with their regular location search and the selected store’s open and close times were both listed as “none”. Having recently arrived at a local bookstore only to find that it had closed for good that week, I had no desire to drive around trying to find an open location. Fortunately, the regular store location search was working, revealing the actual hours of operation as well as the handy main phone number.

As I worked my way through the phone tree to an actual human, I was transferred several times incorrectly and ended up needing to redial, which was a small price to pay to avoid driving all over creation to find the gifts. Eventually, the helpful staff member listened to the numeric item identifier as I repeated it over the phone and manually entered it into the system. However, being a savvy saleswoman, she also knew better than to trust the inventory displayed at her terminal and actually pulled the item from the floor for me, holding it at the counter since I was heading right over to purchase it.

Upon arrival, I wound my way through the various displays and discovered the item in the expected department of the store where the saleswoman found me. The transaction went relatively smoothly, aside from the obligatory sales pitch of the retailer’s branded credit card finding no purchase – though they did sneak me onto their mailing list by offering to email me a receipt. I was all set to head on to the next location when I realized my error: while I had remembered to ask for a gift receipt – granted only after the transaction was tendered – I had entirely forgotten to mention the registry! She directed me to the wedding consultants and the heart of the store.

I tentatively crept past the immaculate displays of place settings I couldn’t afford and that would never be practical with small children in the household until I found the wedding registry consultant with the power to correct my mistake. She was an older woman with neat fingernails, adequate computer skills, and familiarity with my problem. She started the registry software whose interface looked like it had been designed in the early ’90s and struggled to recall the process. She pulled out a notebook scrawled with her somewhat indecipherable handwriting and flipped through trying to find her tips & tricks for this particular task. She resorted to pulling out a large binder that was a mashup of store policies and user manual and found the page of instructions.

Not wanting to rush her but slightly impatient to venture on to the next mall for additional purchases, I read the instructions upside-down from across the desk. They were relatively straightforward but clearly not routine for this user. She looked up the bride’s name, found the registry, and eventually unearthed the screen that allowed altering the quantities for desired, purchased, and received and edited them directly. Before sending me on my merry way, she caught her own deviation from process and navigated to a different window where she again scrolled through a dense grid of product data before finding the item I purchased. She entered my name as the purchaser and the price I paid before attempting to save. An error message popped up and I could tell that this was not meant for human consumption, referring to some internal error code. When she tried again, a different error occurred, resulting in application crash. She fell back to hardcopy, scrawling the details for a later second attempt.

Having thus far survived my shopping ordeal, I doggedly drove to the next mall and planned my rapid strike and escape. This store wasn’t in the mall proper, removing some of the harrowing details or the earlier endeavour. Inside, I wandered until I found the item and then stood dutifully in line until a helpful saleswoman heard me mention the registry. I was pulled out of line to visit a separate kiosk that did not recognize the bride’s name or the groom’s name. After some reflection, the saleswoman mentioned that aggregate registries did not interface with individual retailer registry systems, preventing me from automatically reporting this sale. I forked over the money and toted my prizes back to the car, knowing that I was not yet finished, with the troubleshooting of reporting the bricks & mortar sale to the online aggregate registry system remaining ahead of me.

Still, upon reflection, discovering a bug in the online system and crashing a desktop application without even touching it is all in a day’s work for a software tester, so I can wrap my hard won gifts, don my party frock, and go off to celebrate the wedding with the satisfaction of a job well done.

Image source

Yo dawg, I herd you like ET

19 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by claire in Context, Experiences, Experiments, Hackathon, Retrospective, Testing Humor

≈ 1 Comment

I wrote out my Lab Days experience recently but didn’t get to bring you down the rabbit hole with me to experience the recursive testing goodness.

My project for Lab Days was an enhanced logging tool, but the logging is the heart of the matter, with users putting it through its paces much more stringently then the analysis functionality.

Since I usually do exploratory testing of applications at the day job and the time pressure of Lab Days left little room for formal test cases anyway, I decided to try out a new exploratory testing session logger: Rapid Reporter.

I didn’t have a lot of time to devote to learning Rapid Reporter, so I didn’t bother reading any documentation or preparing myself for how it worked, essentially exploratory testing my exploratory testing tool while exploratory testing my application under test.

It turns out this kind of recursive testing experience was just what I needed to liven things up a bit, all in the spirit of trying something new! I discovered that rapidly learning about a session logger while testing/learning a session logger, pulling log entries from an original session log, and reporting bugs via a session/chat room (HipChat) made for some perilous context-switching. More than once during the day, I had to stop what I was doing just to get my bearings.

I clearly enjoyed the experimentation because I decided to repeat the experience, though with a little less context-switching, when we upgraded our usual ET tool: Bonfire. The funniest thing about using Bonfire after working on my Lab Days project was that I realized there were tags available for log entries but the tagging indicators weren’t the same as our choice for our usability testing tool. I kept trying to use the tagging that I’d been testing all week and had to retrain myself, improving their documentation as a result of my questioning.

Still, seeing how another logging tool uses tags gave me some functionality to consider for our usability logger: how would users want to interact with tagged log entries? Clearly time to circle back with my UX designer to discuss some enhancements!

Image generated here

Three heads and a tiara

08 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by claire in Experiences, Soft Skills, Testing Humor

≈ 2 Comments

(Trying out a shorter and more casual post style, so let me know if you like it!)

Tiara

The other day I went into our office building’s bathroom down the hall. When I went to wash my hands, I noticed a white box sitting on the counter by the sink and saw that it contained a tiara, of all improbable things.

Since it was getting to be the end of the workday on a Friday, I thought someone surely would need this for some social event over the weekend. Having only one female coworker – and she’s not a pageant contestant – I hoped it would be a lady in one of the neighboring offices and went knocking on doors. Unfortunately, the two people who answered were males who looked at me strangely.

Fortunately, one of them, a man whose first language was likely Russian, allowed for the possibility that something might just be lost in translation and took me to his HR colleague. When I explained the same thing to her, she asked the other woman in their break room about it and then followed me back down the hall to see for herself. I appreciated that she allowed for the possibility that I might be reporting something factual.

Having reported the strange observation, I left the situation in her capable hands and hoped that she found a resolution since the tiara was not still on the counter when I returned on Monday morning.

While I would like to say that I didn’t recognize the you-so-crazy looks these level-headed people were giving me, I have had enough odd bug reports to discuss with developers that I know well the look that developers favor when I approach them with a bug report: I clearly had sprouted two more heads. That had to explain the strange things I was spouting. And I certainly do appreciate the ones who willingly suspend their disbelief – or indulge their curiosity – long enough to investigate my strange claims.

Of all the people who could have found the tiara and reported its presence for claiming, at least I knew from day-to-day work experience what it was like to have three heads.

Image source

Monkey testing

23 Monday Jan 2012

Posted by claire in Testing Humor

≈ 1 Comment

Monkey chain

I discovered the term “metal monkey” today and found myself quite amused. Though it sounds like a term a barfly might use in requesting the next round of shots for his compatriots, the metal monkey turns out to be a Chinese astrological symbol, an apt subject for today’s Chinese New Year.

Metal monkeys are like testers in that they are:

  • inquisitive in the extreme, needing continual stimulation to keep themselves interested and amused
  • highly adaptable and versatile
  • enthusiastic about everything, spending time broadening their minds
  • inventive and intelligent, solving most problems quickly and skillfully
  • assimilating facts, figures, skills, and techniques quickly
  • passionate, demonstrative, strong, sophisticated, and independent

Another interesting aspect of the Chinese astrological calendar is that the element metal and the animal monkey correspond not just to years but also to days within years:

Once in two months, in the night of a Metal Monkey day (according to the sexagenary cycle in the Chinese calendar), while one sleeps, the three demons leave the body and go to the Heavenly god and report to him the sins of the person they inhabit. Then the Heavenly god shortens one’s life span according to one’s bad deeds.
– Annie Pecheva

Here is another aspect of the 3 monkeys that mirrors what testers do: report on the failures of the whole to the powers that be. Now, we don’t want to be termed demons, so we must do this respectfully but honestly. We must also be careful to focus on what is most important or be accused of nothing better than random or automated testing.

See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil

Ford! There’s an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet they’ve worked out.
– The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

In contrast, monkeys are also used to reference randomly producing input, both for the infinite monkey theorem, in which monkeys on typewriters (or rather “an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters and symbols ad infinitum”) produce Shakespeare, and for software testing. For programmers, a monkey test is a unit test that runs with no specific test in mind. For software testers, a manual monkey test would be on-the-fly random application tests that ignore typical usage. An automated “dumb monkey test” would be an automated testing tool sending random input to the application through the user interface, which although at first seeming to have little value can produce hangs or crashes in applications, “i.e. the bugs you least want to have in your software product.”

For user experience professionals, a wireframe monkey merely churns out rapid prototypes rather than performing ideation and problem solving. Yet another mindless monkey.

Given the choice between monkeys, I myself would prefer to be metal.

Image source

♣ Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

♣ Archives

  • 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
  • Approaches
  • Automation
  • CAST2011
  • CAST2012
  • Certification
  • Context
  • Experiences
  • Experiments
  • Exploratory Testing
  • Hackathon
  • ISTQB
  • Metrics
  • Podcast
  • Publications
  • Retrospective
  • Scrum
  • Social media
  • Soft Skills
  • STAREAST2011
  • STAREAST2012
  • STARWest2011
  • Tea-time With Testers
  • Techwell
  • TestCoachCamp2012
  • Tester Merit Badges
  • Testing Circus
  • Testing Humor
  • Training
  • TWiST
  • User Stories
  • Volunteering
  • Weekend Testing

♣ Meta

  • Log in

Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.