Better Software - May 2008 - (Page 21)

Test Connection thing for too long, or to the wrong thing. In this case, I run a risk of falling into inattentional blindness, a psychological phenomenon wherein we can miss significant things that are happening right in front of our eyes [4]. I’ve found that consistent alternation between focusing and defocusing—looking at some detail, then looking at the big picture, then looking at some other detail—helps keep me engaged and helps me see a different set of potential problems. Put the machine to work. If it’s genuinely better done by a machine, get a machine to do it. If I’m doing something that is monotonous and repetitive that includes a decision that the machine can make, there’s a good chance that some little tool I cobble together will be extensible or reusable. Moreover, I need to exercise programming skill regularly, or I get rusty quickly. The risk is that automating a task limits my observations to things that I can program the machine to observe, greatly reducing my ability to spot an unanticipated problem. I have to consider opportunity cost. That reminds me to … Assess cost vs. value. My boredom might be a subconscious trigger that I’m doing something that’s not terribly valuable. Maybe I’m whacking on an empty piñata and the value of what I’m doing no longer supports the cost of doing it. Perhaps it’s not just uninteresting to me but uninteresting to my client, too. That leads me to the … Mission check. Maybe I should have a chat with my client or manager to make sure that we agree that I’m doing something worthwhile. Their perception of risk might not match what I’ve been observing in the product. If my client isn’t currently available, I might change my focus to recording so that I’m prepared when she comes back. I like to manage this by using session-based test management and time-boxing my testing charters. In organizations that don’t use this approach, I’ll deliberately change charters on my own every ninety minutes or so. That helps keep me fresh, because the end of a session marks a good time to … Just take a break. Go for a walk, read a magazine, take a bike ride, grab a coffee, get a snack, run an errand, or have a shower. Over the years, I’ve noticed a lot of people who are virtually chained to their desks. They claim it’s because they have important work to do and that they can keep flow going. Fair enough, but if they’re genuinely in flow, they’re engaged—not bored. Making some change to clear out the cobwebs is important, too, sometimes. Just now for instance, I’ve glanced at one magazine, read an article in another, reflected on my process, and come up with some ways to make my testing more engaging and more valuable. Now, back to work. Here’s a key heuristic: Testing is only boring if you’re not doing it well. Maybe you’re bored because the information you’re seeking is trivial, you’re not in control of your own process, you’re not learning anything new, the tests that you’re running and the observations you’re making are rote and mechanical (and therefore probably best left to automation), or you’re stuck in a rut. Testing is interesting and fun when you feel like you’re seeking important information, when you get to make choices about your process, when you’re learning, and when the tests and observations are something that you believe only a human—and maybe only you—could do as well as you can. {end} referenceS: [1] Franklin, Nancy, “Patients, Patients” in New Yorker, February 4, 2008. www.newyorker.com/ arts/critics/television/2008/02/04/080204crte _television_franklin [2] Gosline, Anna, “Bored?” in Scientific American Mind, December, 2007. www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?id=bored--find-something-to-live-for [3] Bach, James and Bach, Jon, “Exploratory Testing Dynamics,” www.satisfice.com/articles/ et-dynamics.pdf. See also Bach, Jon, Inside the Masters’ Mind: Describing the Tester’s Art, STAREAST 2006, Orlando, FL. [4]Visual Cognition Lab at viscog.beckman.uiuc .edu/djs_lab/ What obstacles do you encounter that diminish your engagement with your process? What do you do to get around them? Follow the link on the StickyMinds.com homepage to join the conversation. www.StickyMinds.com MAY 2008 BETTER SOFTWARE 21 http://www.blackbaud.com/QAcareers http://stephanie.mcdonald@blackbaud.com http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2008/02/04/080204crte_television_franklin http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2008/02/04/080204crte_television_franklin http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2008/02/04/080204crte_television_franklin http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bored--find-something-to-live-for http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bored--find-something-to-live-for http://www.satisfice.com/articles/et-dynamics.pdf http://www.satisfice.com/articles/et-dynamics.pdf http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/ http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/ http://StickyMinds.com http://www.blackbaud.com/QAcareers http://www.StickyMinds.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Better Software - May 2008

Better Software - May 2008 Contents Mark Your Calendar Contributors eLightenment Technically Speaking Code Craft Test Connection Management Chronicles Cover Story: It's A Bug! The Chivalrous Team Member Let's Talk Agile Product Announcements 10 Things You Might Not Know About... The Last Word Ad Index

Better Software - May 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.