Diversity is important for testing, prejudice isn’t


I want the field of testing to have high diversity

  • Different personality types:
    • we need people to get ideas, and people to finish them
    • We need people to see the strategic view, and people to get into the details
  • Different backgrounds
    • We need people that can code
    • We need people that understand the business domain
  • Different business domains
    • We need testers in the field of software development
    • We need testers in the field of IT / ITIL service delivery
    • We need device testers, embedded software testers….
    • We need testers that understand the GxP regulations
    • We need testers that understand rapid and agile delivery
  • Different people
    • Parents, singles, women, men, people with kids and without
    • Young people, experienced people
    • People who take it as a lifestyle, and people to whom it’s just a job

…most of all people. People who knows that things can be done in many ways. Let’s get rid of the prejudices that testing is for the detailed and i-dotting only. Testing is about bringing information to the stakeholders about what works and what doesn’t – it’s never about “failure is not an option”.

Recently I was required to do a Cubiks Problem solving test. It’s a 12 minute online test in word patterns, calculations and geometric patterns. Apparently I “failed” to complete all in time, but had a high degree of right answers, so my score was “average” #whatever. That apparently made me perfect to the testing area… OH NO – it only tells you that I put pride in my own work. Everything else is pure speculation and prejudice, as mentioned by Gerry Weinberg in Psychology of Intelligent Problem Solving there is a challenge with these kinds of tests for problem solving – they test, but not for problem solving.

Testing is about solving problems – business problems. Like can we ship?

See also:

Read for your kids – special interest edition


If you are a parent to (early) school children you should know that it is important to read  to your kids. Reading the words out trains vocabulary, recognition, imagination, wondering etc etc. So I read subtitles from movies… because

The boys currently have Star Wars as their special interest [1], and wanted to see the “people” movies. The have played the scenes via the LEGO Video Games (GC) and have a range of the LEGO sets – so they had the basic plot already. Feature movies like Star Wars are usually subtitled in Denmark – while animation movies are dubbed [2]. So in order both to keep up with “PG” [3] and helping them read the titles – I get to watch the movies and read the subtitles…

Poor daddy, it’s almost as hard as when he has to finish the ice cream they can’t ;-)

In the last months the (soon to be) 9yo have cracked the reading code and have gone from LIX11 books to the shorter subtitles. The 11yo have rest covered, but some of the longer texts are tricky (I’m looking at you – opening Scroll).

2015-04-04 16.51.08

I tried reading Harry Potter (in Danish) but even if the story was very elaborate and detailed it didn’t catch their interest. Neither did classics from when I was a kid (Sorry Bjarne Reuter), so I had to rethink the acceptance criteria for “read for your kids“.

See these two boys are not as easily motivated – it has to tie into something they can see a direct interest in. Their autism makes them very picky on the choice of subject. What I try is to meet them where they are, expand their competencies and give them a lot of positive feedback until they master it on their own.

Links: The yardstick of mythical normalityAcceptance is more than what can be measured

  1. special interest, as in overly dedicated into the topic and cannot talk about anything else.
  2. The Danish “dubbers” are usually world class, luckily.
  3. Episode 3 is still to come, though.

Bug Return Policy


We find bugs, irregularities, this that should be there, and things that shouldn’t. From that we create a bug report, and from that someone looks into it, and then it’s a wrap. Unless the information is not returned, an no-one is the wiser. A bug report to me is a representation of an observation of the system, usually something that’s wrong. Some tools and vocabularies calls this “defects”, “bugs”, “tickets”, “incidents”. A bug report can be an email, post-it, or even a mentioning in passing [2].

Here are some recent sample headlines:
– The design is unclear, please elaborate
– With this role, I can access this, which I shouldn’t
– When I compare the requirements to the delivery list, I find these ..
– There is no data here, but there should be
– We thought we wanted this, but now we want something else

Notice that a bug report usually originates with a person, making an evaluation. This person is the tester, no matter the functional hat (SME, SDET, PO, VP). This may be tool supported, coming from a log of automated checks, or from BDD or Jenkins or what not. No matter the amount of tools, a person is making an informed decision, and raising the bug.[4] Come to think of it, she could choose to do nothing. But something is bugging her [5].

Here are some recent replies to my bug reports:
– it is by design
– it works on the development environment
– that’s how the COTS (or framework or platform) handles it
– ok, got it. seems like an easy fix
– awrh, now we have to rethink the whole thing
– Defferred, FixedUpStream, Rejected,
– Hmm, I see what you mean. Let me look into it

These replies come from some other person than the tester – let’s call him the fixer. First of all the fixer evaluates the report – he makes a decision, based on his context and his available information. Sometimes it’s an easy fix, sometimes it cannot be reasonably fixed. Sometimes the fix have diminishing returns. And everything in between.

What is very important to me, is that the fixer communicates his immediate evaluation to the tester. As quickly and transparent as possible. The fixer, to me, does not have the option to close it [1] alone. Nor can he fix the bug without letting the tester know. In the end the tester calls whether it is resolved or acceptable given the updated information. If the tester and fixer cannot agree, then call for outside help. And only then, let the two people work it out first.

The bug report and “fixer reply” has to be returned to the tester. Either the fix has to be tested, or the no-fix has to be tested too. It’s all part of the game – and it’s all integral to improve the quality in the short run – by fixing this specific project. It is an integral part in improving the quality in the long run, by adding knowledge and collaboration to the solution of the bugs found. Every bug, every clarification, every wish from the test to investigate something about the product counts towards collaborating about the quality of the solution.

TL;DR: Always direct the reply to a bug back to the person who found it.

1: Closure http://www.ministryoftesting.com/2014/11/closure/
2: Mentioning in passing, aka “mipping” http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/97
3: 3 types of bugs http://cartoontester.blogspot.dk/2010/06/3-types-of-bugs.html
4: How to raise a bug http://cartoontester.blogspot.dk/2012/10/3-steps.html
5: Something that bugs someone whose opinion matters. http://www.satisfice.com/glossary.shtml#Bug


Asking Open Questions


It has always been a good interview technique to ask open questions. Then the person being interviewed have to elaborate and talk in full sentences. In contrast to closed questions, that replied to in binary [1]: yes, no, 42 – the red pill [2]. Until now I really didn’t understand how simple yet powerful this questioning technique is in testing. I might have done it all along, for some time :-).

The primary eye opener was the Copenhagen Context 2015 [4] workshop on Exploration Under Pressure by Jon Bach. One of the treats was that he showed us a list of things to find on the ebay.com website. Not specific items, but information about the items. Finding the most expensive item, and by that stumbling over a live production bug in the max value field. Finding the number of blue shoes available etc. What a fun “online scavenger hunt” – we could battle to find the oldest, longest and most odd details etc.

Later the same week eBay Classified hosted a local meetup of “QA Aarhus” with a live demo of how they do testing sessions of their app. They had to host the session twice,  due to popular demand, and what we got was an intro to a setting of exploration, thinking loud and doing pair testing. And I got to try my new-found quest to ask open questions. To search for things – but look out of the corner of the eye for oddities and what-ifs.

But how could I apply this technique in my current testing project of migrating an HR solution for a large IT outsourcing company. I did today. A staff member allocated to the project to test during UAT [3] specifically the processes they use in the old system and to act distribute this knowledge back to the team. For reasons the testing scope in this are had yet not been established, so she didn’t really know where to start – but I did… open questions 

  • What processes do you have?
  • What kind of events do you need to register on an employee
  • Tell me more about vacation calculation
  • Where, if any, are your current processes described (I’m fallible)
  • What has likely changed comparing the old and new solution

I asked her to go as deep until no new learning could be achieved, but not to detail it in scripts or discrete steps. Because from here we have test cases – test ideas – “a question that someone would like to ask (and presumably answer) about a program



[1]: Binary replies can be checked, open questions are testing. Testing is “Testing is the process of evaluating a product by learning about it through exploration and experimentation, which includes: questioning, study, modeling, observation and inference, output checking, etc.” http://www.satisfice.com/blog/archives/1509

[2]: I have seen how deep the rabbit hole goes…

[3] Let’s pretend there is such a thing as a “user acceptance test

[4]  Disclaimer: I was part of the program committee, and by chance most speakers hosts their own testing conferences. See more on http://copenhagencontext.com/blog/2015/01/meet-jesper-at-the-copenhagen-context-conference-venue/

Pizza as a Service

Leave a comment

Snitched off the intarwebs* an illustration of Pizza as a Service. Testing services can engage with the recipient in the same way, we usually refer to this as the engagement model. I have personally experienced all the variations:

  • As a company I want deliveries, – don’t bother me with the rest
  • As a company I want deliveries, a test plan and a test report
  • As a company I want deliveries, test documents and I want to determine the tests
  • As a company I want deliveries, documents and I want to test some myself
  • As a company I want to do everything myself

pizza services

*: Credit to the maker, where ever she is.

Selected peer-reviewed publications

Leave a comment

  • Using Business Decisions to Drive Your Testing Coverage [Sticky Minds by TechWell, November 2014] In a business setting, software testers have a great challenge: to articulate how they support the business lines. One way to approach this is by addressing the business decisions—and there are plenty around. Use them to drive your testing activities and increase the business decisions being covered by testing. http://www.stickyminds.com/article/using-business-decisions-drive-your-testing-coverage 
  • The answer is: Why – because the answer depends on context.[The Testing Circus,vol.6 2.ed February 2015]: When asked about testing approaches, the options are so plentiful, that the reply is often “It depends” – and followed by a range of elaborations. But in our eager to reply, we forget to listen. http://www.testingcircus.com/february-2015/
  • About Closure [The Testing Planet by Ministry of Testing, Nov 2014] When I’m in a testing activity I want my test cases [Passed], my user stories [done] and my coffee [black].  Stuff may have a start point, some states in between and an end state. Lets look at ways to represent states and articulate the meaning of states. http://www.ministryoftesting.com/2014/11/closure/

7 articles for The Testing Planet since 2011: http://www.ministryoftesting.com/tag/jesper-lindholt-ottosen/

Lego Role Models for Girls

Leave a comment

Who had the family’s largest LEGO set his Christmas – not the boys (age 8-10), neither the “boys” (age 40 and up) – it wasn’t me* – but the 11-year-old girl and her 8 wheel 42008 Service Truck – 1276 pieces, power functions, pneumatic, gears and 44 cm forcefulness. There was no boy band merchandize, no glitter or similar gender framing. Quite a project – as is the story about the “Research Institute” mini-figure set.

42008-121110 More

Older Entries Newer Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,027 other followers