bookmark_borderIt’s a Beautiful Day

I may have mentioned this on the old blog, but I’m pretty sure I haven’t mentioned it here yet. O’Reilly media recently released Beautiful Testing – a collection of essays from a variety of testing professionals (including yours truly).

Book cover of Beautiful Testing

I received my copy over the weekend (much to the annoyance, I’m sure, of several other authors who are about to rebel against the empire if their copies don’t show up soon). I’m happy to have mine, and although I read the entire book in digital format, I’ve been flipping through it off and on for the last 3 days. I’m thrilled to be a part of it, but I have to tell you that I’m more excited after reading it again and finally holding it in my hands. The variety of information, styles, and knowledge is fascinating – each one opening up different possibilities and questions to ponder. It’s a fun read that I hope you check out. Best yet, the proceeds from the book all go to buying mosquito nets to help prevent malaria in Africa – what a great opportunity to get some practical testing advice and help out those in need!

bookmark_borderSettling on Quality?

Oh my – another quality post. I’m afraid I’m starting a trend for myself, but I have a story to share.

As all gainfully employed workers in the tech field will tell you, we all have side jobs as tech support for all members of our immediate and extended families. This weekend, my mother-in-law opened a support ticket with me regarding her laptop – it was crashing randomly (that’s all the details you get when your m-i-l opens a support ticket).

So – I turned on her laptop, let it boot, then dealt with message after message from applications starting up and telling me stuff I didn’t care about. A backup program telling me that it needed a product key, an external hard drive utility telling me the drive wasn’t connected (duh), and an OEM replacement for windows wireless config launching to tell me I’m connected to a wireless network. The experience was annoying. But there’s a bigger problem. As I was looking at the 3 different web browsers installed and the few dozen or so other random programs and utilities installed, my first thought was “no wonder she’s having computer problems – she’s installed every app under the sun”. I always try to keep my main work machines somewhat “clean” – only installing applications I consider tried and true for worry that they’ll mess something up. Then I realized that’s wrong – I should be able to install whatever the hell I want without fear of losing overall quality (who knows – maybe I can and it’s all a mental problem on my end). The point is, that we (computer users) don’t seem to expect software to work. We’re not as surprised, alarmed, or pissed off as we should be when software doesn’t work correctly. Honestly – I’ve belittled people in the past for calling things bugs when they’re 99.99% user error, but I was wrong – user error or not, that .01% matters.

Ok, so software sucks. It really doesn’t matter – it’s still a profitable industry. That’s true, but I wonder how long it will be true. I wonder if something horrible (even worse than Windows ME** :}) has to happen before the world demands higher quality software. My hope is that we can start making better software long before something like that happens.

Oh – as far as my mother-in-laws computer goes, there was a crash dump on the machine. I attached a debugger and poked around a crash in the wireless driver. I put a later rev of the driver on the machine and so far, so good. I hope it stays that way…for at least a little while.

bookmark_borderFinding Quality

Leave it to Adam Goucher to beat me to the punch line. When I proposed that breaking down your definition of quality to a manageable set of ilities is a reasonable method for improving customer perceived quality, the logical next step is to try and find out which of the ilities you need to care about. Adam suggestion was:

Want to improve v2? Talk to customers of v1 and ask which of the ilities they suffer the most from. And/or talk to people who didn’t buy your software and ask them which ility chased them away. Those are the ones that count.

Perfect answer, but keep in mind that the questions you ask are critical. You can’t ask “do you want the product to be more reliable”, or even “from this list, choose the one you care about the most”. For former question will always result in a “yes” answer, and the second will probably just result in confusion. Instead, you can ask questions like “tell me what you like most about the software (or what you dislike the most”. Ask open ended questions and take notes – take lot’s of notes. After  you’ve talked to a good sample of customers, break the notes into individual comments and start sticking them on a wall. Look for affinity – start grouping items and looking for themes. Then, see if an ility aligns with a theme. Eventually, you’ll have a bunch of big fat quality bulls-eyes on the wall waiting for you to address.

I have one minor nit where Adam missed the mark – you don’t have to wait until v1 is out to collect this data. If your software team is worth their salt, they’ve defined the customer segments they care about far before v1 hits the street. Interview customers from that segment and ask them questions like “this product does foo, what do you expect a high quality product that does foo to do?”, or “what would make you want to use a product like this?” or “what would make a product that does foo unusable for you?”

The fun part is that I’ve sort of done this (in a very general way), and have a list (that certainly won’t work for every piece of software in the world, but is worth discussing). I haven’t yet figured out how to push the dial on these ilities, but but that’s what I’m going to try and figure out – using this blog as a sounding board while I think.

bookmark_borderIn Search of Quality

If you ever want to start a great discussion / debate with a group of testers, ask them to define quality and come up with measurements.“Quality” is such an overloaded term that it’s hard to get people to agree. The Weinberg fans (I suppose I’m one of them) will cite their mentor and say “Quality is Value (to some person)”. To that, I say fine – define Value and tell me how to measure that! Most of the time, I think measuring quality is similar to how Potter Stewart defined pornography when he said “it’s hard to define, but I know it when I see it”. I’ll admit that in many situations, the value of gut-feel and hunches about quality outweigh some of the quantitative attempts some organizations use. Unfortunately, I see many quality “experts” throw the baby out with the bathwater and dismiss quantitative metrics simply because they’re easy to get wrong.

If you ask most teams how they measure quality, they’ll probably tell you they measure code coverage, count test cases, track bugs found during different activities and a number of other engineering practices. They’re not improving product quality – they’re improving engineering quality. Now, improving engineering quality is a good thing too – it does a lot to decrease risk and increase confidence, but it does diddly-squat to improve the customers perception of quality. So here’s a conundrum – how do you measure perception before you can get someone to perceive it? One way is to define scenarios, and attempt to use the software like we think customers will use it, all the while noting where it’s difficult, or where something goes wrong, then working to get those issues fixed. In the end, we still cross our fingers and hope they’ll like what we gave them.

But I’m wondering if there’s a better way to make software our customers like (and perceive to be of high quality). Wikipedia has a great list of the ilities – attributes that lead to system quality, but the list is huge. If you attempt to improve that many items at once, you may as well work on nothing at all. But suppose you knew which of those ilities were most important to your most important customer segments. My hypothesis is that if you focus on pushing the bar on a small set of quality attributes that customer perception of quality will improve. It’s not easy (again – why some people just give up completely on metrics), but I think it can work.

Think of this scenario: You’re leading a team on v2 of their software. You ask them to “improve quality”. If their heads don’t spin and explode, they may ask to hire more testers or make plans to increase code coverage, or they may just ignore you because quality is too hard to measure. Or, you could tell your team they need to focus on reliability, usability, and compatibility (areas you know your customers care the most deeply about). You provide them with checklists and other aids to help them think about these areas more deeply as they work on v2. You may even come up with some measurements or models that show how much the team is improving in those areas.I’m fairly confident one of those approaches will lead to quality software 99 times out of 100.

I’ll dig into some of my favorite ilities and speculate how to improve them in future posts.

Ed: added the rest of the Weinberg quote because so many people were annoyed I left it out.


I’ve been blogging for nearly 5 years now. When I first started, I didn’t think I wanted to be a blogger – I just wanted a place to interact with customers. I quickly realized that I liked writing and started to study writing and used blogging to work on my writing.

Now, 5 years later, I’ve written half a dozen magazine articles, most of one book, and a chapter from another, and written hundreds of blog posts. Now it’s time for something new.

Today, I’m not exactly sure what’s going to be new, but I have realized for a while that I wanted to move my blog away from the msdn hosted blogs and onto a new site. I’ve owned for close to a decade now, and decided that it was time to use it (You can find the story about the name here – or at least part of it).

The content will remain the same – mostly at least, but I feel a bit more free moving my thoughts, notes, and ideas to my own little island on the web.

More to come

bookmark_borderWhy bugs don’t get fixed

I’ve run into more and more people lately who are astounded that software ships with known bugs. I’m frightened that many of these people are software testers and should know better. First, read this “old” (but good) article from Eric Sink. I doubt I have much to add, but I’ll try.

Many bugs aren’t worth fixing. “What kind of tester are you”, I can hear you shout, “Testers are the champions of quality for the customer!” I’ll repeat myself again (redundantly if I need to …) Many bugs aren’t worth fixing. I’ll tell you why. To fix most bugs, you need to change code. Changing code requires both resources (time), and it introduces risk. It sucks, but it’s true. Sometimes, the risk and investment just aren’t worth it, so bugs don’t get fixed.

The decision to fix or not to fix isn’t (or shouldn’t be) entirely hunch based. I like using the concept of user pain to help make this decision. There are 3 key factors I consider to determine user pain. These are:

  1. Severity – what’s the impact of the bug – does it crash the program? Does the customer lose data? Or is it less severe? Is there an easy workaround? Is it just a cosmetic issue?
  2. Frequency – how often will users hit this issue? Is it part of the main flow of the program, or is the issue hidden in an obscure feature. Minor issues in mainline scenarios may need to be fixed, but ugly stuff in an obscure feature may slide.
  3. Customers Impacted – if you’ve done your work up front, you have an idea of who your customers are, and an idea of how many users are in (or how many you would like to be in) each of your customer segments. From there, you need to determine if the issue will be hit by every user, or just a subset. If you have the ability to track how customers are using your product you can get more accurate data here.

From here, make up a formula. Assign a value scale to each of the above and apply some math – you can do straight addition, multiplication, or add weights based on your application and market. For our purposes, let’s just add and use a 10 pt scale for each bug :}.

Bug #1, for example, is a crashing bug (10pts) in a mainline scenario (10pts) impacting 80% of the customer segment (8pts). At 28pts on the user pain scale, I bet we’re going to fix this one.

Bug #2 is an alignment issue (2pts) in secondary window (2pts) in an area used by a few “legacy” users (2pts). At 6 pts, this is a likely candidate to not get fixed.

Unfortunately, they’re not all that easy. Bug #3 is a data loss bug (10pts). It occurs in one of the main parts of the application, but only under certain circumstances (5pts) (btw – numbers are completely made up and subjective). Customer research shows that it’s hardly ever used (2pts). At 17 pts, this one could go either way. On one hand, it’s probably not worth the investment to fix. As long as the issue is understood, and there are no blind spots, leaving the bug in place is probably the right thing to do.

On the other hand, you have to weigh this with the rest of the bugs in the system. The Broken Window theory applies here – if there are too many of these medium threshold bugs in the app, quality (or at the very least, the perception of quality) will suffer. You need to consider every bug in the system in the context of the rest of the (known) bugs in the system and use this knowledge to figure out where the line is between what gets fixed and what doesn’t get fixed.

It sucks that the industry ships software with known bugs – but given the development tools and languages we have today, there isn’t a sensible alternative.


As this sits in my head, I think I’ve missed a fourth factor in the forumla: Ship Date. The proximity of ship date plays into the fix/don’t fix decison as much as the above. I’m not sure, however, whether it’s a fourth factor in the math, or if the threshold of what “value” of user pain turns into a bug fix as ship dates approach.

bookmark_borderWho Owns Quality?

On request from Adam Goucher – another excerpt from How We Test Software at Microsoft.  BTW – Adam wrote a review of HWTSAM here – although Linda Wilkinson beat him to the clever title.

This is from a section on quality in chapter 16. It’s something I believe strongly in and would love to hear your comments.

Many years ago when I would ask the question, “who owns quality,” the answer would nearly always be “The test team owns quality.” Today, when I ask this question, the answer is customarily “Everyone owns quality.” While this may be a better answer to some, W. Mark Manduke of SEI has written: “When quality is declared to be everyone’s responsibility, no one is truly designated to be responsible for it, and quality issues fade into the chaos of the crisis du jour.” He concluded that “…when management truly commits to a quality culture, everyone will, indeed, be responsible for quality.”[1] A system where everyone truly owns quality requires a culture of quality. Without such a culture, all teams will make sacrifices against quality. Development teams may skip code reviews to save time, program management may cut corners on a specification, or fudge a definition of “done”, and test teams may change their goals on test pass or coverage rates deep in the product cycle. Despite many efforts to put quality assurance processes into place, it is a common practice among engineering teams to make exceptions in quality practices to meet deadlines or other goals. While it’s certainly important to be flexible in order to meet ship dates or other deadlines, quality often suffers because of a lack of a true quality owner.

Entire test teams may own facets of quality assurance, but they are rarely in the best position to champion or influence the adoption of a quality culture. Senior managers could be the quality champion, but their focus is justly on the business of managing the team, shipping the product, and running a successful business. While they may have quality goals in mind, they are rarely the champion for a culture of quality. Management leadership teams (typically the organization leaders of Development, Test, and Program Management) bear the weight of quality ownership for most teams. These leaders own and drive the engineering processes for the team, and are in the prime organizational position for evaluating, assessing, and implementing quality based engineering practices. Unfortunately, it seems that quality software and quality software engineering practices are rarely their chief concerns throughout any product engineering cycle.

Senior management support for a quality culture isn’t entirely enough. In a quality culture, every employee can have an impact on quality. Many of the most important quality improvements in manufacturing have come from suggestions by the workers. In the auto industry, for example, the average Japanese autoworker provides 28 suggestions per year, and 80% of those suggestions are implemented[2].

Ideally within Microsoft engineers from all disciplines are making suggestions to improve quality. Where a team does not have a culture of quality, the suggestions are few and precious few of those suggestions are implemented. Cultural apathy for quality will then lead to other challenges with passion and commitment among team members.

[1] STQE Magazine. Nov/Dec 2003 (Vol. 5, Issue 6)

[2] The Visionary Leader, Wall, Solum, and Sobul

bookmark_borderGive ‘em what they want

Last night, I was sitting in bed reading the latest issue of TapeOp (music recording magazine). I used to be moderately involved in recording music, but these days I mostly just follow the trends and try to stay sharp. TapeOp has a lot of interviews with recording engineers and producers, and it’s great to hear what their thoughts were when they made some of their more famous recordings.

I feel sort of stupid that it took me until last night to notice (yet another)  interesting parallel with music and software. Recording is mostly a waterfall process. You record, then you mix, then you master. Some iteration is possible – you can record one song or a whole album before you mix – but most of the time, you finish recording, then you mix. When you’re dong mixing, you master. What’s interesting, is that there are a massive number of opinions on how to do each of these activities. Which mics are “best”? What rooms are best for recording a jazz combo? Do you record rock guitars with mics perpendicular, or at an offset? When should you use multiple mics? Where do you add eq? How loud do you make the vocals.

Then, there’s mastering – which in my opinion is awful on almost every pop or rock recording made in the last 10 years. Mastering (IMO) ruined the latest Metallica and Springsteen albums (and probably many others that I haven’t bothered listening to).

Whatever I think, the albums sold millions, and were (AFAIK, critically acclaimed). You know why – because despite the mastering – despite the fact they may have not used the best microphones or mic placements possible, it’s what the customer wanted. You can take the most well-rehearsed band in the world – use top notch equipment and fantastic production to recreate their sound exactly. You can add just the right punch and pop and remove any harshness and engineer the best recording ever.

But it doesn’t mean it will sell. Customers want something different, and if you don’t give them what you want, all you have is something that you are proud of, and not something that puts dinner on the table. Along the same lines, you can’t ignore the technical part of the process. Engineering quality still makes a difference, as long as you’re doing the right thing.

Same thing as my current day job.

bookmark_borderImprovement through practice

In music, the better you are at the basics, the better you are on the bandstand. Even the pro musicians I know practice almost every day. I think testers (and developers) forget the value of practice too often.

In The Passionate Programmer, Chad Fowler suggests doing the exercises on CodeKata. I checked them out, and sure enough, the Kata are great, and I plan to start working through them. A few years ago, I solved a bunch of problems on project euler as an exercise to keep myself sharp.

As a tester, it’s sometimes hard not to practice. As I interact with software, I often ask myself “what if” …then I try it and see what happens. But this is only “sort of” testing – it’s my tester DNA seeping out into my every day life.

I’ve been thinking about other ways to practice testing. I’m a member of uTest, but I haven’t taken the time to test anything. I suppose I could volunteer to test a non-profit’s web site or find a product I like to seriously beta-test – or I suppose I could look into volunteering a few hours a week in a MS product group.

How else do you practice testing?

bookmark_borderGUI Schmooey

I answered a few questions this week about automating GUI tests. One question was about recommendations for GUI automation tools for non-coders, and the other was about how much time to spend on the GUI in an MVC (model-view-controller) application.

The answers were easy. In the first case, I said that they weren’t going to get ROI from the effort, and they should just test the GUI manually. In the second case, I suggested that they do all of the automation ignoring the view/GUI, and test the GUI manually.

I could expand an entire post on why I gave those answers, but it doesn’t matter. I’m going to go out on a limb and make the following statement.

For 95% of all software applications, automating the GUI is a waste of time.

For the record, I typed 99% above first, then chickened out. I may change my mind again. The point is that I think testers, in general, spend too much time trying to automate GUIs. I’m not against automation – just write automation starting at a level below(*) the GUI and move down from there. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t test the GUI at all – I just don’t see why you wouldn’t want to test it manually, and get people knowledgeable in user experience to help. I just think that in most cases we are wasting our time when we try to automate GUIs, and wonder if anyone has the guts to stop.


* What I beam by a “level below the GUI” is automation that works with IAccessible or an object model rather than interacting with UI elements directly.