Arkisto: January 2013



Avoiding Responsibility, or Ignorance?

30. Januaryta, 2013 | Kirjoittaja: Antti Niittyviita

Web services are made to be cooler and cooler. They successfully respond to the increasing variety of terminals. Top products are launched onto the market on a daily basis. Each one has links to social media, and a user interface that is sheer deliciousness. Be it for either business or consumer clients, people make efforts to produce good functionality in web services and for good user experiences.

Quite often the product owners order works from the experts of software development and they are also taking care of testing. They are whistling past the graveyard.

Despite all that, there remains nearly always a black hole in building web services. Behind its event horizon there is something, which no one knows inkling about.

The non-functional areas of web services, such as information security and performance have a central role to play in building a successful web service. Despite this, the responsibility of taking care of them almost always remains in a grey zone. The question remains awkwardly hanging in the air like a dark rain cloud whenever a third party testing partner sits at a meeting and opens his or her mouth.

The client is responsible for the new product’s ability to fill in the criteria of the business. The developer is responsible for making sure that these criteria are met. The service provider running behind the scenes is the same which they have always used. Everyone thinks they are satisfied.

Yet, for example, the response times of a service has been noted to be a key factor for the money streams in a web business:

It is in everyone’s best interest, without an exception, that the provided service works. Regardless of what role you are in, be it the service provider, client, supplier or the tester, remember to bring this up: Who is responsible?! Answer it!

If Apple were like All the Others

2. Januaryta, 2013 | Kirjoittaja: Antti Niittyviita

If Apple were a computer manufacturer among all the others, it would say “We make fine computers. We do this by designing beautiful machines and straightforward user interfaces. Do you want to buy one?”

Nah. Boring!

However, Apple is not just another computer manufacturer. Apple has in its disposal exactly the same resources, world economy and market as all the others. Despite this, its coffers are bursting with billions of dollars and their profits are astronomical one year after another. Apple’s method of operation differs from the others by a profound way.

Apple starts like this: “We believe that familiar practices should be challenged. We believe that it is worth it for the modern man to think different. We do this by designing beautiful machines and straightforward user interfaces. We just happen to make fine computers. Do you want to buy one?”

Apple’s actions, mindscape and communication is the exact opposite to all the others. From both the companies and the people.

Every person on Earth knows what he is doing. A large part of them also know how to do it. Remarkably few, however, know the answer to the question of why. The reason for why they get up in the morning. A purpose.

The majority of people and the companies think, act and communicate in this order:

  1. What?
  2. How?
  3. Why?

Apple and other success stories do it exactly the other way around.

People often lament that testing is still not a very respected field. Oh, gee, I wonder why?

I get up in the morning, because I am burning with desire to make happen top quality products, which the end users can enjoy. In addition, I promise to help make software development more profitable. I do this by hunting down bugs through the means of exploratory testing already during the development cycles. Testing is my work.