Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NZTester The Quarterly Magazine for the New Zealand Software Testing Community and Supporters
COMPLIMENTARY ISSUE 8 NOV 2014 - JAN 2015
In this issue: Interview with John Lockhart, WebTest
Testing@Kiwiplan
Dealing with Professional Manipulation
The Testing Maturity Model
Mobile Testing: Ten Best Practices
People Management in Testing
Ever Had That Sinking Feeling?
StarWest, Let’s Test Oz Conference reviews + Coffee with Viswa, Testing Events & more….
2
NZTester Magazine
Editor: Geoff Horne [email protected] [email protected] ph. 021 634 900 P O Box 48-018 Blockhouse Bay Auckland 0600 New Zealand www.nztester.co.nz
Disclaimer:
Articles and advertisements contained in NZTester Magazine are published in good faith and although provided by people who are experts in
their fields, NZTester make no guarantees or representations of any kind concerning the accuracy or suitability of the information contained
within or the suitability of products and services advertised for any and all specific applications and uses. All such information is provided “as
is” and with specific disclaimer of any warranties of merchantability, fitness for purpose, title and/or non-infringement. The opinions and
writings of all authors and contributors to NZTester are merely an expression of the author’s own thoughts, knowledge or information that they
have gathered for publication. NZTester does not endorse such authors, necessarily agree with opinions and views expressed nor represents
that writings are accurate or suitable for any purpose whatsoever. As a reader of this magazine you disclaim and hold NZTester, its
employees and agents and Geoff Horne, its owner, editor and publisher, harmless of all content contained in this magazine as to its warranty
of merchantability, fitness for purpose, title and/or non-infringement.
No part of this magazine may be reproduced in whole or in part without the express written permission of the publisher.
© Copyright 2014 - NZ Tester Magazine, all rights reserved.
Advertising Enquiries: [email protected]
3
The Journal For New Zealand Test Professionals
I’m told that while first anniversaries are a huge
ra-ra affair, seconds are far more ho-hum. Excuse us
then if we do do a little ra-ra on our front cover this
issue as it has been two years since the first issue of
NZTester Magazine was published.
It might sound a little ‘Kunta Kinte’-ish (if you
remember the Roots mini-series from the
’seventies) that our beginnings are carved into my
professional folklore - ’whilst recovering from
….yadda yadda yadda….NZTester was born!’
however we hope you’ll forgive us for carrying just
a little pride in that we made it to a second
anniversary issue. I’m told that very few
professional publications actually make it this far!
Anyway, I do have to apologise for the delay in
getting this issue out. Its been a busy period, what
with starting a new assignment plus another short
but unexpected stint in hospital means I ended up
way behind in everything that I needed to get
together. We’ve made this issue a little larger
accordingly, hope it’s worth the wait!
It also comes hot on the heels of the first NZTester
Magazine Conference held in Auckland in August
and we’ve included a few pics from this.
We also have articles from first-time NZTester
contributors Richard Sims, Peter Bink and Sid
Holmes. Regular contributor Mike Talks reviews
Let’s Test Oz and our staff writer does the honours
for StarWest 2014.
We also reveal just a little of what we’re planning
for 2015 on our Test Events page.
Lastly, this will be the final NZTester issue for 2014
and so it’s fitting that we wish everyone a Merry
Christmas and a Happy New Year. By the time this
issue is received, we’ll all be well into the annual
silly season and most of us will probably be thinking
of camping, fishing or whatever else we like to do in
the holidays.
Keep well and in touch.
IN THIS ISSUE…
Click on title...
5 NZTester Magazine Conference
8 Interview with John Lockhart Director, WebTest
10 Recognising and Dealing with Professional Manipulation Geoff Horne, Editor, NZTester Magazine
13 Testing @ Kiwiplan
15 Ever Had That Sinking Feeling? NZTester Magazine Staff Writer
20 The Testing Maturity Model Richard Sims, Planit Software Testing
26 People Management in Testing Sid Holmes, AMP
28 Mobile Testing: Challenges and Ten Best Practices
Peter Bink, Capgemini
31 Review: Let’s Test Oz Mike Talks, Datacom
38 Review: StarWest 2014 NZTester Magazine Staff Writer
REGULAR FEATURES
22 Coffee with Viswa
35 Testing Events
37 NZTester and OZTester Magazine
Back Issues
4
5
Venue:
Welcome to the NZTester Magazine Conference
Well, we did it! I’d like to be able to say without a hitch but that would be
fibbing! Despite the challenges and the repeated attempt of Murphy to
derail we went ahead and based on feedback, it appears that it was a
resounding success.
Eight-five test professionals gathered in Auckland on 13 August to add to
the thirty or so who participated in the Tutorials to attend our inaugural
conference. With the day kicking off with Matt Mansell and the Five Whys
of Testing and wrapping with a popular Panel Descussion, a healthy
energy was maintained throughout and I have to confess slipping into bed
that evening was amongst the most satisfying of exploits! Thanks to all!
6
The Conference at a quick glance:
Matt Mansell holds court!
The Software Education stand was well visited….
....as was the lunch queue
The panel session at the
end of the day proved to
be very popular. Richard
Leeke (Equinox), Vishav
Preet (Air NZ), Joshua
Raine (StatisticsNZ), Pete
Couper (IntegrationQA)
and Mat Mansell (Dept of
Internal Affairs) were
our expert panelists.
8
Our interview this issue is with John Lockhart of
WebTest. I’ve known John for a few years now and
have found his approach to testing to be professional,
pragmatic and highly sought after.
NZTester: Can you please describe WebTest?
We are a small and flexible company run by three
experienced testers to bring great staff and those
who need them together. We focus on building
ethical and trusting relationships and our testers
exhibiting the best qualities of the Kiwi IT industry -
flexibility, smarts, and a willingness to do whatever
is required to support their teams.
NZTester: What products and services does
WebTest offer?
The full range but particularly we provide agile
approaches to engagement, testing or test
automation focussing more on the test analyst
through to test lead roles, where our employment,
management and engagement models let us provide
great value to clients enabling them to often get the
benefits of outsourcing with a cost structure
equivalent to internal charge out rates.
NZTester: What do you believe makes WebTest
different?
We have a zero overhead model where by not
having physical office, marketing and other
overheads we can offer superior value and flexibility
to clients, and being full time testers/test managers
ourselves, supportive management to our staff. In
some ways we offer a full business service with a
cost structure more like a testers co-operative.
NZTester: What do you think makes a Test
Manager or Analyst come to work for
WebTest?
Those who like to work for great clients in longer
term contract types of roles but in a permanent
employment arrangement with a supportive
employer who wants to develop their careers.
NZTester: Where do you believe NZ’s approach
to testing is going well?
We’ve seen a big move to the use of and recognition
of professional tester; to testers to spend time
adding value by improving quality rather than
writing unnecessary documentation, and to high
trust engagement models that maximise efficiency.
Also, driven partly by agile and fast time to market
models, a growth in the use of automation to
remove repetitive checking and a move beyond
simplistic business case-driven big-bang last century
approaches to a more strategic commitment to
better automation models all in the seven or eight
years of WebTest’s existence. We try to play a small
role in this evolution where we can.
NZTester: Where do you believe NZ’s approach
could improve?
I personally believe that we are missing a lot of value
because we see testing documentation
(both automated and manual) and requirement/
specification documentation as different things. In
particular I believe the Specification by Example
This issue’s interview is:
John Lockhart Test Automation Specialist,
Project Manager, Director
WebTest
9
(SBE) approach taught by people such as Gojko Adzic
and pioneered partly by local Rick Mugridge and
these days being helped by others like Darren
Rowley and Nigel Charman (Assurity) is a significant
paradigm shift. It potentially greatly improves the
return on investment on time spent not just by
testers but other team members, and integrates the
role of testers and the rest of the agile team in a way
that has been lacking. I’ve seen it provide similar
benefits in traditional development models as well.
I think teams still make the mistake of thinking
quality is the responsibility of testers or can be tested
into software. I see testing more as the final polishing
process of software development, and no amount of
polishing can turn a piece of crap into a Rembrant.
Quality on the other hand should be a core driver of
all our development processes. I think people have
still not learnt the lesson of Demming that in most
circumstances higher quality, when you take into
account the indirect costs of poor quality as well as
the direct ones, always pays for itself and can’t be
over emphasised. That doesn’t mean wasting money
or being inefficient about achieving it though, in fact
the most efficient approach is often the most effective
as it is the most simple.
NZTester: Do you believe that overall the
standard of testing in NZ is improving?
Yes, certainly.
NZTester: Where do you believe the next
initiatives in testing lay? What’s coming next?
In NZ? Internationally?
As above, SBE, even though it is 15 years now since I
first came across it when seeing FitNesse, I see as a
shift missed by much mainstream agile development.
Newer models for automation which have caught on
largely as a result of Agile philosophies, have not in
my view run their course yet. I still see them as
having some stages of evolution (or perhaps
revolution!) to go through, and I think this is
reflected in the deep divisions in the testing
community and the broad spectrum of views from
the Rex Black/ISTQB to the James Bach and context-
driven people.
In parallel to this, an understanding that good testers
are valuable not because they perform repetitive
drudge-work that others don’t want to do, but
because they bring to a team a unique perspective
and intellectual approach that both supports the
team’s efforts towards quality, and provides the final
polishing and detail to both the understanding and
the delivery of the product. This changes it from one
of many so-so systems on the market to an
outstanding one that provides value and
even aesthetic enjoyment to customers and users.
NZTester: Do you have a testing horror story to
share?
More like a recurring nightmare: Rooms full of
people mindlessly executing inaccurate and
outdated manual test scripts. Managers asking
test managers how long it will be until the test team
has got the defects down to acceptable levels, when
every bug that is fixed introduces > 1 more bugs! A
move to outsourcing without allowing for the
indirect costs including but not limited to an
understanding of the mythical man month principles
now almost as old as I am!
I can’t be more specific due to confidentiality etc, but
most testers who’ve been around for a while will
have seen all of this.
Projects such as we’ve seen in the news regarding
teachers pay systems, that repeat the same mistakes I
thought we’d learnt from a decade earlier with the
police system. These often seem to involve
management teams who don’t have a development
background, and fail to include someone who does,
compensating for that by outsourcing, trusting in
CMM/ISO/ISTQB or other acronyms. It seems to also
often involving purchasing “vapour-ware” or
software requiring so much modification that it is
effectively “vapour-ware” and then not applying agile
principles, particularly the key one of getting
production quality deliverables ("thin vertical
slices”) quickly. If that was done the problems would
be revealed much more quickly and could probably
be resolved.
Editor’s comments: Thanks for making time
to write for us John. It’s certainly an evolving
world and sometimes the path moving forward is
fraught with hanging on to old adages that simply
do not make sense anymore. However that said,
I’ve always been a great proponent of ensuring
that changes are made for the better, whether it
be better quality, more timely delivery, lower costs,
rather than for merely for the sake of change - Ed.
10
Have you ever had a sense that maybe you have been played, set up or
manipulated? It’s not a nice feeling once you finally realise that this is
what might be happening to you. If you’re wondering why I’m writing
on this subject it’s because, like most of us, I’ve had my share of
allowing myself to be co-erced, cajoled, persuaded, guided or whatever
this behaviour is disguised as, into thinking or making decisions that
I really didn’t want to make. I’ve probably also been guilty of putting
others in the same position, albeit unwittingly.
Manipulative people endeavour to make you side with them or do
something they want you to do that is to their benefit, without directly
asking. Mild forms of manipulation can be found in every ‘how to win
friends and influence people’ text ever written. Sales training courses
outline similar approaches and teach persuasion tactics and ‘closing’
strategies to get people to make buying decisions. Not that there is
anything illegal, immoral or otherwise about laying out information
for others to make decisions upon however true manipulation has a
far more sinister edge.
Manipulation uses guilt, shame, threats and other nasty tricks to
achieve its aims and most of us have experienced some form of this
emotional ‘blackmail’ at some stage on our journeys. We usually learn
to spot it and deploy defensive mechanisms for our own personal
safety and protection.
However when it’s done in a professional context, there are far more
subtle tricks out there that are not so easy to spot and we sometimes
fall for these unknowingly. Such mechanisms are often presented to us
in the guise of helping to improve our prospects and use professional
exclusivity, career limiting, opportunity disappearances and other
possible implications as a result of not following a particular train of
thought, method or practice. In many instances the people concerned
are not even aware that what they are doing is classed as manipulation,
genuinely believing themselves to be acting in the best of interests.
But then there are others….!
So where does it all start? We occasionally encounter people who have
adopted rigid positions, whether around religion, politics, academia or
any other particular thought disposition, where everything is seen
through the filter of their own convictions. Not surprisingly, they see
what they’re looking for and the more they use their theories for
making sense of things, the more things seem to fit those theories.
The more that seems to fit, the more sure of themselves they become
to a point where they cannot understand why others do not see things
the way they do1.
1 Hugh MacKay, Australian psychologist, sociologist, social researcher, writer and
former teacher.
Recognising and Dealing with Professional Manipulation
by Geoff Horne, Editor, NZTester Magazine
11
Consequently, there often comes a sense of
entitlement to impose their perspectives upon
everyone else. Some of these people though are
smart and when doing so, they won’t be in the least
bit obvious. Instead they will use novel anecdotes,
new twists on old adages or intellectual mind games
to promote their world view. These come down to
the old illusionist trick of getting you to concentrate
on the primary object of focus and therefore not
notice anything outside of that frame. Coupled with
a dose of old-fashioned charm and the well-repeated
message that it’s improving everything for everyone,
the trap is set. I remember once being collared by a
lady selling cleaning products who demonstrated a
cleaner by polishing up a very old, well-circulated
NZ 2c piece (before inflation consigned that
particular denomination to the past) – a canned
presentation designed to validate her pitch. Maybe
if I was polishing up NZ 2c pieces for a living, I might
have bought it!
We often wonder how some people can be fooled
into joining religious cults et al. However at the root
of every cult is a charismatic and charming
manipulator who is able to bend the wills of those
who are i) so thirsty for knowledge and betterment
and ii) so dissatisfied with their status quo, that they
will allow their boundaries of mind, body and spirit
to be contravened, almost as if by hypnosis.
In every profession, we find rigid-thought
propagators who believe that they have developed
the next level of practice, the new paradigm, a higher
plain of ethics or professionalism et al. Out of a sense
of misguided entitlement, they will see the need to
press down on what they perceive as the lower
plains in order to promote their message, all in the
name of betterment.
They and those whom they are able to convince and
gather around themselves may form a distinct sub-
community and often a culture will develop that
promotes the agenda, lending further credibility to
the propagator’s message. The sub-community may
give itself a cool-sounding name or title which
obviously aids in its promotion and its spread only
serves to further confirm the propagator’s supposed
correctness. In more extreme examples, members of
the sub-community may allow it to mould both their
professional and personal identities – eg I am a this,
I am a that. In professional circles, more than in
cultic, if careful investigation is undertaken it often
transpires that the propagator is significantly
benefitting financially from the spread of the
‘movement’.
The difficulty is that there are nearly always
elements of ‘bonafidity’ present. However they’re
ultimately enveloped by an infrastructure which has
no real bearing on the validity of the practice and end
up becoming secondary to the culture and the
promotion of the sub-community that adheres to it.
Finally, exclusivity emerges and this is where things
get interesting. Unfortunately in extreme cases, it
has resulted in lawsuits, lost jobs and lost livelihoods.
Parallels can be drawn with masonic lodges, ‘secret
handshakes’ and general professional discrimination
against people outside of the ‘fellowship’. Examples
of these are aplenty in the health profession and
education systems. Multi-level marketing is riddled
them and we also see presence in social programmes
such as parenting, lifestyle enhancement and certain
addiction exit initiatives.
So what to do? Learn to recognise such behaviours
and structures then deploy strategies to establish
reasonable boundaries.
Common traits of manipulative people:
· Flattery and charm – this will be poured on
thick when the proponent believes it will help
to ingratiate themselves with a person. If that
person has been subject to unaddressed
abuse, denigration, victimisation etc that
flattery will be lapped up.
· Threats and consequences – these are
usually well-veiled: comments along the lines
of “well if you’re happy to stay in that place
then…..” or “of course, our people enjoy a
much higher level of …..”; words to the effect
that you will lose out or be significantly
disadvantaged by not following the line.
· High IQ and Intelligence – many
manipulators are of well-above average
intelligence. They often try to reduce their
world-views to models then define the
criteria upon which to base their discussions
and persuasions. They ‘win’ every argument
because they have defined the models from
within which they operate.
· Intellectualising and reasoning –
manipulators can make any argument sound
12
fair and reasonable especially if the listener
has been disaffected in some manner. By
getting you focus on a specific train of
reasoning and convincing you that it’s the
only thing that matters, the manipulator can
successfully execute the illusion.
· Guilt and shame – a manipulator has a knack
of being able to turn the tables back on you
when challenged and playing the guilt card:
“well if you hadn’t been so….”, “maybe that
could have been averted if you….”, “no, that’s
OK it’s my fault that…..” etc. You may even
find yourself apologising to them!
· Fear and loathing – manipulators can resort
to demeaning, accusations, personal attacks,
credibility slating and behind-the-back
tactics. Swearing can be common as can
shouting and ranting with the intent of
creating fear and soliciting ultimate deference
to the manipulator.
· Self-righteousness and self-focus – a
manipulator has great difficulty in admitting
when they have made mistakes and in
accepting and articulating situations that
might expose faults. In short, they are never
wrong! If you want to break the flow of a
manipulator, simply tell him he is wrong and
see what happens!
These behaviours are tantamount to professional
bullying and justified in the name of betterment in
the same manner – I smack you around the head but
it’s OK because my way is right and yours is wrong.
The worst part about it is that followers become
accordingly convinced that it’s alright to behave in
this manner and start to inflict the same on others.
What to do when you realise you have been
hoodwinked in this manner:
· Extract and distance yourself from the
manipulator, the sub-community culture and
its followers. Do not attempt to fight or
change perspectives, you will only frustrate
yourself no end (this is the voice of
experience speaking). The only thing you can
change is your reaction to the behaviour and
focus.
· Understand that you have fallen for an
illusion and that the manipulation does not
represent a full reality and possibly only a
very small part of it. Know that plenty of
others have been taken in before you and
there will be plenty more after.
· Stand firm on what you know based on your
experiences and first-hand learnings. If need
be, seek out trusted counsel. Do not allow a
manipulator to take away your ability to
make your own decisions, form your own
opinions and follow your own path. Watch
out for the illusionist syndrome and above all,
maintain your professional confidences.
· Knuckle down into work with a renewed
vigour, knowing now that you have an
understanding of how and why these
situations happen and how you will be better
placed to handle in the future.
Work should be enjoyable and you should be
surrounded by people with healthy mutual respect
for each other regardless of alignment. Those who
treat others with disdain because they differ
professionally have little respect for anyone apart
from themselves. If this was not true then there
would be a reasonable co-existence, a viva la
difference and not the continued opposition and
exclusivity that we see in some circles.
There is always a bigger picture. In professional
circles where the practices can be varied there will
always be some who’s quest for betterment, no
matter how honourable the intent, will fall into the
trappings of manipulation and exclusivity. Once
caught up it can be difficult to retreat back to a
more inclusive perspective however recognising
the hallmarks for what they are as opposed to how
we may feel about them, may assist in withdrawing
from these toxic dispositions and re-establish
confidences to operate as effectively and as
professionally as possible.
13
Just in case you might have been wondering, yes we
did run a Conference this year and yes it was a great
success. NZ companies were good enough to support
us by sending along their best and brightest
however one company, Kiwiplan, sent along its
whole testing contingent of 21 testers!
I’d met numerous folks over the years who had been
with Kiwiplan during various stages of their careers
and from past experience, I knew of the innovation
that Kiwiplan had brought to its particular sector of
the packaging industry.
The company began life as part of the Kiwi
Packaging Company which manufactures cardboard
packaging and in particular the corrugated variety.
One of its earliest innovations was algorithms for
determining the best usage of raw material when
cutting shapes from sheets of cardboard to minimise
waste. Originally developed to run on Data General
minicomputer systems in the late seventies, these
became part-and-parcel with wider software
applications to deliver a complete software solution
for scheduling and planning of corrugated cardboard
carton manufacturing. Further developments
included continuous self-optimisation based on
information feedback loops and it is this intelligence
that sets Kiwiplan apart from other suppliers in
their field.
The software development entity was spun off from
the parent in the eighties and became the foremost
developer and supplier of its niche systems to
manufacturers around the world and more than
thirty-five years on, maintains its leadership
position in this field.
I paid a visit to Kiwiplan offices in East Tamaki and
hosted by QA Manager, Chris Burgess who outlined
for me the way the company operates around
quality assurance and testing. In the New Zealand
office there are approximately 100 personnel; 90
of which are either developers or testers. A further
70-odd non-development staff are located overseas;
in the best proximities to the 500+ customer sites
throughout Europe, USA, South/Central America
and Australia.
Kiwiplan operates a rapid-waterfall type of
approach to software development, focusing on
smallish sprints of 2-3 weeks and a right-first-time
modus operandi. Consequently initial time and
energy is invested on specifying requirements and
developing functional and technical specifications.
That said, Chris was quick to point out that smaller
releases are folded into a continuous integration
environment that is powered by a home-grown test
automation framework not unsurprisingly entitled
Droid. Via Droid some 5,000 tests are executed on a
cyclic basis every weekend. As releases are made to
the CI environment, regression tests are
automatically executed and when major six-monthly
releases are made to the customer-base,
confidence is therefore high that consequential
issues will be minimal.
As early test tool proponents, Kiwiplan found that
there were precious few tools available at the time
hence its propensity to develop these inhouse as
per Droid. Consequently all test management,
requirements tracking, defect management etc
systems have all been home-grown to Kiwiplan’s
exact requirements and refined over the years as
technologies have advanced.
It’s certainly an interesting proposition in the case
of code management. A lot of the early code was
developed using Fortran, which as a mathematically-
based language was ideal at the time for the complex
algorithms required. However Fortran as a native
language is long defunct and rather than reinvent
the wheel by recoding, Kiwiplan commissioned a
bespoke Fortran-to-C converter and found this to be
an extremely economic method of both future-
Testing @ Kiwiplan by NZTester Magazine Staff Writer
14
Wanna Get Published?
Our formula for selecting articles for
publishing:
Good + Relevant = We’ll Print It (well,
digitally-speaking anyway)
Good = one or more of: thought-provoking,
well-articulated, challenging, experienced-
based, technical skill-based, different
perspective to mainstream, unique….
Relevant = one or more of: emerging
trends, new technology/methodology,
controversial (within reason), beyond the
basics (eg. testing is good, defects
are bad)….
proofing its intellectual property and enabling
deployment to Unix and Linux platforms. All source
code from this era is still held and managed as
Fortran code.
Of course, as technologies have advanced into the
internet and mobile ages, Kiwiplan has made best
use of these for latter-day development initiatives
and the product set now includes web, iOS and
Android platforms as well as the more traditional client/server-based desktops. New development
initiatives include solutions for mass data
migration, data warehousing, machine integration
and middleware.
As mentioned above, the Kiwiplan testing contingent
is some 21-strong and growing all the time. While
external testing training is encouraged the company
also fosters an internal programme for tester
education through mentoring and self-paced learning
online. Kiwiplan does enjoy a very low staff turnover
with many of the test team having been with the
company over 10 years with the average tenure
being around 7 years.
Kiwiplan’s tester hiring programme is very
thorough and it is expected that potential employees
demonstrate their abilities first-hand onsite. As the
company is well aware of the intellectual property
that can disappear through the back door when
experienced staff depart, all testing personnel are
permanent company employees.
Given that the main products are mature
applications, testing is approached more on a
traditional basis. However given that many of the
test team have been involved with the company for
many years, test cases and scripts as such tend to be
developed pragmatically with an emphasis on
accuracy and focus as opposed to verbage; quality
over quantity.
There is also a strong collaboration ethos between
developers and testers with teams co-located by
product area and it was evident as Chris showed me
around the premises that many hives of activity
were in full flight.
In the Testing@ series we’ve covered a number of
NZ software companies including ikeGPS, TradeMe,
Orion Health and Fiserv (previously M-Com).
Kiwiplan has sat at the forefront of NZ software for
many years and shows no signs of relinquishing its
title as one of NZ longest established software
success stories. It appears to have resisted the
temptation to adopt the latest-and-greatest
methodologies in deference to pragmatic and
focused approaches that work best for its products,
environments, customers and personnel.
Kiwiplan is always looking out for talented,
motivated test professionals. If you like the sound of
light, focussed, hands-on teams, delivering world-
beating products every single day then let Chris
know; [email protected]
15
Ever had that sinking feeling? You know the one, when you walk into
the office on a Monday morning and your colleagues are all grim-faced.
You figure that their weekend for some reason didn’t go so well then
you remember that during it, some of them were in working, installing
that big patch release that you were testing last week. Your heart jumps
into your mouth; what’s happened, what did I miss, did I cover
everything etc. etc. and very soon, you find out that…oops!
The Business Analyst demonstrates the issue and you know you had
covered this-this-and-this, this-this-and-that, this-that-and-this, that-
this-and-this, that-that-and-this, this-that-and-that, that-that-and-that
BUT did you cover that-this-and-that? And of course the user logged
onto the new release, entered that-this-and-that and…kaboom!
The Test Manager reminds you that you had two days to test this
feature and two days was (probably) sufficient. And even if it wasn’t,
the risk was understood in order to get the release out to the user, who
of course needed it yesterday. Plus everyone knows that curly, complex
issues do arise however as you are again reminded, this error was a
simple problem that any tester worth his salt should have found within
the first hour or so of testing. You feel inadequate as the Product
Manager walks passed, eyes diverted and seemingly emotionless
although if his thoughts were any more obvious, he’d be in counselling
and so would you! No-one else says anything yet you know you’ve let
the team down or at least that’s the way it feels. I mean, two days really
was enough wasn’t it and the problem was so simple after all and….
Does this ring a bell or twenty? Ever been here? It’s not nice. However
before you take a stroll down Harakiri Lane, there’s a few things you
might like to be aware of…
Everyone sees even the most simple of things, at least slightly,
differently. It isn’t possible to look through someone else’s eyes as much
as it would be useful sometimes. We can really only imagine how others
see and think, and the better we can imagine then the more we can
empathise. Take a coffee mug that is red on one side, blue on the other
and place it on a table between two people then ask what colour the
mug is; one will swear that its red, the other blue. Add just a dash of
emotion and ego in there and hey presto, instant argument and
empathy strangely apparent by its absence.
Someone else’s perspectives and interpretations can tell a different
story yet we mere humans seem to love developing and following
procedures and processes that so often result in subjectivity being
ironed out. Creativity, innovation, experimentation et al seem to get
flattened in the course of process institutionalisation. In the example
above, there was two days of testing performed however the reality
is that even if two weeks of testing was done, there’s no guarantee that
any or all of the defects would have been found. Remember that a test
Ever Had That Sinking Feeling?
by NZTester Magazine Staff Writer
16
result is just a snapshot in time; at that specific time,
in that environment, with that data, on that version,
with that configuration, in that manner…’this’, is
what happened (or was it ‘that’?).
Different perspectives and interpretations can also
lead to quite different outcomes. Again in the
example above, someone else may have found the
error that was missed and still someone else may
not have come across the errors that were found.
That’s why the more we test, the more defects we’ll
find and if we test for two days, that’s what we get:
two days-worth of testing and defects. If anyone asks
if testing complete/finished, you might want to ask
for a definition of “complete/finished” (tip: you might
need to excuse yourself for being a smart alec first).
If that means have we covered all the requirements
specified, it’s relatively easy to measure as long as a
traceability matrix of some sort is maintained. Does
this mean all the defects have been found, no. Does
it mean that we’ve tested everything that needs to be
tested, no. It just means that in this time, we covered
this functionality and found these defects.
Different approaches will yield different results. Let’s
have a look at an example: a while back, I had a
smallish enhancement to test for a web-based
application (after having been asked to take time out
from my usual test automation responsibility). Due to
a slight miscommunication, one of my colleagues,
Murali, also ended up assigned to the task. However
given that we did literally have two days to test, we
decided that four eyes were better than two (and no,
it wasn’t merely a case of me putting on glasses!).
Murali went to the specification and spent the first
day developing manual test scripts to cover each
requirement. He then spent the second day executing
those test scripts. I, on the other hand, decided to go
exploratory and spent the first day experimenting,
investigating and generally playing around with the
web pages. On the second day, I developed a bunch
of complex-type scenarios (note: not manually
scripted, just defined). I recorded these using an
automation harness then, so I could define my this-
this-and-that’s, I developed a .txt data file that was
read by the harness and the details spat into the
application. It all worked a treat and Murali and
I both found some “good” defects however,
guess what…
Only about 20% of our defects were duplicates.
Murali’s scripted approach and my investigative
method had both been successful in that we found
errors. Now, if Murali had been asked if had he
finished testing, he could justifiably respond that yes,
he had covered off the requirements as specified and
the defects he found had been fixed and retested.
However my defects would have still been there.
I could also respond to the same question by saying
yes, I had been through each page and field in the
application and applied the usual bunch of tricks eg.
field boundaries, maximum lengths, positive/
negative conditions, if-I-do-this-what-happens etc.
I could also say that I had combined a whole testing
magazine-full of complex scenarios executing
together and based on running those yes, I had
finished my testing. However Murali’s defects would
have still been there.
The real answer is that we finished two lots of two
days-worth of testing using our respective
approaches. And as fate would have it, the release
went to the client who promptly found a this-that-
and-this! Upon investigation it was found that the
failed feature had been covered earlier on in the two
day cycle by both Murali and myself. So either we had
both missed the defect or something further down
the line had changed, mostly likely another fix but,
who can say? Had we performed more testing, we’d
(probably) have found it but again, who can say?
However the perception was that we’d finished
testing and bang, client finds a defect straight away!
Doesn’t exactly spell “professional” in the eyes of
those peering in from the outside, does it?
So, there are a few lessons here:
The more we test, the more defects we will
find. We’ll probably never find them all
however if we can track their frequency of
discovery (by severity or some other
appropriate categorisation) then we can gain
a rough indication of when it might be OK to
wrap testing eg. when continued testing
yields no further high severity defects for a
specific period of time; the defect frequency
reduces to zip and the lower severities to a
trickle . This approach also helps to avoid the
‘last minute fix’ scenario where final, rushed
fixes break all and sundry, effectively winding
the quality clock backwards.
· Different testers will find different issues.
I know from experience that I’m reasonably
adept at finding the curly issue that no-one
17
else will find yet I can sometimes miss the
obvious. For others it’s vice versa. Both
are needed.
· Completing testing doesn’t mean that
everything has been tested or that all defects
have been found and fixed. It may mean that
we’ve done what we set out to do or
otherwise, but that’s all.
· Varying the approaches to testing can pay
dividends; the experiences above indicate
that multi-pronged methods can be useful.
Both the experimental and the predestined
approaches work depending on your context
however doing both; now there’s a novel
approach!
· Pair testing can pay dividends; another set of
eyes may see what yours do not. Peer testing
can pay dividends; a fresh set of eyes may see
what tired eyes do not. Commercial realities
can sometimes preclude however this is not
simply a case of two doing the work of one.
Think crowd-sourcing here!
· It’s also a cruel fact of life that things beyond
our control can change, yes it’s true. I have had
many situations where a release has been
passed through for implementation, someone
tweaks a parameter or updates a utility or
something, the release goes in and…..bang!
What can you do? Testers should not be held
responsible for those elements beyond their
control. It’s an unfortunate misconception that
because testing is so often considered the last
link in the chain that it’s the catch-all.
· The outcome of testing is always….information
(I really don’t know how many times I’ve said
that over the years); information about the
state of the product or system-under-test.
However it’s a fact of life that we testers will
always be asked whether we believe a product
is ready to go or not, so we have to be succinct
eg. “we specifically tested for these situations”
and “we did not specifically test for those
situations” (tip: have a good reason as to
why); avoid the “we don’t know”, “we think
so” etc. And your stress levels will go down as
a result.…promise! Resisting the temptation to
merely say or even imply what others want to
hear, will ultimately be to everyone’s
advantage even if it doesn’t appear so at first.
In summary, this testing profession of ours comes
with all sorts of lessons to be learned. Every journey
we undertake within it will always reveal more and
adding these to our arsenal of sneaky testing tricks
only serves to improve the overall positive impact we
can have on software development, and IT in general.
If we stop learning then we might as well retire and as
our experiences from these lessons grow, the more
valuable our “tester’s nose” becomes. Test on, people!
19
SO Testing & Training has recently completed development of a software testing training course where
ground-up training is offered to students wishing to become professional software test analysts. The
programme teaches students the basics of structured software testing over a 12 week schedule and being
public and with NZQA (New Zealand Qualifications Authority) Level 7 Accreditation, is understood to be
unique in New Zealand, given no other offering of this nature is available here.
The programme has been developed in conjunction with SO Testing & Training business partner ITTI
which has a long association with the NZQA. The Accreditation process is a lengthy and formal process
however it does allow for students to apply for a student loan in order to undertake the programme. A 12
week programme allows students to become familiar with the pace of work in the IT industry although it
can be somewhat daunting for those who for may need to put aside full time employment to attend.
The course consists of three modules: theory, practice and communication skills.
Theory Software Development Life Cycle ISTQB Foundation Practice Test Documentation Test Execution Test Organization Test Tools Professional Communication Skills Written and verbal communication
The mix of these modules ensures that graduates are fully equipped for work as a professional
test analysts.
During the course, students work in groups on both Waterfall and Agile projects in order to understand the
differences in development methods and specific tester roles and responsibilities within each. To start
with, test execution exercises are performed manually although later in the course, execution for both
functional and non-functional testing is undertaken using test tools. Current testing considerations eg.
mobile testing, security testing, cloud testing and exploratory testing are all covered within the cirrculum.
In August 2014, a pilot kicked off with three students and by the conclusion in November, all had
successfully completed the programme receiving both NZQA and ISTQB Foundation certification. The next
intake commences in January 2015 with registrations now open.
With this programme SO Testing & Training is hoping to raise the education levels of test analysts starting
work in the New Zealand IT industry. It also hopes to work in the future with other testing service
providers to deliver the programme to a even wider range of potential markets.
Interested students can contact Ed Ouwens at SO Testing & Training for further details by clicking here.
New Software Testing Training Programme Available in Auckland
Tutor Ed Ouwens with students
20
About ten years ago I was working on a testing
programme back in the UK and they were
undergoing a CMMi certification, during this
certificate I found out that there was a specialist
certificate for testing, this I came to know as TMM.
Skip a few years and this is now the TMMi and
so I did some investigation into this and uncovered
arguably one of the best certification and
measurement models that I have come across that
defines the maturity of testing in an organisation.
This is a summary of who and what the TMMi
Foundation and TMMi is.
What is the TMMi Foundation?
The TMMi Foundation has developed and owns
the TMMi model. It is a non-profit organisation
which focuses its activities on maintaining the
only independent test maturity assessment model
and accreditation for individuals and organisations
to deliver professional TMMI assessment – see
TMMi.org.
What is TMMi?
The TMM (Testing Maturity Model) structure is
based on the Capability Maturity Model (CMM).
The concept was originally postured by the Illinois
Institute of Technology. In 2004 a group of
individual practitioners got together and generated
the TMMi model. This group later became the
original TMMi Foundation members.
TMMi is a test process improvement and
accreditation model which can be used to complete
formal and informal assessments, both of which use
the same maturity requirements (as per the levels
below) however the informal assessment does not
have a certification award associated with it.
The assessment consist of five levels, it is these
levels that show the testing maturity of an
organisation. Each maturity level is split in to
Process Areas for an Assessor to review. Within each
process areas there are Specific Goals (SG) and
Generic Goals (GG) that must be achieved for an
organisation.
The test maturity levels start at Level 1 – Initial and
go through to Level 5 – Optimisation. In pictorial
form these are the levels and the process areas that
are attributed to each level.
The TMMi model can been applied across many
testing domains world-wide. The main differences
in TMMi and other test improvement models is its
independence and its adherence with the most
common international testing standards, this has
made it the standard for test improvement and
assessment.
Level 1 – Initial Definition
At TMMi Level 1, testing has no defined processes
and is mainly completed by developers. Tests are
developed in an ad-hoc way after coding is
completed. The objective of testing at this level is
to show that the software has no major failures
however a side effect of this is that a software
application may not meet the needs of the customer
or is unstable.
Level 2 – Managed Definition
At TMMi Level 2, testing is more of a managed
process consisting of a test team or test resource to
complete formal testing. One of the main objectives
of maturity Level 2 is that there is the ability for
repeatable testing. Test plans are also developed and
as part of this the approach, these test plans should
The Testing Maturity Model by Richard Sims, PlanIt Software Testing
21
include details of when testing will take place, how
testing will be completed and the testing resources.
Included at this level is also a certain amount of
reporting for management which is to ensure that
testing is going to plan and is tracked. There are still
defects and project related issues at this level as
testing is still later in the development lifecycle.
The process areas at TMMi Level 2 are:
· 2.1 Test Policy and Strategy
· 2.2 Test Planning
· 2.3 Test Monitoring and Control
· 2.4 Test Design and Execution
· 2.5 Test Environment
Level 3 – Defined Definition
At TMMi Level 3, testing is part of the SDLC and has
associated milestones. Test planning is still done in
this stage of the SDLC although is completed earlier.
The development of a master test plan builds on the
test planning skills and commitments acquired at
TMMi Level 2. The organisation now has a set of
standard test processes and a specific test training
program exist.
Organisations at level 3 now understand the
importance of reviews in quality control and a formal
review process has been implemented. At this level
the organisation has its own set of standard
processes and is able to modify these to each project
without impacting the testing processes and
procedures of the organisation.
The process areas at TMMi Level 3 are:
· 3.1 Test Organization
· 3.2 Test Training Program
· 3.3 Test Lifecycle and Integration
· 3.4 Non-functional Testing
· 3.5 Peer Reviews
Level 4 – Measured Definition
TMMi Level 4; testing at this level builds upon that
which has been completed in level 2 and 3. The view
of an organisation is that testing is now part of life in
a programme or project and is self-sustaining and
evolving where possible. It can also be measured
through its processes and accomplishments.
Measurements are also stored in an organisation’s
testing repository to support the decision making
that is required It will also be possible to support
some predictions relating to test performance and
the cost of testing in programme and projects.
Reviews of artefacts are part of the test process and it
will be possible to measure quality earlier in the
lifecycle.
The process areas at TMMi Level 4 are:
· 4.1 Test Measurement
· 4.2 Product Quality Evaluation
· 4.3 Advanced Peer Reviews
Level 5 – Optimisation
TMMi Level 5, the organisation has achieved all the
previous levels of maturity and it will be possible for
the organisation to be capable of self-improvement
based on its processes and procedures. The testing
methods and testing techniques are optimised and
there is a continuous focus on fine tuning and process
improvement.
The process areas at TMMi Level 5 are:
· 5.1 Defect Prevention
· 5.2 Quality Control
· 5.3 Test Process Optimization
As per TMMi, an optimised test process is one that is:
· managed, defined, measured, efficient and
effective
· statistically controlled and predictable
· focused on defect prevention
· supported by automation as much is deemed
an effective use of resources
· able to support technology transfer from the
industry to the organisation
· able to support re-use of test assets
· focused on process change to achieve
continuous improvement.
22
Coffee with Viswa – Brewing Ideas! One can have a great discussion over a good cup of hot coffee. Know your business – are you a specialised tester? Let’s talk about domain specific knowledge in testing. As a tester, develop your domain knowledge and focus on specialised testing. To know your business is to know your market whether it be banking, insurance, health or automotive. Being a domain expert helps you to test a product from customer point of view. This enables you to perform real time testing instead of merely testing the product as a software application. So learn your customer’s business as you learn the product. Viswa Devarajan is a Senior Test Analyst with QualIT in Auckland.
Richard Sims is a Senior Test Consultant with Planit
Software Testing in Auckland. He can be contacted
In summary, an accredited TMMi assessment is one
of the most comprehensive assessments for test
process improvement covering all aspects of an
organisations testing capability. For all
organisations, even if they went through an informal
assessment, this would give a detail examination of
the testing capability and it would be possible to
identify the areas for improvement far more easily
than a TPI assessment can.
If you are in an organisation and can see the testing
team struggling and can’t put your finger on the
exact issue then it may be a good idea to get an
assessment done, it would be far more cost effective
in the long run.
23
TestAnalytics = TestIntelligence Hidden in the depths of your test repositories and not even accessible by your
management tools is testing gold!
What gold you may well ask? Well, for example, your project might only be
wanting to know that all the test cases have passed and all the defects are fixed,
in other words, whether the completion criteria have been met. However what if
on the Friday before your Monday go-live, the team found and fixed 10 Severity
1 defects? Completion criteria would still be met however what would your
confidence be like and how would you communicate it? Better still, how could
you pre-empt the situation?
The gold is information about your product-under-test beyond the garden-
variety and vanilla-flavoured. And it’s almost certainly sitting in your test
repository or database yet your management tools won’t know its there or
even what it is, because they only count things.
Want to get it out and use it? We can help.
We’ve developed a set of tools and services to get this gold out from its hidden
recesses, onto paper and into the hands and before the eyes of those needing it.
Click below to find out more!
NZTesterMagazine
TestAnalytics
Find the gold and convert to cash!
24
Software Education Group
Press Release
5 November 2014
For immediate release
Disqover becomes a part of the Software Education Training Group
The Software Education Group has acquired Melbourne-based training company Disqover to provide a combined
Software Testing curriculum for 2015. Software Education is internationally recognised for providing comprehensive courses in software development training. The Australasian-based company today announced that Disqover would become part of the Software Edu-cation Group. Disqover is a top Australian specialist Software Testing training company with an industry-leading pass rate in Inter-national Software Testing Qualifications Board (ISTQB) certified training. The purchase of Disqover further increases Software Education’s share in the software testing market through the expansion of training capabilities. Toby Thompson, Founder and Managing Director of Disqover, will become the Software Testing Practice Lead for the Software Education Group and had this to say about the acquisition: “Our focus will remain on delivering the highest quality software testing courses. In the current market Software Testers and software project team members alike require multidisciplinary skills to work effectively in cross-functional teams. The combination of offerings will allow our customers’ the opportunity to leverage a suite of cours-es with improved depth of coverage in 2015” Disqover will continue to operate under the same name as a specialised brand of the Software Education Group. A combined curriculum of Software Testing courses will be available in early January 2015. Managing Director of the Software Education Group, Martyn Jones is excited about the possibilities that a partner-ship with Disqover will provide for the future saying that: “We are thrilled about having Toby and Disqover on-board with the Software Education Group, increasing our soft-ware testing practice to include more publicly scheduled courses across Australasia as well as new course offerings, providing more options for our customers”.
Ends.
25
About Software Education
Established in 1990 Software Education is an independent software development company offering training and
consultancy services across all sectors of the software development life cycle. SoftEd provides world-class training
for software development teams in Australia, NZ, USA, India, Saudi Arabia, Canada and Singapore. SoftEd’s mis-
sion is to provide customers access to leading-edge content and connect clients with an unrivalled network of inter-
national software development experts.
Website: www.softed.com
About Disqover
Melbourne-based company Disqover are a highly-regarded, specialist software testing training company offering a
range of ISTQB certified courses. Disqover is fully accredited by the Australia and New Zealand Testing Board
(ANZTB) and all trainers have been approved by the ANZTB to deliver International Software Testing Qualifications
Board (ISTQB) certified courses. The company’s wide range of training solutions address the issue of software qual-
ity in large public and private sector software development groups. Disqover was founded by Toby Thompson and
has a strong reputation in the Australian marketplace for providing high quality courseware and excellent customer
service. Disqover offer their courses publicly throughout Australia as well as in-house.
Website: www.disqover.com.au
For more information or further comment please don’t hesitate to contact
Martyn Jones
Managing Director
The Software Education Group
+64 21 590 254
26
I’m really fortunate that I have one of the best jobs
anywhere. I love my job and all the experiences I
have currently, and have had performing it!! I’m a
people manager; I manage and lead a team with job
titles that involve the word ‘test’. Test Manager, Test
Leads, senior and junior Test Analysts, Test
Engineers, to name a few. What a great bunch they
are; intelligent, intuitive, inquisitive, problem solving
and all with a raft of hidden talents waiting to be
identified and developed. Who wouldn’t appreciate
this environment to work in and with? Personally
I’m passionate about it and did I say I love my job???
IT is a people business after all and a computer still
can’t turn itself on at the wall socket, well not yet
anyway, My passion for my role is heightened when
I read and establish that nearly all companies
stipulate that their most valuable asset is their
people. I believe that this is a true mantra expressed
and desired by the senior management and tasked
to their people leaders to bring this about. But alas
experience and past team members indicate that
sometimes putting this into practice is
something else.
As a people manager, I believe that I have been given
a lot of responsibility for the development,
engagement, well-being and success of my team.
The reason I know this to be a fact is that it is
written into my job description and one of my key
performance indicators. So it confounds me that
many of my peers accept this responsibility and do
not seem to follow through for whatever reason and
we end up with disgruntled, disengaged staff who
in turn tell other staff members. This denigrates the
company, the team and the people manager role in
my opinion, as well as making sure the engagement
surveys we complete look like last years and the year
before, you know the one…senior management not
up to scratch, team great, no training and no
development. The sad thing is we can make a change
here if we can actively carry out the roles we have
been entrusted with.
I often hear that people management is difficult yet
that’s why the job promises so much. The difficult or
disillusioned person being encouraged to consider
new and interesting jobs and roles, new leaders being
found and grown, younger staff being encouraged
and confidence building, unexplored skills and
interests grown and encouraged, and all staff enabled
and empowered to be the best they can be in what
they seek from a career in IT.
We are all different and do things in different ways
but in my view there are some things that need to be
givens; to establish, grow and maintain the
relationship. They need to be fundamental items in
the people manager’s toolbox, and without which,
you are unlikely to succeed at this role.
Respect is first cab off the rank. If you don’t respect
your team and each individual in it, you will be found
out and found wanting. This is an earned item, not
attained just because you are the manager. It is also
important to remember that you can lose this just
as fast as you gain it so it needs to be worked on
constantly. Take nothing for granted. It is easy to
assume and tell ourselves that we respect our staff
but you may be surprised with how this is
perceived by the team or individual, take this lightly
at your peril.
Honesty is next and this is about being upfront and
honest with all staff, particularly around difficult
times or when making difficult decisions. Most
people want to know that they are doing well and
when they are not. Waiting until a performance
review period every six months doesn’t really cut it.
A staff member said to me once “I don’t like your
message but I like the fact you are telling me”. This
has resonated with me for a long time now. People
can deal with the message if they know what it is that
is being conveyed and that it is done with honesty
and respect.
Acknowledgement follows. We all like to feel we are
making a contribution yet many people go years
without ever having this communicated Being given
the “you are doing a good job” once a year at
performance review doesn’t generally cut it without
a specific item to hang your hat on. Just as bad is
People Management in Testing
by Sid Holmes, AMP
27
saying to staff “you have done well” every day of the
week without any sincerity or honesty because you
feel you have to. What was it that they have done to
make the contribution? Hardy annual lines like “you
did well on the project” don’t generally tell the
member anything. Be specific and be proud. If they
have done a good job, acknowledge it and mean
it…..all good work deserves to be acknowledged.
Finally, the last item is the joint one of
communication and interest. Do you know the names
of staff member’s partners, sports they play, children,
interests they participate in, strengths, thoughts
about the workplace, ideas for betterment or their
development, work experiences that they have had?
These are people here folks with the same needs as
you and me and taking an interest in them is in my
view a given. You are charged with shaping careers,
setting standards and expectations, and growing the
people, yet we don’t take the time to find out about
them. Sounds easy, but doesn't happen often. This is
really important and I know this because many of
my team have told me so.
Respect, honesty, communication, interest and
acknowledgement are the predominant items that
are put forward by staff I have worked with when
I have asked them to identify their expectations of
their managers. Ironically it is not lost on me that
this is what I would also expect of my managers.
I believe that the people management role is a
challenging one and requires a variety of toolbox
skill sets to make a great fist of the role. But the
aforementioned items will help you go a long way
to enjoying your role and the team enjoying your
management. Yes I really do love my job!
Editors comments—do you get the impression Sid
enjoys his job?? It’s refreshing to hear a Test Manager
relate in this manner; how often do we sit there and
bemoan too many defects, not enough time, such poor
software quality et al. Thanks Sid!
Sid Holmes is a Test Delivery Manager with AMP
and based in Wellington. His experience includes
stints with ANZ National Bank, EDS and Unisys
among others. He can be contacted at
28
The testing world will change!
Mobile has become a game-changer across all
industries. Organisations around the world now
drive significant value through providing continuous
access to services, anytime and anywhere - to
millions of customers and thousands of employees
over an astonishing array of devices.
Research suggests that the use of mobile devices will
grow from 10 billion now to more than 30 billion by
2020. [Reference]
It is predicted that the global mobile banking
industry will grow to 1.1 billion customers by 2015.
It is estimated that 39% of all new tablet users will
use them for banking. Gartner forecasts that the
worldwide mobile payment market will have over
450 million users and a transaction value of more
than USD $721 billion in 2017. This represents
compound annual growth rates of 18% and 35%
respectively for the period 2012 to 2017 [Gartner,
Forecast Mobile payment]. We are also seeing a
growth in utilities companies, government and retail
companies within their mobile portfolio.
There is an increasing awareness of among senior
business and IT executives of the significance of
mobile application testing. In today’s world, the
quality of IT solutions has a much stronger and
more immediate impact on business results. A mobile
application failure often translates to a business
process failure and will be obvious to the end user,
and can damage the corporate reputation.
Mobile will have a big impact on the testing
discipline: next to ‘normal’ functional testing there
needs to be additional focus on security and the
complete user experience, such as performance
and ease of use, and this needs to be tested across a
multitude of platforms and devices, often in a quick
paced or agile environment. The skills for mobile
testers tend towards the need for experience with
agile frameworks, test automation, continuous
integration, performance and security testing.
Another example of the trend towards more
technical testing over the traditional functional
testing role.
Mobile Testing Challenges
Capgemini sponsors the annual development and
publication of the World Quality Report. This report
is developed by Capgemini, Sogeti and HP Software.
Information is taken from the results of 1,543
interviews with CIOs, IT directors/managers, VP
of applications and quality assurance directors/
managers across 25 countries. This report shows
that many companies are ill-equipped to handle the
complexity and scope involved with testing for and
with multiple mobile platforms, devices and services.
Even those organisations with a solid testing
foundation encounter challenges with mobile testing.
Summary of the challenges:
Not enough time to test
Lack of methods, solutions and experts
specific for mobile testing
Lack of devices and operating systems for
testing
Lack of the right mobile testing tools
Rapidly changing technology landscape, such
as device types and operating systems,
leading to continuous need for updates
Lack of re-usable assets and frameworks
Performance, usability and security require
specific attention which require specialised
skills not often part of the core testing
competency
Mobile Testing: Challenges and Ten Best Practices For Developing Your Own Capability by Peter Bink, Capgemini
29
Success Factor #1: User Experience
User experience is a main criterion for success.
Testing user experience is an art that consists of
both objective and subjective measurements. Key
elements include:
Adherence to platform rules and guidelines,
as dictated by app store review guidelines
User interaction – Level of intuitiveness and
efficiency
Navigation – Adherence to platform rules and
guidelines
Signup and login – Clarity and ease of use
Layout and user interface design – Look and
feel, aesthetics, and precision in layout
Exception handling – User friendly messages
and graceful exception handling
Success Factor #2: Test Automation
The ability to automate tests using scripting or
recording makes mobile testing significantly more
efficient. Smart test automation utilises
parameterised scripts for both device types and user
interaction, and is enabled to run on devices in-house
and in the cloud. Some sophisticated user
interactions involve touch, gestures, and sensors
which cannot be fully automated, and, as a result,
will require manual testing.
Success Factor #3: Performance
Mobile solutions can overload servers, through the
rapid growth in the number of users and an increase
in the average life span of transactions due to
variations in bandwidth and latency. This can have
a performance impact on all users. Also, there are
significant performance differences across different
types of devices. An app or responsive web may run
well on a high-end device but may not be acceptable
on a low-end device.
Successful mobile testing focuses on network
capabilities, system integration and back end layers,
as well as the app itself.
Success Factor #4: Security
Mobile solutions are implicit in an increasing number
of scenarios where sensitive systems are accessed
and private data is in transit or at rest, that is, stored
in mobile devices. And given the physical nature of
mobile devices, they are more easily forgotten, lost,
or stolen. Mature mobile testing aims to:
Secure confidentiality and integrity of data
Validate whether authentication and
authorizing is secure
Verify that systems are keeping records of
events (non-repudiation)
Success Factor #5: End-to-End Integration
Testing
As mobile solutions and apps become increasingly
more business relevant, the scope and depth of
transactional features expand and so does the need
for well-designed and validated system integration.
Integration testing makes sure all the components
are working together properly and that the
interaction between core enterprise systems, like
CRM and ERP, and external interfaces are seamless.
Mobile Device Management (MDM) is a system that is
often part of a full end-to-end integration process.
When specific systems are needed to remotely
manage a fleet of handheld mobile devices, the
mobile solution should be validated and tested
against the main functionalities of the MDM systems:
Device technologies supported
Range of embedded applications supported
IT policy control
Device security enforcement
Management of connected devices
Third-party applications control
Success Factor #6: Connectivity-Related
Testing
Most mobile solutions depend on some kind of
network connectivity. Solution design and testing are
needed to address variable bandwidth, offline and
flight mode scenarios, and validate user sessions
moving between different network conditions. Both
automated network simulations and manual testing
in real network conditions are required to ensure
consistent behaviour.
30
Success Factor #7: Understanding Physical
Characteristics
The physical characteristics in mobile solutions differ
significantly from non-mobile solutions. Mobile
testing needs to take several of these characteristics
into consideration:
Screen size
Touch and gesture capabilities
Orientation (vertical or horizontal) and
movements in three dimensions
Camera
GPS
Some testing scenarios related to these physical
characteristics can be automated, for example,
orientation changes; but some scenarios do require
manual testing, for example, synchronisation of
gestures and sounds.
Success Factor #8: Location Simulation
An ever increasing number of solutions utilise
location data and GPS integration. In these solutions,
features are designed to depend on location or
distance to other locations. Successful mobile testing
ensures quality across different types of GPS
implementations and needs to utilise efficient
location simulation.
Success Factor #9: Dealing with
Fragmentation
The market fragmentation for both operating
systems and device types continues to challenge
solution design and testing. Most solutions, both
internal and external, need to support hundreds of
device types and several versions of operating
systems. A relevant mobile testing tool box includes:
Physical access to the major device type and
operating systems combinations
Ability to run manual and automated tests
across both physical devices and emulators
Access to cloud-based platforms to maximise
testing a number of devices
Success Factor #10: Optimising Third Party
Review
Most apps are distributed through open and public
app stores, each with its own set of guidelines. Apps
that fail to adhere to guidelines may be rejected. And,
given the third party review process, there is a bug fix
latency inherent in updates. Also, when operating
systems are updated, the new releases can break
existing apps. This means that successful mobile
testing must consider:
Using common testing checklists based on the
most recent app store rules and guidelines
Using rapid testing cycles for updates in order
to minimize impact of bug fix latencies
Testing existing apps on beta versions of
operating systems
Conclusion
Mobile solutions are increasing exponentially across
all domains, not just within the financial sector.
Capgemini New Zealand have seen this demand
across government, health and financial sectors.
Testing for mobile applications has a different set of
challenges and success factors than traditional
functional testing. Any organisation that is required
to undertake mobile testing should also consider
some investment in people, process and tools to
enable efficient testing solutions. This may require
seeking specialised services to support the setup of a
mobile testing capability, and also to undertake
specialised testing such as security, and mobile tool
experience. This is an exciting business to be in but is
not for the faint hearted.
Peter Bink is a Senior Manager within Capgemini
New Zealand with more than 19 years experience in
a broad range of roles the whole SLDC in Europe,
Australia and New Zealand for many different
industries. He can be contacted on
31
The Personal Journey
There were a lot of nerves on my behalf leading up to
the Let's Test Oz conference this week. I’d never
been to Australia and somehow quoting Crocodile
Dundee doesn’t seem the best way to win friends and
influence people.
What I'm going to do is pick up on a few of the best
moments and revelations from the conference, to
condense my experience ...
The Train Ride
I had a two hour train ride in the morning with tester
Kim Engel, fresh from our conversation about flat
earth's. It was a great journey and a great
conversation to get me in the mood - I almost talked
myself hoarse. It reminded me that one of my
favourite pastimes with my son is travelling, because
whether hiking or driving, it gives you opportunity to
talk and explore. With my son it's about exploring
history and ideas around it. With Kim it was
exploring aspects of testing and mental health that
we've both had personal journeys with.
With such conversations it's actually often a
disappointment when you reach your destination,
because you've enjoyed the journey too much.
Yup - I was actually slightly sad to arrive (but not
for too long).
Coaching Testers Workshop
I've spoken previously about James Bach and Anne-
Marie's workshop on coaching testers. It had some
great ideas circulating and James had found some
examples from movies of people coaching others.
I had to say I feel slightly ashamed that I have not
yet watched the Magnificent Seven despite liking
Westerns - I need to remedy this at some point!
Great focus was given to understanding yourself
as a coach, who you are and what your behaviour
is. How do you interact with people? What's
important to you in others? Then to look at the
person who is looking for coaching and asking
what they need in a coach. Sometimes that's not
you. James and Anne-Marie talked frankly about
their coaching and that occasionally they will
recommend an individual goes to the other
for coaching.
As always with a good workshop this included
reams of hands-on. We logged in anonymously to
Skype and we got to work with other people in
the room, taking turns to be the coach and to be
the student.
I'll be absolutely blunt, I thought the person I was
coaching knew me and was playing a game. I kept
getting incredibly frustrated but trying to be calm
with them. When it came to debrief it turned out
that the person I paired with had never used Skype
Review: Let’s Test Oz
by Mike Talks, Datacom
32
before and was a slow typist. I learned a valuable
lesson there that especially online, you need to get
some form of check-in about the student, how they
feel and what their backstory is, rather than "leap
into" the coaching.
It's a lesson I really should know but it's amazing
how the session helped to reinforce that and instead
I made my own assumptions that it was someone
trolling me.
So you wanna be a boxer?
SoftEd ran a couple of boxing training sessions which
were absolutely superb. I occasionally do something
similar in Wellington (I've talked about Josette, one of
our instructors here).
Boxing training is a very intimate kind of
training. You pair up with someone and take turns
doing exercises, with one person using gloves to hit
and the other holding the pads being hit (you hit the
pads, not the person!). You have to both be mentally
in a similar zone and develop a kind of rhythm with
each other.
That makes it oddly quite a social activity. The best
kind of pairing is when you're both supporting the
other with "try moving your stance", "we're half way,
don't give up", "c'mon, keep going, nice" - it was some
of Bach and Charrett's coaching tips in miniature.
Half the success of any conference like this is being
able to mingle with people who you don't now. Meet
new people, make new allies. The boxing sessions
proved to be a great "meet and greet" event, with
conversations with other boxers strung out through
the rest of the conference.
Which brings me to this tweet …
The boxing was one method (I'll talk about the other
in a moment), but there were the experienced
keynote speakers touring the conference and there
were other speakers such as myself. But mingling
and listening I realised something important,
"everyone has an experience report and a story
inside them, just keep your ears open".
As I said in that tweet, in some ways listening to the
raw stories from others was a great opportunity to
really spread my net over the conference.
Put yourself around people with passion
The other method of putting myself around a bit
came at lunchtime. It all felt like being a bit at High
School with "who shall I sit with?". Occasionally I just
really needed to eat and dash, and I'd just sit
alone. But I tried to use it as an opportunity to sit
with new people and introduce myself.
I however earned myself the "special little snowflake"
achievement on Monday lunchtime though - finding a
table of people I didn't know and asking if it was okay
to sit with them. They were from a completely
different conference!
But this actually led to a bit of a revelation. They
were a conference of ultrasound operators and were
curious about who we all were. So I got to tell them a
little about software testing as well as ask them a bit
about their conference.
My interest was heightened a bit. Recently my
brother and his wife had a daughter. One thing that
surprised me was the ultrasound. When my son was
33
"under development", we had a couple of ultrasound
pictures of him and they were a bit like one of those
3D puzzles. If you stared at really hard, you couple
perhaps make out a skull. .
But for Thea, her pictures were strikingly clear, the
technology had really come along leaps and
bounds. So surely being an ultrasound operator was
a lot easier now? Wrong.
Turns out they do more and more checking with
ultrasound as it's such a non-invasive
procedure. They were spending a conference looking
at example images of different ailments such as a
damaged appendix. In their normal routine they
might not see some of these examples so it was all
about improving their ability to look and and
recognise issues. They were using the conference to
broaden their experience from other operators so
when they went back to work on the Thursday they
were just that bit sharper.
The improvements in technology made some things a
lot easier. But at the end of the day it required a
human eye and human judgement. And damn it -
wasn't the same true about testing's relationship to
technology over the same timeframe? Some things
had got easier but at the end of the day, it's about the
human eye and human decision making.
This led me to an important understanding - I learn a
lot about testing but not always from testers. I'm
quite a talker but I'm a good listener too. In fact,
when we go touring around New Zealand, my wife
despairs of me as I really enjoy going into quiet shops
and talking at length to the owners, where we come
from and finding out some of their history.
I am attracted to spending time with people with a
passion and an ability to animatedly talk about that
passion. It doesn't have to be anything I'm interested
in - in fact often it helps if it's not. Just this year I've
spun pieces off from conversations with Josette my
boxing instructor and Lotz my musician friend.
Testing has a good few parallels and if you listen out,
there is knowledge out there from people going
through similar experiences which you can shanghai
and add to yours!
An interesting chat with Erik Peterson leads to
some self-reflection ...
I had an interesting lunchtime chat with Erik
Peterson where we talked about heuristic models for
testing. I came to the realisation that I'm heavily
dependant on an "experiental model" (although I do
use others) - basically "when I used to program, I
once saw this happen" or "I've seen a bug like this
in a similar system".
That's of course okay, as long as you realise it's
fallible. And its greatest fallibility is you aren't
looking for a bug you've never experienced before -
you have a blind spot to anything you've never seen
or heard. It also made me look at some of my writing
- overall my writing heavily leans towards a "series of
experience reports", occasionally postulating a model
from this experience.
It's an interesting look in the mirror at my way of
thinking - also tying into my previous post about
trying and failing. It's like I'm drawn to having a pool
of experiences to base judgements on.
34
My talk
Yup - I'm not being egotistical here but not only did I
enjoy giving my talk on "deprogramming the cargo
cult of testing" but to my shock, I walked out with an
expanded take on it. Some of the questions asked
allowed me to think and explore the subject in ways
I'd not expected.
The topic was really talking about the system of
testing we've put into place over the last 12 months,
and I talked about it back in my piece on exploratory
testing. We put together a new way of testing when
we moved to being agile but we engaged with our
customer to talk to them about what they felt they
got out of our old methodology? What did they feel
they get from a test plan, a test script or a test report?
The point was this was to form a matrix of values
from our customer - this meant whatever approach
we took for testing it needed to address these values
in some manner. If it didn't then we weren't done
with our approach, it wasn't hitting the needs and we
needed to rethink. But not only that, we had to make
sure we were making "how our testing worked"
visible to the customer.
An example of this would be how the customer saw
test scripts both as "proof of testing" and "training
material". We ended up using qTrace to record our
sessions as "proof of testing" and for "training
material" sharing an internal testing handbook we
already had and making sure we kept it up to date
sprint on sprint.
Someone noted the piece tied in a bit with Keith
Klain's keynote where he talked about avoiding being
overly whiney or self-centred about testing's
problems but understand the person you report to
"has problems and needs" that you don't know of. To
try and go to them not with more problems but trying
to help and aid them.
The bottom line to this approach was that we made
sure we had an evangelical fervour to delivering real
value to our customers in a testing approach that we
felt accurately addressed their needs. In this I really
was pleased we seemed to carry on the spirit
of Alessandra Moreira's talk about engaging and
influencing people. In fact the conclusion from our
talk was it would be a mistake to wait for a major
shift from waterfall to agile before engaging with a
client to ask if the testing you're performing is really
"ticking the boxes" from both the client and the test
team point of view.
Final thoughts ...
These are the things that really stuck with me - a very
interesting conference with a lot to take home. I
sadly missed the Fiona Charles keynote at the end of
the Wednesday which I was looking forward to.
There was a lot to take in but also fun to be had along
the way - one of the funniest activities was
being Joanne Perold and Carsten Feilberg's workshop
where we replicated problems in communication by
using a Lego building exercise to replicate the
software building process. This was an exercise I
would love to try again with different rules to see if
it causes some of the outcomes I expect. Likewise
the boxing and the coaching activities were nicely
hands on.
The team behind Let's Test Oz really did an excellent
job in making this happen - the venue and food was
amazing, everything ran well, and everyone seemed
to come to the conference ready to really share and
engage. I made sure before writing this that I sent an
email to the key players, asking them to circulate to
all who needed to read it.
Great work guys!
Mike Talks is a Test Manager with Datacom in
Wellington and a regular contributor to NZTester
Magazine. He can be contacted at
35
Testing Events
If you have an event you’d
like to promote on this page,
email [email protected]
Coming from NZTester Magazine in 2015:
NZTester Magazine Testing Leadership Summit
- Wellington, March 2015
NZTester Magazine Conference
- Wellington, August 2015
The Great Big NZTester Magazine Road Trip - August/
September 2015 + regular meetups in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington & Christchurch,
others as requested
36
85% of all software tests are still being performed manually. Is there a way to significantly improve manual testing and be able to work 2x faster? This free webinar is designed to change the way you perform manual testing. "Manual Testing 2x Faster in Word and Excel" focuses on new ways to reduce your manual test effort. Join this webinar to learn how to:
Build, execute and analyse software tests directly in Word and Excel
Make UAT, Exploratory, SAP and CRM manual testing much easier
Test websites and applications with greater flexibility
Improve the efficiency of manual testing and test 2x faster
Integrate with popular test management systems
Ask questions and take back valuable tips and tricks to use in your every day manual testing.
Space is limited so sign up today. For further details: http://www.autom8.co.nz/webinars/
See you soon.
- Aaron Athfield, Founder and Chief Manual Tester Guy nz.linkedin.com/pub/aaron-athfield/75/811/626 www.autom8.co.nz
37
Subscribe to the magazines free at www.nztester.co.nz
Calling all
PROGRAMME TEST MANAGERS
There’s now a LinkedIn group for all test professionals operating at Programme Test
Management level (or at least aspire to). Click on the title above.
Subscribe to the magazines free at www.nztester.co.nz
38
It seems like I always begin these reviews along the
lines of ‘í t doesn’t seem like n months since the last…”
so this time I won’t. Needless to say that another
StarWest Conference has come and gone and at a
rough guess, I’d say this was the biggest one for
many years, 1,200+ attendees I understand.
I was down for two tutorials this time; my traditional
Testing the Data Warehouse and the Programme-
Level Test Management session first introduced at
our own conference back in August. Having done
four tutorials back-to-back then, doing two at
StarWest didn’t seem like such a big deal. My sessions
were well attended with Data Warehouse Testing
selling out and the discussions lively and healthy.
I do find it refreshing in some ways to find that no
matter where on the planet we ply our testing trade,
the challenges are always similar.
Wednesday 15 October saw the start of the StarWest
conference proceedings. Unfortunately the day of
tutorials on the Tuesday coupled with a bout of
unexpected jet lag and I missed the first few sessions
–which annoyed me no end as I really wanted to
catch Julie Gardiner’s keynote on testing web
services, libraries and frameworks. The previous
evening I’d caught up with Julie and Dawn Haynes
for a sneak preview of Julie’s presentation so I was
particularly keen to catch.
Wednesday afternoon I attended Mary Thorn’s
session on the Test Manager’s Role in Agile, which I
found interesting although not too much new for me.
I then jumped over to the World Quality Report 2014
-5: Emerging Testing Trends presentation. At last
year’s StarWest I had attended the same session with
a great amount of interest as this report provides a
huge amount of depth and meat around the current
state of testing and general software quality
assurance. As expected, the results revealed not
only a greater investment in the testing of mobile
applications, which has been growing steadily for the
past couple of years now, but also a continued focus
on getting smarter, faster and more functionally rich
software applications to market in much quicker time
right across the board.
This trend has led to some marked changes upon our
industry which I can only seeing continuing. I can
liken it perhaps to the recording industry where I
have a modicum of experience. In days past, to get a
record or CD onto the streets, an artist usually had to
be signed by a record company and have had many
hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in both
recording process and in artist development, a
future investment. Then with the recording company
marketing machine kicking in behind, an artist could
sell kazillions of CDs and make megabucks for both
the record company and themselves, usually in that
order. Getting a top-flight CD out usually required
input of at least $500,000 however the returns for
top artists were in the thousands of percentage
points so no-one really worried too much. However
in the last decade or so, technology has provided
ways for artists to record themselves and produce
professional sounding, studio quality recordings for
as little as a couple of thousand dollars - for a PC and
some clever software. On the surface, this sounded
good as it meant that no longer did artists have to be
signed to properly record and thousands more CDs
et al became available from artists who otherwise
would not have had the opportunity. In addition,
My test management class in full swing
39
with the advent of iTunes and other media, record
company marketing is no longer an essential
requirement either, so a whole new industry
paradigm has been created and that can only be
good, right?
Possibly, however think about this: with thousands
more artists ‘in the market’, the range of product is
so much greater and the pressure so much more
present to be able to compete and get ahead of the
competition for the same sized customer dollar.
With the record companies no longer investing in
the manner they did in the past because the returns
are no longer there, there is little or no professional
artist development so the quality of artist and thence
the resulting product is driven down also. If we’re
not careful, we’ll end up with a general ‘dumbing
down’ of the market and quality, which in my opinion
is not good for anyone in the longer term, even if it
means that there’s more available, for less money
and in greater quantities than ever before.
Could the same be about to happen with software,
especially in the mobile space? To check on the
results of my beloved West Ham United Football
Club, I can choose from at least a couple of dozen
apps on the Apple AppStore. I’ve been through at
least five of them in the past two years with the
main reason for changing being that I get sick and
tired of trying to get them all to work properly and
consistently over time. The quality has been ‘dumbed
down’ and no matter, for free or at most another
couple of bucks I can grab the next one of rank.
Problem is in a commercial sense, every time
I change I have to learn how to use, understand the
features, learn to get the best out of etc etc. Then no
sooner have I done this and got it working for me and
a new version comes along full of holes and the cycle
starts again. Not exactly the best use of my time.
Now while this scenario is not necessarily present
yet in the case of non-mobile, commercial software
applications, the continued upwards pressure from
this sector can only impinge upon this space
eventually. Will we then see the software investors,
like the record companies, pull away completely,
seeking better returns from their dollars elsewhere?
We’ve already been here once with the dot.com crash
of ten or so years ago as part of the internet advent
revolution. Is it looming again?
Anyway, maybe enough pontificating. Later
Wednesday afternoon saw the ever-popular
Lightning Strikes the Keynotes strike where
presenters volunteer for a five-minute lightning
talk on anything around testing. I did my perennial
‘Which Came First; the Bug or the Test?’ which
seemed to go down well as always although I really
must come up with another lightning talk someday.
Thursday was another busy day; I sat in on Julie’s
‘Rainmaking for Test Managers’ session although the
title engendered in me a sense of dread. As a test
manager I’m often accused of kicking up too much
of a storm and here’s Julie propagating the message?
I needn’t have been worried, as always Julie put
forward a number of thought-provoking concepts,
in particular one around taking a make-it-happen
approach when everything else seems to merely
roll along.
After a lively discussion around test metrics with
Pablo Garcia and Michael Bolton, I then trotted off to
Pablo’s presentation around the same subject. I do
wonder whether we get too hung up on metrics; as
to whether they’re valid of not. I’ve always seen
metrics more as indicators, not as harbingers of
absolute truth. And we have to be cognizant of the
fact that they change on a day-to-day basis so is a
daily snapshot anything more than just that? Is it
not a trend over time that counts for more and
provides more information around the state of our
product, system or project than mere numbers?
Hmm, anyway I’d better not get on my hobby horse
here however suffice to say that Pablo was
promoting a similar message in his presentation.
Fast forward to the 4:15pm session and Pablo Hope’s
keynote around Security Testing. Appearing on the
podium resembling Gandalf out of the Lord of Rings
trilogy, Pablo proceeded to peel back the layers of
Pablo Hope’s Gandalf rendition!
40
mystery around this subject point-by-point while at
the same time shedding a layer of his wizard outfit
accordingly. Certainly an entertaining approach to
a subject that is still sometimes considered one of
the testing ‘dark arts’! I learned a few things too eg.
that security testing is a ‘must’ for any product or
system that is exposed via the internet (as if I didn’t
know that already but did I really know it?).
Thursday evening was a late one; caught up with
Pablo Garcia, Rob Sabourin and Scott Barber along
with a few others for enjoyable drinkies, dinner and
healthy conversations. I think we all agree that the
testing landscape is changing and that the whole ‘shift
left’ momentum is gathering around bringing the
tester’s nose closer to the core of software
development. I can’t help but wonder though whether
that now more than ever that the differences between
testing a software product versus testing
a systems implementation are taking on quite unique
perspectives and that good ole approaches from way
back need tempering accordingly. While the whole
exploratory approach is riding the popularity wave
right now, I still feel that we cannot lose sight of the
tried, true and proven within the arenas where that
approach is still valid. To say that one approach is the
best one, the right one, the only one is in my humble
opinion short-sighted and perhaps revealing that the
propagator really does not yet have the breadth and
depth of testing and management experience to be
able to fully appreciate the wider perspectives and
annals of testing. Anyway hereendeththerant!
Again as always, StarWest was a blast and well-
executed by Lee and the SQE team. May they ever
continue to be so!
41
Click on title
Assurity Consulting 7
Catch Software / EnterpriseTester 18
NZTester Magazine TestAnalytics 23
WorX / Autom8 36
And now it’s your turn…
If you would like to be involved with and/or
contribute to future NZTester issues, you’re
formally invited to submit your proposals to me at
Articles should be a minimum of ½ A4 page at
Cambria 11pt font and a maximum of 2 A4 pages
for the real enthusiasts. If you wish to use names
of people and/or organisations outside of your
own, you will need to ensure that you have
permission to do so.
Articles may be product reviews, success stories,
testing how-to’s, conference papers or merely
some thought-provoking ideas that you might
wish to put out there. You don’t have to be a great
writer as we have our own staff writer who is
always available to assist.
Please remember to provide your email address
which will be published with your article along
with any photos you might like to include (a
headshot photo of yourself should be provided
with each article selected for publishing).
As NZTester is a free magazine, there will be no
financial compensation for any submission and the
editor reserves the sole right to select what is
published and what is not.
Please also be aware that your article will be proof-
read and amendments possibly made for
readability. And while we all believe in free speech
I’m sure, it goes without saying that any
defamatory or inflammatory comments directed
towards an organisation or individual are not
acceptable and will either be deleted from the
article or the whole submission rejected for
publication.
Feedback
NZTester is open to suggestions of any type, indeed
feedback is encouraged. If you feel so inclined to
tell us how much you enjoyed (or otherwise) this
issue, we will publish both praise and criticism, as
long as the latter is constructive. Email me on
[email protected] and please advise in your email
if you specifically do not want your comments
published in the next issue otherwise we will
assume that you’re OK with this.
Sign Up to Receive NZTester
Finally, if you would like to receive your own copy
of NZTester completely free, even though we’re still
real low tech right now, there’s two easy ways: 1)
go to www.nztester.co.nz, or 3) simply click here -
Ed.
