Items that are the same may not appear the same
Astronomy is one of my interests and minor hobbies and I saw this picture in the feed of the picture of the day. It is an interesting example of human bias. If those objects (In this case color squares in an image) are mean to appear the same, there is a bug here, despite the fact that the colors are entirely the same scientifically. This is a bug that won't be be found by most automation because the context of the problem is the source of the problem. This is one of the best justifications for human testing that I've seen. If software is meant to be used by humans, there must be a viable balance of thoughtful human testing.
Just because something IS the same doesn't mean it appears the same to human eyes.
I can just hear now the response "It is working as designed" coming from the rafters as I type this. Testing SHOULD provide feedback on the design as well as the functionality.
Just because something IS the same doesn't mean it appears the same to human eyes.
I can just hear now the response "It is working as designed" coming from the rafters as I type this. Testing SHOULD provide feedback on the design as well as the functionality.
"Testing SHOULD provide feedback on the design as well as the functionality."
Oh, I could not agree more! I was delighted when our testing departments managed to secure the right to sit in with representation on the specification/design of our products. Previous to this, we were handed the specification as a fait-accompli, and the software as well, and defects related to poorly-specified design were always written off as "as designed".
Product quality rose dramatically following our inclusion earlier in the process, as did the personal investment of the testers in the quality of the product.
Reply to this
Exactly! The whole point of the code in the first place is to help the human do something, or to make a task easier. All too often people get locked into a design, and end up focused on the details, completely oblivious to why they're there in the first place!
Reply to this