| || |
Defect Detection Efficiency
This looks like a discussion that may cause some waves.
Defect Detection Efficiency
Michael Bolton, BJ Rolliston and Cem Kaner so far, its got some interesting information and perspectives.
Nothing learns better than experience.
"So as I struggle with this issue I am confronted with the reality that noting is perfect."
Now wasting blog space at QAForums Blogs - The Lookout
Re: Defect Detection Efficiency
Here's my response to the post, if it doesn't make it on there for obvious reasons. I think my opinion is more than apparent.
Wow! He posted it. Well thanks to Michael Bolton for not censoring on this one. I love people who can take criticism well. I know I do. He must be married.
[ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree with you on this one, Michael.
First of all, there is a massive difference between "unskilled" testers as it might apply to someone off the street, where you have absolutely no clue what their background is, and someone who is a computer science student. The foundation of software testing is in understanding computer application and understanding how an application SHOULD work. So let's not discount this aspect.
Secondly, I have seen no other attempt to bring "valid" data to the table. So aside from the, "Give us $20,000, and we'll show you the promised land." arguement, I have seen very little as far as empirical data from those who are the biggest proponents of this "approach". So, not for nothing, but a lot of what you argue here sounds like a sales pitch on your part, sorry.
I'm really sorry, but I was very happy to find something (the only thing I found) that provided me with some ammunition. In my situation, if I hadn't, literally, had time to kill on a project which ended up returning outstanding results, then ET would not be an approach available to me today. I mean we can't just sit down, smoke some pot and hit them with it when they're good and stoned and hope they say, "cool". The notion is, I give you results, you give me the ok. I show you numbers, you give me the go ahead.
I understand this is, again, what you guys are there to teach, for $20,000, but at the very least Juha's report provides a couple bullets. Now battle-hardened, by the book test vets who love their scripts might be able to shoot it apart. I mean blow it to pieces! However, it's something. Give us something! I have a much greater respect for someone who tries and fails than someone who says it cannot be done. In Juha's case, I don't view it as failing, though. I think it does provide some nuggets, as I call them. Some ammo that can be used for us who want to progress testing in a more agile way. Sure, there may be issues with it. I'm sure there can be issues with any research report, but everything we DO is subjective. So who cares?! If you don't like it, then give us something. ANYTHING!
As far as I'm concerned, it may not be the silver bullet, but nothing is. At least it's a bullet and not a guy telling me he has a bullet.
[/ QUOTE ]
9 out of 10 people I prove wrong agree that I'm right. The other person is my wife.