Re: [TFUI] comments on my first chapter

Of course, we can only improve our work to the extent that we do not
blame the reader for his misunderstandings. (Which isn't to say that
we never want to.)

I take the point of the UAOTEAWAC as being that the book is about
testing, and yet it is not about what testing people think testing
is about. This is a common issue with the existing TDD books, which
your readers (and this one in particular) may not have read.

You'll probably recall an effort by Dave Astels and some others to
rename TDD to Behavior-Driven Development or some such, to avoid
this new use of the word "test", which seems to confuse some
readers.

There's a brief bit early on, where you say something about this not
being about testing qua testing:

  TFP does not produce industrial-strength tests (and bookstores
  should not shelve this or other Test-Driven Development books with
  the “Testing” or “Quality Assurance” books). Agile projects need
  testers to add the real tests that assault code with twisted
  scenarios to find its boundaries, and collect metrics to rate its
  health.

It's probable, I think, that this needs to be brought out. It's
possible that the book should recognize its roots in the TDD and TF
tradition, but provide a new title and terminology, breaking with
the past, taking the lead in producing a better set of terms that
will confuse fewer people and take us forward.

I've not given the whole book the attention it deserves: even I
can't read and comment on everything. ;-> I find the writing to be
still in your distinctive voice, and yet not to be so iconoclastic
as your peaks thereof. It's clear, not too allusive or elusive, and
yet it's you.

So I think that the UAOTEAWAC raises a valid issue for many readers,
not just testers, and that it should be dealt with at least with
some clear and visible statements, and perhaps by something a bit
more sweeping.

Just one person's opinion, of course. Except that it's mine. ;->

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Logic is overrated as a system of thought.

On Wednesday, April 19, 2006, at 1:51:21 PM, Phlip wrote:

> A reputable (and opinionated) test engineer and QA consultant provided
> this review of as much as he could stand of /TFUI/

> <netiquette mode="suspended" attrocity="public quote of private e-mail">

>    I couldn't find a description of what testing means to you, so I'm having
>    trouble sorting out some fundamental philosophical basis for what you're
>    writing.

>    I was also unable to find anything or anyone that I would consider a
>    reference to previously existing thought about testing.  Was this
>    intentional?  Is there a line of thinking about testing that you're
>    following (or challenging, or ignoring)?

>    I'm also having some difficulty following the line of reasoning; it seems
>    to me disjointed.  That may be a reader issue, rather than a writer issue.

> </netiquette>

> Okay, guys, is this him or me?

> (Or maybe has he read too many of my online posts?)

> The answer, in the tiniest nutshell possible, is:

> "The root problem is you must think of a test case that can force a
> new graphical situation, without writing the graphical situation
> itself first, AND without viewing the GUI to see if the situation
> works. Your new test should tell you it works. Think of easy GUIs,
> like data entry, and then think of hard GUIs, like rotating fractals,
> or heat maps."

> I say that in the first chapter like so many times, in various
> different ways, using both our brainwashed jargon and common industry
> jargon.

> About "reference to previously existing thought about testing", I list
> /Test Driven Development/ on Page 2... Sheesh...




To unsubscribe, email:
[email protected]
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TestFirstUserInterfaces/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/