Chris McMahon's Blog

I like to point out that historical, well-vetted aesthetic frameworks are useful for evaluating software . But what if similar aesthetic frameworks could not only validate software itself but also *predict* software test techniques? For example, let's examine overarching schools of painting: first came realism, where painters attempted to represent as much as possible what appears to the human eye. We can test realistic scenarios, we do this all the time. I would suggest that most bugs are not discovered under what we understand to be realistic circumstances. Then came expressionism, where painters attempted to express things not seen. Likewise, test techniques moved on to persona testing (imagining the use of software by peculiar users) and soap-opera testing. Such techniques expose significant bugs. Then came abstract expressionism. Think of Jackson Pollack. Are there abstract expressionist test techniques? Of course there are . I would really like to hear of any other ...

Both of these have been crossing my path with increasing frequency in recent months (not at work, but in conversations with others whom one would think would know better): 1) Stories are scheduled work for features. Stories should not include: testing refactoring documentation undefined customer support calling your mom The problem with writing stories for stuff other than scheduled work on features is that you completely undermine the concept of velocity. Velocity is the number of story points accomplished per iteration. If you assign story points to activities other than scheduled work on features, you cheat the business of accurate information about release schedules. (Although it might make you feel better to be accomplishing so many points each iteration, if you are not delivering features, you fail.) 2) Doing it "by the book". Part of the agile culture is to have retrospectives at the end of each iteration. Each retrospective is an opportunity to change your process...

I'm chris_mcmahon there if you want to follow me.