Skip to main content

One Year Writing for

I generally do not post links to pay-wall or registration-wall sites, but today I am sincerely happy and proud to publish a link to

For each of the last twelve months, I have written at least two 1000-word articles for SSQ. In the last year, SSQ has published nearly forty individual pieces of mine, a book-size body of work.

I am sure some of those articles are better than others, but I wrote every one to the best of my ability with all sincerity, and I truly believe that every one of those articles contains at least one interesting idea intended to help people working in software testing and software development.

I would particularly like to thank my editors at SSQ, at first Jan Stafford, later Yvette Francino. The SSQ editorial staff is professional and efficient. Both Jan and Yvette have given me an enormous amount of freedom and encouragement over the last year, and it has been a real pleasure working with them both. I especially appreciate their tolerance on the few occasions when I pushed that freedom to the limit.

I would also like to thank the Writing About Testing mail list. A great number of people on that list have been immensely helpful, freely giving comments and constructive criticism, providing new ideas, and just being generally smart and encouraging human beings. In the very near future we will be announcing the CFP for the second Writing About Testing conference in the spring, which should bring even more new ideas and new voices into the public discussion of software development and testing.

Finally, I want to thank Matt Heusser specifically. Matt introduced me to SSQ a year ago. I would never have had this opportunity if it were not for his generosity.


Philk said…
Apart from fame and fortune, what have you got out of this ?
What drives you to be able to keep on writing ?

I hope you do keep on as they always make me think - is that what you want from your articles or do you want more ?
Yvette said…
You certainly have been a wonderful contributor to SSQ. It's always a pleasure getting one of your articles, and requires very little editing on my part. It's funny how the relationship between writer and editor can be a lot like that between development and test. It has the potential to either be contentious or a great partnership. I'm glad our is the latter. And I also have Matt to thank for his role in recommending me for the site editor position at SSQ!
Chris McMahon said…
Phil: there is certainly an aspect of fame and fortune involved, but a couple of other things keep me going also.

For one thing, I like having an audience. I like building communities of shared interest, and writing a lot is a way to help bring about a community like that.

For another thing, I have been part of various open source communities since before I ever started working in software. I believe strongly in giving away one's best ideas.

Finally, the discipline required to publish a body of work like I have over the past year has been good for my soul.

It makes me happy to hear that my work makes you think. Every once in a while I hear that something that I have written has influenced the work of someone else. That is an incredibly rewarding experience.
Lisa said…
So, the reason you don't write a book is?... (though I wonder - will books be made irrelevant by so much good, timely content on the web?)
TestWithUs said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

Reviewing "Context Driven Approach to Automation in Testing"

I recently had occasion to read the "Context Driven Approach to Automation in Testing". As a professional software tester with extensive experience in test automation at the user interface (both UI and API) for the last decade or more for organizations such as Thoughtworks, Wikipedia, Salesforce, and others, I found it a nostalgic mixture of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt), propaganda, ignorance and obfuscation. 

It was weirdly nostalgic for me: take away the obfuscatory modern propaganda terminology and it could be an artifact directly out of the test automation landscape circa 1998 when vendors, in the absence of any competition, foisted broken tools like WinRunner and SilkTest on gullible customers, when Open Source was exotic, when the World Wide Web was novel. Times have changed since 1998, but the CDT approach to test automation has not changed with it. I'd like to point out the deficiencies in this document as a warning to people who might be tempted to take it se…

Watir is What You Use Instead When Local Conditions Make Automated Browser Testing Otherwise Difficult.

I spent last weekend in Toronto talking to Titus Fortner, Jeff "Cheezy" Morgan, Bret Pettichord, and a number of other experts involved with the Watir project. There are a few things you should know:

The primary audience and target user group for Watir is people who use programming languages other than Ruby, and also people who do little or no programming at all. Let's say that again:

The most important audience for Watir is not Ruby programmers 
Let's talk about "local conditions":

it may be that the language in which you work does not support Selenium
I have been involved with Watir since the very beginning, but I started using modern Watir with the Wikimedia Foundation to test Wikipedia software. The main language of Wikipedia is PHP, in which Selenium is not fully supported, and in which automated testing in general is difficult. Watir/Ruby was a great choice to do browser testing.  At the time we started the project, there were no selenium bindings for …

Open letter to the Association for Software Testing

To the Association for Software Testing:

Considering the discussion in the software testing community with regard to my blog post "Test is a Ghetto", I ask the Board of the AST  to release a statement regarding the relationship of the AST with Keith Klain and Per Scholas, particularly in regard to the lawsuit for fraud filed by Doran Jones (PDF download link) .

The AST has a Code of Ethics  and I also ask the AST Board to release a public statement on whether the AST would consider creating an Ethics Committee similar to, or as a part of the recently created Committee on Standards and Professional Practices.

The yearly election for the Board of the AST happens in just a few weeks, and I hope that the candidates for the Board and the voting members of the Association for Software Testing will consider these requests with the gravity they deserve.