tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602240033757281319.post690270712338852626..comments2023-09-29T05:23:17.592-07:00Comments on Have you danced with the software?: The first London Tester Gathering of 2011Tony Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14044205740382054059noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602240033757281319.post-19466352928419330362011-01-25T08:37:52.006-08:002011-01-25T08:37:52.006-08:00"Not at all, at least to those of us who know..."Not at all, at least to those of us who know what a skilled tester can offer."<br /><br />And therein lies the problem; you have to know what the title actually means, rather than the title telling you what the role entails without needing further or indepth knowledge... This is why most titles are more specific and less broad as it tells you what the person actually does in a fairly succinct way. I guess for what we do it is hard to encompass that in a short title though!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823054707049106575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602240033757281319.post-75155768720792564782011-01-24T10:15:31.778-08:002011-01-24T10:15:31.778-08:00This particular snippet is what stood out most to ...This particular snippet is what stood out most to me in your reply.<br /> <br />"Tester for me it too broad and too simplistic"<br /> <br />Is it a broad term? <br />Yes as it covers a multitude of unique skills unlike any other profession in our industry.<br /> <br />Is it a simplistic term? <br />Not at all, at least to those of us who know what a skilled tester can offer.<br /> <br />I don't believe we should look to adjust our job titles to counter any bias that may exist in our industry, after all the real issue here is the (lack of) understanding about what's actually behind the title, not the title itself. Personally, I'd much prefer to simply educate those people that don't fully understand what we do, particularly those that think they know what we do, but don't.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13721608068072940053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602240033757281319.post-82424160435869312792011-01-24T02:51:31.607-08:002011-01-24T02:51:31.607-08:00Note that I stepped away from my position on the T...Note that I stepped away from my position on the Test Excellence team nearly a year ago now (long story, but the surface is covered in my blog posts from last year).<br /><br />Anyway, my business card says my job is "Tester / Thinker", and that's pretty much what I do. I tend to not worry about titles, and my feeling is that we'd be better off if that were a more popular opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602240033757281319.post-82255571223523172642011-01-24T02:43:36.172-08:002011-01-24T02:43:36.172-08:00Good hiring practices will cut through the crap.
...Good hiring practices will cut through the crap.<br /><br />I'd agree with Michael & Tony on this, for me I'd be a tester always. I've no other way to describe the diverse roles I play in my team.<br /><br />A good example for calling yourself a tester is Alan Page who is a Director of Test Excellence at Microsoft. He still thinks a tester is the best word to describe him.<br /><br />Tony nice write up, hopefully we'll see some new faces on Wednesday.Darren McMillanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15372641324627882128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602240033757281319.post-42944445484311965892011-01-24T01:47:33.734-08:002011-01-24T01:47:33.734-08:00Michael, I agree completely in that they are just ...Michael, I agree completely in that they are just checkers, but the term tester has become so abused that it has become the norm for people who run scripts to call themselves testers. From their point of view they are still testing functionality, albeit in an extremely basic and unintelligent form. I spend a lot of time reviewing CVs for potential candidates and it is a common misrepresentation of what the term tester should encompass. It ain't right, but it's out there and has momentum!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823054707049106575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602240033757281319.post-56427993338057046012011-01-23T16:25:01.295-08:002011-01-23T16:25:01.295-08:00"You were arguing the case for being a called...<i>"You were arguing the case for being a called a tester. Tester for me it too broad and too simplistic as it puts you on the list with people who simply run scripts without accountability or intelligence."</i><br /><br />Those aren't testers. Those are checkers.<br /><br />---Michael B.Michael Bolton http://www.developsense.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027725699187903416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602240033757281319.post-1669717987429973192011-01-23T11:46:09.239-08:002011-01-23T11:46:09.239-08:00Ah but then that comes down to your definition of ...Ah but then that comes down to your definition of a tester. I don't think a tester is a script monkey, if that is what you want then save yourself some money and hire a couple of college kids.<br /><br />To me being a tester goes much deeper than that and in fact for the most part a tester won't be using a script.<br /><br />I also would never determine whether a product is ready for release. I would provide information for others to determine whether it's ready for release because they are best placed to do so, they have the information to do so.<br /><br />I'll refer you to Michael Bolton's post too, it's a good read. http://www.developsense.com/blog/2010/05/testers-get-out-of-the-quality-assurance-business/Tony Brucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14044205740382054059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602240033757281319.post-83109599312578709462011-01-23T11:21:13.648-08:002011-01-23T11:21:13.648-08:00I guess that means I won then Tony!
It was a good...I guess that means I won then Tony!<br /><br />It was a good chat, though I can't remember how exactly we got on to the subject, but it did bring up a good point. What is the most appropriate title for what we do?<br /><br />QA isn't quite right as you can never assure quality because there are always deadlines and there's always a point where you have to stop testing. Maybe if the A stood for analyst then that would be more appropriate; we determine whether the product or feature is adequate for release, whether technically (the code is good) or from a usability, suitability, reliability and performance point-of-view<br /><br />You were arguing the case for being a called a tester. Tester for me it too broad and too simplistic as it puts you on the list with people who simply run scripts without accountability or intelligence. I know you do a lot more than that, as does any engineer in our field...<br /><br />I think I'm going to go for a Quality Analysis Engineer as perhaps the best fit for someone who does manual testing, though I'm sure others can come up with a better term.<br /><br />Of course, the other part of my argument was that it didn't really matter as some agencies will put anyone with any related experience for a role regardless of the title...! Ultimately it's down to your responsibilities and experience that make you what you areAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823054707049106575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4602240033757281319.post-24676837072268114042011-01-23T11:19:01.924-08:002011-01-23T11:19:01.924-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823054707049106575noreply@blogger.com