<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Unrealistic Expectations</title>
	<link>http://onesandzeros.tangozulu.biz/2008/11/12/unrealistic-expectations/</link>
	<description>Software, aviation, electronics, economics, and other neat stuff.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://onesandzeros.tangozulu.biz/2008/11/12/unrealistic-expectations/#comment-126</link>
		<author>Mark</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:26:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://onesandzeros.tangozulu.biz/2008/11/12/unrealistic-expectations/#comment-126</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Good stuff.  An issue I have with software QA is the over-reliance some organizations place on automated regression testing.  YES, this is a good tool, especially for nightly builds, to insure the coders haven't broken something, but it's only half the story.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For more complex software, especially software tools and "platforms", employees throughout the company and key customers should be urged to build sample applications.  Trying to build something is the number one way to find new bugs, missing features and usability issues.  And, after all this "testing", a company has a large library of sample code, which is often more helpful than some of the formal doc, assuming they every get around to writing it.  And don't let editorial review bottleneck these demos - have a "quality" stamp for how polished each demo is - if it's never even had spellcheck run on it, just label it as such and still put it online.  The only real review requirement is to do a quick check for true intellectual property issues, obscenities and hardcoded passwords.  Let the users flag the demos that need the most editing.  Show me a company with 100+ sample apps and I'll show you a reasonably well vetted tool.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good stuff.  An issue I have with software QA is the over-reliance some organizations place on automated regression testing.  YES, this is a good tool, especially for nightly builds, to insure the coders haven&#8217;t broken something, but it&#8217;s only half the story.</p>
<p>For more complex software, especially software tools and &#8220;platforms&#8221;, employees throughout the company and key customers should be urged to build sample applications.  Trying to build something is the number one way to find new bugs, missing features and usability issues.  And, after all this &#8220;testing&#8221;, a company has a large library of sample code, which is often more helpful than some of the formal doc, assuming they every get around to writing it.  And don&#8217;t let editorial review bottleneck these demos - have a &#8220;quality&#8221; stamp for how polished each demo is - if it&#8217;s never even had spellcheck run on it, just label it as such and still put it online.  The only real review requirement is to do a quick check for true intellectual property issues, obscenities and hardcoded passwords.  Let the users flag the demos that need the most editing.  Show me a company with 100+ sample apps and I&#8217;ll show you a reasonably well vetted tool.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

