What's new in software testing?

A few years ago I went to several conferences asking people what was new and exciting in Software Testing.

I remember Magdy Hanna told me "Maaatt, there is nothing new."

It's 2009, perhaps time to revisit the question. What's new and exciting that we weren't doing a few years ago?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Simon Godfrey on April 24, 2009 at 1:41pm: WAgile? ;-); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rob Lambert on April 24, 2009 at 8:15pm: There is the ever increasing popularity of agile which is driving up the automation and exploratory testing but it's not really new. Just gaining popularity.

For me, the really new stuff in my world is the sheer number of tools out there that allow testers (and other IT professionals) to do their job better and more efficiently. A simple example are the number of cool tools within Firefox that aid testing. I put together a simple list here: http://blogs.imeta.co.uk/RLambert/archive/2008/10/29/useful-firefox...

The other things that I think are new are the technologies that are now available and needing testing. We now have WAP, mobile internet and iPhone apps etc. Every week there is something new in the tech world, even at the simplest level things like browsers and new operating systems.

I'm testing on hardware and software that wasn't available 2 or 3 years ago. I'm testing apps that didn't exist or need to exist 2 or 3 years ago, so who knows what I will be testing in 5 years time.

How are we going to be testing virtual reality worlds, workstations with no mice or keyboards etc?

I think there are lots of new things in testing but the biggest thing for me is the realisation in a lot of testers that outside sciences and skills are ever more important to what we do. Communication, sociology, science, market research, advertising, the sciences of understanding and visuals and audio and all other types of non-computing areas that all play a part in how people use software. I think the fact we are now looking at usability and accessibility more and more is a new thing borne out of the fact non tech people and people with disabilities are using technology in everyday life (I know they kind of always have, but I think the IT industry has realised that recently)

I think it is an exciting time to be a tester and who knows what the future holds?

Rob..; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Amith Ail on April 28, 2009 at 5:45am: Hi Rob,
The information you provided in the link "http://blogs.imeta.co.uk/RLambert/archive/2008/10/29/useful-firefox-add-ons-for-testing.aspx" was very helpful. I really appreciate it.
Will watch for more from you in the future.
Thanks and Regards.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joel Montvelisky on April 25, 2009 at 6:08pm: Hey Matt,

I don't think this is a fair question since stuff that is new to me or to "my testing world" might have been old stuff for other people.

But in my case, and the case of many of those surrounding me, is the realization that we are a Service Provider Group within out Companies. This means that even though the products, the technology and the tools are important; the most important thing (and sometimes the most challenging) is to work closely with our stakeholders to give them the information they need and when they need it to make their decisions.

There is obviously the stuff Simon and Rob also wrote about Agile, Tools, Languages, etc; but from my side this is secondary... (no harm meant guys!)

My 2 cents,; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rob Lambert on April 26, 2009 at 8:43am: No harm taken. lol.

You are absolutely spot on Joel. We are a service provider and taking care of stakeholders is fundamentally what we do. The realisation in some testing teams that we are a service provider is certainly new and exciting.

What scares me though, is the number of companies out there that still see testing as the end of the chain, the final judges, the people who say ship and the people who you can blame when a defect is found in the wild. A lot of the testing forums are full of testers working in these environments who simply don't get listened to, cannot accept some of the suggestions as they will be unacceptable to management and simply HAVE to get stuff done in the old fashioned way. Scary really.

It's cool when you do get the chance to work in an environment where you are seen more as a service to the whole team/stakeholders and customers and therefore responsibility for quality is shared and real progress can be made. I'm certainly thankful for it.

Rob..; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joel Montvelisky on April 26, 2009 at 2:12pm: I agree that there are many teams who only see the limited (and unrealistic) value of the QA as Bugs Gatekeepers.
So there's one question to be asked: How do you migrate an Company from one where the QA are the Organizational-Scapegoat to one where we are the Product-Visibility-Providers?

There are obviously multiple factors, but I am certain that one of them is the correct group of People in the QA who push this change to happen.
In a sense a classic case of the who came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

Just an afterthought...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Thomas Ponnet on April 27, 2009 at 1:31pm: I'd say that since we're provdiding an (internal) service to other teams within the company there need to be two types - a buyer and a seller.
We know we want to sell but more often than not there isn't a buyer. Why pay money for something that you don't need?
"What we will sell you will save you money! But you will have to invest first to reap the benefits..."
Must be one of the weakest, most exploited arguments ever so no wonder not very many people are biting.
In other words, money isn't the way to sell testing. Giving people more information about the stage their application really is in? Most PMs believe they know the important bits already, anything else is just fluff around the edges.

Don't get me wrong, I'm with Joel on this one, we should have a really close look at what we're actually saying to other, internal stakeholders. In my experience you'll move forward with people who just plain believe you if you basically say, trust me, I know what I'm doing. Because there isn't very much in way of showing what you do is of great benefit to a project team until you find one project that you can make a showcase of and show real life issues avoided, time saved, etc.
In my belief getting people interested in testing in the first place is the most difficult bit. Once you've got a foot in the door you can talk about the details to come back to the sales analogy again.

Oh, and if someone has good tips or succesful war stories, I'm all ears!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matthew Heusser on April 27, 2009 at 1:46pm: The worst organizations I ever worked with had complex ROI equations for how testing saved money.

The best, by far, had a manager who said "hey, tell you what. If you think we aren't providing value, we'll take a couple weeks off - unpaid if you insist. And we'll come back and see what shape the software is in. How 'about that?"

Now, there's more to it than that, but the point was that the value of QA was flipping obvious. When you need convoluted schemes to 'explain' your value ... well ... it might be time for some introspection. (It might be time for some marketing, too, don't get me wrong. But why isn't the value obvious? What's that all about?); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joel Montvelisky on April 27, 2009 at 2:35pm: I think that you are overestimating many Testing Organizations...

I've seen a good number of them that simply go on running their scripts and reporting bugs on their QA Management Systems like they were living on a Universe of their own.
They appear not to be aware (or at least not a whole lot!) that the project plans and assumptions changed along the way, or that the project managers all of a sudden need to get information from areas of the product that were not very obvious when the QA presented their original SOW document.
For these people the work starts and ends with the tests they planned to run at the beginning of the project, and deviations from this plan is something that will not come from them.

I think these QA Teams are not providing good value. They don't understand that many times when the Development and Project Managers approved their Test Plans (if they even read them at all!!!) it was when they were not aware of challenges and factors that change constantly during the project lifecycle.

This is a Testing Site so I feel free to say this: WE TESTERS ARE MANY TIMES GUILTY OF NOT PROVIDING VALUE TO OUR ORGANIZATIONS.
Why? Because we don't know how to work directly with (internal) clients or customers.

We don't need complex ROI tables or to receive plus stickers on our notebooks once a week (like my son gets from his kinder-garden). But we need to be perceived as the main Information Providers by our Project Stakeholders. To many development organizations and QA teams this is not that obvious...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Matthew Heusser on April 27, 2009 at 2:44pm: I think I agree, Joel. I'm saying that instead of complex rationalizations, those groups are due for some serious introspection ...

--heussser; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Bolton on April 27, 2009 at 4:20pm: Maybe it's just that there's nothing new in Magdy's stuff.

I can tell you what is new to me: the articulation of the idea that excellent testing is not merely about confirmation, validation, and verification, but instead excellent testing is about exploration, discovery, investigation, and learning. Note that the idea isn't new; this succinct means of expressing it is new to me.

---Michael B.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda Wilkinson on April 30, 2009 at 2:55pm: After reading all of the replies here, I think Magdy Hanna is still right.

There's a possibility that the concept of "tours" will turn into something interesting and useful, but I'm waiting to make up my mind on that one until more is available on the topic....

- Linda; ▶ Reply to This