1. The article more or less shows the traditional role of the test group versus the “user-centered-design” approach, which involves constant iteration and close contact between testers and developers in real time (i.e. during project execution).

    We know the traditional method (like the waterfall method itself) can work because it has worked so often in the past. But it works in longer loops, and it may be less efficient. And it may fail quite a lot too!

    In general, I would not put the onus to say that the product is OK to ship on the testers. The testers _just_ find as many bugs and problems as they can. The developers and product managers can judge that work – the testers just make it clear that the problems exist, then they get on with some other work. Don’t get involved with the politics of conclusions. Leaving a meeting early with the words “my work here is done” is one of the greatest pleasures of being in a “destructive” test group!


  2. PS: that sounds a bit harsh, but it’s only because the testers represent the users. Users don’t fix things nor argue about what they think. They simply tell the developers why the thingie doesn’t work well. If the developers choose to ignore that, then the firm will have a short span of life, but that’s not down to the testers.

Comments are closed.