Skip to main content

QAs are like Referees, people only talk about them when they make mistakes

In a lot of companies and a lot of articles that I read online, people say that QA is under estimated, that good QA doesn't get noticed enough, and they're talking about it like it's a bad thing?

However, I strongly believe that good QA doesn't need to be credited, the fact that people aren't talking about QA is a good thing, it's not just that no news is good news, but far more than that.

Let me give you the example of referees in football, if a referee has a good game then he's not going to be talked about, a good referee is a referee who goes unnoticed, doesn't make any bad decisions, and lets the game flow well. People aren't saying that the referee missed a blatant penalty or sent someone off.


To liken this to QA, if everything goes well on a project and and the product is released without any bugs and the quality of the software at the end was of a high standard then not very often will someone say the QA was great, I think it comes down to the assumption that software should be perfect without minimal effort, however, we know this isn't the case :)

Very rarely, a referee will do a great piece of refereeing, like here when Phil Dowd allowed Sunderland to play advantage and then broug the play back and awarded a penalty against Cardiff when no advantage was gained. This was heralded by Gus Poyet (Sunderland manager) as "the best decision I've ever seen from a referee".

Just like above, people will sometimes hail QA, and say what a great job they are doing, but I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that we should be happy that nobody is talking about us, it's when people start saying that the QA missed a bug or something, that we should be worried.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous19 June 2014 at 11:33

    Disclaimer: I'm a ref and a tester.

    I don't think we should be happy about this. The youth league I ref for has a real problem getting enough refs as parents and coaches think they can treat them like crap.
    Same argument can apply to test/QA - if no-one is writing about them and what a good job they do then (1) the pay will be crap and (2) no-one will want to do the job, they will want to be players or managers or coaches

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gareth Waterhouse20 June 2014 at 01:58

      I don't think recognition is a QA only problem, it's devs as well.

      How many games have you come off thinking to yourself you refereed that game to a high standard, and done well? Do you expect anybody else to say well done? Surely the satisfaction comes from yourself, as with the satisfaction of releasing software that users will find beneficial, and is bug free. That to me is good enough, sure it's nice when people say well done, but it's not the norm, and if it was the norm then surely it would lose it's meaning?

      I'd much rather not hear anything about the QA on a project rather than hearing comments about how it was done poorly, which I'm sure is the same for refereeing?

      We do need to attract people to QA, and even make the work that we do more visible, that will help improve the pay, and will help people want to do the job, not necessarily pats on the back when things go well?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Treating Test Code as Production Code

It's important when writing automated tests to remember that the code you write should be up to production standards, meaning any conventions that you have in place should be adhered to and that it should follow good design patterns. Too many people often say why does it have to be as good as production code, it's "Only" a test, so long as it passes then that's fine... To answer this we need to look at why we want our tests to be written in such a structured and efficient manner: - Maintainability - by making the test code structured and efficient, it becomes far easier to maintain and in doing so changes in the future can happen quickly as the test isn't linked to anything that it shouldn't be and it's easy to understand for a new set of eyes. - Durability - Again by making the tests structured they should be resistant to changes, if you change a variable name for instance then it shouldn't effect the unit test unless it absolutely has to....
1 comment
Read more

Testers: Be more like a Super-Villain!

Who doesn't love a Super Hero? Talk to my son, and he'll tell you how much he loves them, talk to many adults and they'll say the same! Deep down, we all love to be the Super Hero, we all want to save the day! However, I want to talk about the flip side of Super Heroes, the Super Villains... I often play Imaginext with my son, and I (unfortunately?) am nearly always the Super Villain! Be it Lex Luthor, Joker, Two Face, Mr Freeze or The Riddler! These are all great characters and great Super Villains, but why would I want to write about Super Villains? A while ago where I worked, we had a few Super Heroes, people who would be able to come in and "fix" things that had broken and help deliver projects on time. We then shifted, we decided to do away with the Super Hero culture and try and prevent from being in that position in the first place, whilst we didn't go as far as wanting to hire Super Villains, it's definitely a story that has stuck with me and t...
2 comments
Read more

Using BDD and gherkinising your Acceptance Tests

In my post Testing of Automated tests , I mention about a BDD framework which involves using BDD to drive your acceptance tests. BDD stands for Behaviour Driven Development.  One effective method of writing BDD tests are by using a format known as Gherkin language. These consist of Given, When, Thens. The main advantage of the gherkin language is that it's readable by the business, and in an ideal world forms part of the Conditions of Acceptance around a PBI. Also, using a Visual Studio plugin of SpecFlow , you can integrate your Gherkinised COAs into your solution with feature files, and then drive the automated tests, however, for this post I will focus solely on how to effectively gherkinise your acceptance tests. A Feature file consists of a feature outline, which details what the feature file is testing followed by Scenarios and examples (parameters).  The BDD scenarios are made up of a Given, When, Then... These are effectively an initial state (Given), an action (W...
6 comments
Read more