Hey there, here’s the new portion of kick ass blog posts from the previous week:
- Really amazing start of this weeks roundup and really good post by James Thomas. It shows in a wonderful way how opposition in science and testing can drive us to reconsideration of our positions and stating our ideas more clearly. Definitely a must read:
Bug-Free Software? Go For It!
- Another interesting post by Albert Gareev on accessibility testing and the fact that tools might only cover small part of the process that a skilled tester performs, related to accessibility assessment. Automated tools and UI mock-ups in early stages of testing might provide some help, but confidence is build only through expert analysis and taking a closer look, even at a mark up level. You can see the full post here:
What’s in a label?
- This is a really interesting webinar by Rex Black, busting some myths about exploratory testing. It is interesting from the perspective of being thought-provoking or even argument provoking. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to hear it all, I accidentally navigated out of the page and found I can’t forward the player to the point I was previously at(which is great user experience, by the way). Anyway, I will probably spend the time to hear it all and share my thoughts in a separate post:
Webinar: Myths of Exploratory Testing: 2/24/16
- And here are part 2 and 3 of James Thomas’ transcript of a talk he had on testing and joking, he called it “Joking with Jerry”
Joking With Jerry Part 2
Joking With Jerry Part 3
- The February issue of Testing Circus magazine is out with great topics from Mike Talks a great interview with Rosie Sherry and much more compelling articles on testing. You can download it here:
Testing Circus February edition.
Some other roundup posts:
Automate the planet – Compelling Sunday.
That’s it for this week, guys. See you next week.
Please follow and like us:
3 thoughts on “Some kick ass blog posts from last week #9”
Hi, Mr. Viktor Slavchev..
I thank you for reading my blog and recommending my articles. Special thanks for the reviews, too!
It’s interesting to receive a feedback like this. In my article I demonstrate that “Devil’s in the details” – and how accessibility checking tools miss it.
How did it come to appear to be about pitfalls of early testing?
So let me try and “patch” it 🙂
I believe, that [skilled] early testing is a quick cheap efficient approach for early detection and prevention of quality problems, including accessibility. Not everything is testable though at the “mock ups” stage.
On the contrast, checking tools can be used only pretty late: they require actual Web pages. Furthermore, checking tools are only capable of spotting obvious patterns in HTML syntax. There’s no single accessibility requirement that can be completely and reliably tested by any tool. Here’s what I claimed and backed up with examples in my post.
Hello, Albert! Thank you for the comment.
Yes, it was a terrible review, now as I look at it. I write the reviews couple of days after I red the posts and sometimes it gets a bit of a mess, I was in a hurry. I am really sorry about that. I edited it and tried to be a bit more specific.
Thanks for the help.