Date: 23rd January 2010 Time: 15:30 – 18:00 GMT
Website Tested: http://www.bing.com/maps
Mission: Test Bing Maps and bring up test scenarios. Create a list of scenarios with users of the system and how they interact with the system. Write your scenarios as narratives – mini “soap operas”, as they’re described here: http://bit.ly/3CVd4z . (Note: scroll down to the bottom of the page for some examples, the article is quite long.)
Please note down your findings and enter them on http://www.bugrepository.com under EWT02 project
Markus Gaertner facilitated the discussion afterwards, asking each tester about their experiences.
Phil Kirkham started. He had never done scenario testing, so found it a challenge to read up on it and try to write one – not as easy as it might first appear. He liked the idea and would like to do more scenario testing and learn how to write a good one. A different approach to his usual one and one he’d like to get more experience in.
Tony Bruce was next. He explained that as he was late to the session (problems with Skype) he felt a little pressured. He found that although he thought of a number of scenarios, rather than jotting them down and using them he found that he fell into just checking functionality rather than using scenarios. He discovered that Bing was really bad at partial details – his grandmother’s street name in North Yorkshire threw up an address in Australia! His learning for the session was to avoid the time pressure trap, and instead of jumping straight in give himself time to think for a few extra minutes.
Markus Deibel followed. He started out writing scenarios without thinking about test cases, and questioned whether the idea was to have a test idea and support it with a story. Markus G suggested that soap operas can be used to generate new testing ideas. He also commented that usually, he would be starting from the features and trying to connect their usage in new ways using scenarios, whereas in this case he was starting from a point where he didn’t know anything about existing features.
Ajay Balamurugadas and Thomas Ponnet went next. They had chosen to try pair testing for this session. They found this interesting as they both had different approaches – Ajay was into getting lots of ideas and jotting them down, where Thomas was more interested in putting more detail into fewer scenarios. They decided early on to concentrate on the scenarios, rather than checking the application. Thomas had previous experience of working on devices used by the customers in relation with Bing Maps, so brought this to the pairing, and Ajay brought his questioning and creative thinking. They both enjoyed the experience of pairing remotely – Thomas commented that meeting in the middle when pair testing is difficult but possible, and it had worked today. Ajay commented that “when we listen and respect each other, Paired testing ROCKS”.
Points from the discussion:
A number of participants deviated from the mission into testing the application. This turned into an interesting discussion about when it’s right for a tester to deviate from the mission given to them, and when it causes problems for the test manager.
Another point that came up, was that again, participants tended to dive into testing concurrently, instead of combining several great ideas. During the discussion several more testing ideas came up as a result of hearing other tester’s ideas and being inspired by them. A topic for further discussion perhaps? How to test effectively with only one hour and a group split over Skype.
One other thing we probably could have discussed was browser compatibility, speed of net connection, etc. Some participants found Bing slow, compared to their expectations from similar websites like Google Maps and Openstreet map (comparable products oracle), but others found it really fast.