So, I think there has been some agreement on the applicability of the shorteners among the five available.

The discussion log entry is up on bug repository. It’s a bunch of pages, but maybe worthwhile to read. If I remember back correctly, we did not discuss it directly. Personally, I liked Phil’s report and the one from Ajay, though it doesn’t give a clear recommendation or summary statement. Since the nature of the feedback is different (clear recommendation vs. lists of features and drawbacks), I don’t dare to compare them. Ajay’s write-up leaves a lot of room for the particular user to decide if he likes the functions or not. Reminded me on articles from the German c’t magazine, where they do something similar.

To get a more condensed view, some more information from Jassi and Markus Deibel would be helpful. Maybe we should continue this discussion on the forums here.

Last Saturday I took part in EWT session number 4 and what can I say, it was again a worthwhile investment of time. Our mission was to analyze URL shortening services for three different stakeholders, find possible issues for each of them and report th…

I find this to be one of the complaints I get from PM’s saying that whatever was done is all good and fine but “have you answered my question?”
It would be interesting to see if all testers have a recommendation for each of the three stakeholders; do all testers agree in their recommendation? If not, can they formulate why they disagree?

You might have covered all of that in your actual discussion but since I didn’t take part I don’t know that.

Thanks,

Thomas

I tested this morning for the above session and mission. I tried a little different approach. I used the 3 stakeholder groups and came up with ideas about features that mattered the most to each group (heavy twitter user, university student and magazine publisher). Based on those features, I checked each URL shortening service if they provided/supported that feature. In the end, I got a fairly good feature list which made it easy for me to summarize which one would be good to go with.

What I failed to do was summarize like Philk did (Awesome job Philk). It is important to be able to report the information in a format acceptable, clear and precise to the stakeholders/decision makers. Else, it would be as good as nothing.

I really really liked the way Philk summarised. Thank you Philk. You showed me a new way to report information to the stakeholders. Ajay’s approach to search through available information would have speeded up my testing. It didn’t strike me at the time (Need to remember that Google is all ready to help always). I also enjoyed the debrief session (again, felt bad that I didn’t make it to such a wonderful session).

Thank you very much EWT 04. It’s been great to read the session report,bug reports and the chat transcript. I will try to make it next time

Regards,
Parimala Shankaraiah