Attendees:

Anna Liskovets, Ben Simo, Bharani, Charley Baker, Darren McCarthey, Dawn Code, Chris McMahon, Dinesh Babu, Eugenia Yakhnin, Jasminka Puskar, Jaswinder Nagi, Jim Holmes, Lanette Creamer, Lisa Crispin, Mohinder Khosla, Zoltan Molnar, Muttijo, Neeraj Guleria, Rahul Vig, Ranjit Shringapure, Rasmus Koorits, Shmuel Gershon, Sirisha Parsi, Sowjanya Bitra, Teri Charles, Thomas Htwe,

Session:

This week, we were given the opportunity to look at and tackle a larger application than we were used to. Specifically, we took on Wikipedia, thanks to hris McMahon and the ability to get a pre-release look at several new eatures.

Normally, we take on just some one aspect of a product or make a simple harter that focuses on a targeted area. Today, though, Chris was able to give us a much more expansive range of options to test. He helped put together a test plan and coverage matrix
based on browser compatibility and new features. From there, out larger than normal attendee group were let loose and given an opportunity to check out the new features.

We had an additional surprise in that attendees at Telerik’s Testing Summit in Austin, Texas (where Chris and several of our attendees were) helped make for a super-team in that there were several attendees in the same place and able to confer with each other directly.

With an international audience, it was no surprise that there was a focus on international language tests and presentation aspects that were given close scrutiny (and issues were found around those areas as well as others).

Lisa Crispin put together a full mind map of her group’s involvement and testing and posted it to her blog.

The rest of the chat transcript can be seen here.

Time: 4 PM to 6 PM

Testers:

Ashwin, Brian, Jasminka, Molnar, PushpaRaj, Rajesh, Richard and Savita

Facilitator:

Ajay

Mission: 

Register at http://bit.ly/Htw2sV. Please do not test the registration page.

Once you are logged in, please focus on the following three areas:

* First Impressions.

* Features which are confusing.

* Garden paths – highlight the features/actions where the clicks can be reduced

Please be ready with the report which focuses on the above three areas.

Chat Transcript: Click here

Individual Reports:

Jasminka’s report, Steffen’s report, Savita’s report, PushpaRaj’s report, Brian Osman’s report, one here and last report.

Time: 4 PM to 6 PM

Testers:

Anuj, Babu, Jasminka, Ranjit, Rickard and Steffen.

Facilitator:

Ajay

Mission: 

Test online website building tool Edicy. Testing should focus on a subset of functionality.

The first challenge is to find a feature or a set of features that you can test thoroughly within the time period.

Chat Transcript: Click here

Individual Reports:

Rickard’s report, Ranjit’s test notes and one more

Attendees:
Michael Larsen, Molnár Zoltán, Robert Donahue, Lanessa Hunter, Pushpa Raj, Eugenia Yakhnin, Ranjit Shringarpure, Ashwin Maharaj, Rahul Vig, Victor Mclean

Session:
We focused today on looking at a site that offers to teach people how to program,

http://codecademy.com/

We set the session up today as a good old fashioned bug hunt…. with a twist. As an added bonus, we approached the application from the perspective of doing scenario based testing.

Scenario testing is a software testing activity that uses scenarios: hypothetical stories to help the tester work through a complex problem or test system. The ideal scenario test is a credible, complex, compelling or motivating story the outcome of which is easy to evaluate. These tests are usually different from test cases in that test cases are single steps whereas scenarios cover a number of steps.

We used the following resources to help explain the idea and rationale behind scenario based testing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenario_testing
http://www.kaner.com/pdfs/ScenarioIntroVer4.pdf

Example:

I am a beginning programmer, and I want to learn how to understand JavaScript better. To this purpose, I would like to work through an example and feel that I have successfully learned the topic being presented. To do this, I will work through the exercises provided.

Each of the testers were asked to go and spend some time on CodeCademy, work through the first example exercise, and then report back as to the following:

1. Describe the scenario you were able to construct.
2. Explain issues you encountered along the way.
3. If you found anything of note, share them in the chat transcript.

There were a number of interesting issues that were found, one of them being someone who entered in an Irish Name of “Danny O’Brien”. The very first screen had a problem with this, and couldn’t accept that value. This is an example of using a scenario (playing with not as common names) we were able to find a deficiency in the program. Other issues were also discovered using a similar technique, where instead of just looking at test cases, the tester created and processed a coherent story so that they could look at a broad range of criteria to determine if the program was doing what it should.

Full chat transcript is here.

Attendees:

Dinesh Babu, Ajay Balamurugadas, Chris Baudin, Bharani, Steffen Blenk, Albert Gareev, Phil Kirkham, Michael Larsen, Zoltán Molnár, Russ Poole, Meeta Prakash, Sandesh, Pushpa Raj, Eugenia Yakhnin, Adam Yuret,

Session:

This was a departure from our normal sessions, in that we decided to take on some of the “trick questions” that are frequently asked in interviews. Some of these questions are famous puzzles, some less known, but the purpose of the session was to work together and see how we could make the questions a chance to explore and work through the problems, and learn from each other’s explorations.

Right away, there were two levels of interaction. The first was that there were some who went to work immediately on the questions and sought to try to find the “right answer”, and were disappointed when we did not share the “right answer” for the questions. There was another group that expressed opposition to this type of approach for interviewing testers, and that felt we were reinforcing outmoded and bad interviewing habits.

Our objective was somewhere in the middle. While we realized that these were tricky questions, and they often times brought up visceral reactions in people, the goal was to get beyond the actual questions and look at ways that we as testers could explore them, have some fun with them, and demonstrate our thought processes to other testers and see how they thought and how we thought to work through the problems. On the whole, I think we were able to do that.

If you’d like to try your hand at the questions we fielded, the full chat transcript is here.

Time: 4pm IST

Testers: Ajay, Anusha, Balu, Deepak, Jasminka, Nimish, Rajesh, Rasmus and Sweta.
Facilitator: Ajay

Mission:

Collaborate with others on a map to create a list of points to check for consistency.

Highlights:

• Change in the mission at the last moment.

• Collaboration on a map using Mindmeister tool.

• Two excellent checklists by two teams

Please find the unedited chat transcript here.

Please find the two documents here and here.

To participate in future sessions, please watch out for announcements at

http://weekendtesting.com/discussions?vasthtmlaction=viewforum&f=4.0

we will start the session.

Session duration is 2 hrs.

How do I join:
Please send an email to weekendtesting@gmail.com with subject “WT73” and

mention your Skype ID in the body of the email.

Please be online five minutes before the session start time.

Highlights:
We will be testing a Mobile Device Management website for Usability quality criteria.

If you have a Android or iOS device, it helps. But do not worry if you do not have one.

Any questions:
Email: weekendtesting@gmail.com
Twitter: @weekendtesting
Skype: weekendtesting

Attendees:

Amy Kroh, Anuradha, Albert Gareev, Bob Donahue, Jasminka Puskar, Jason Strobush, Michael Larsen, Pradeep Soundararajan, Russ Poole, Scott Seltzer, Timothy Western, Shmuel Gershon, Eugenia Yakhnin, Ajay Balamurugadas

Session:

Quite often, facilitators at Weekend Testing put a major effort on outlining the context and tightly framing the mission in order to set a clear challenge fitting the timebox. This time we changed the rules of the game: we provided context and set the timebox, but let participants frame exploration on their own.

This happened to be one of the most awesome sessions!

Enjoy the session chat and individual reports:

Amy’s Notes

Anuradha’s Notes

Bob’s Notes

Jasminka’s Notes

Jason’s Notes

Pradeep’s Notes

Russ & Michael’s Notes

Scott’s Notes

Shmuel & Eugenia’s Notes

Timothy’s Notes

The full chat session can be viewed here

Special thanks to James Lyndsay, who designed and made available for testing challenges the “Black Box Test Machines”, one of which we used.

Time: 4pm – 6pm IST

Testers: Anit Patel, Rasmus Koorits, Rickard Englund, Sakthi and Steffen Blenk

Facilitator: Ajay Balamurugadas

Mission:

The product to be tested is Direct Folders.
Perform Claims testing. Evaluate each and every claim the product makes through its help file and website. At the end of the testing session, provide your observations, issues in the form of a test report.

Highlights:

• Many of the testers had never performed Claims testing before.
• Most of the testers successfully completed the mission.
• There were few bugs highlighted.
• Mission was liked by the testers.

Chat transcript: Link

Test reports: Link

Time: 4 pm IST

Testers: 

Jasminka, Madhusudhan, Priya, Rasmus, Sakthi, Shailendra, Steveland, Vamshi and Zeacuss

Facilitator: Ajay

Mission:

The programmer of www.myswar.com wants you to register as a user, note down any issues you find. If you have any suggestions to improve the site, feel free to do so.

At the end of the testing session, be ready with your testing notes/report with bugs/suggestions/issues.

Highlights:

• Mission was met by most of the testers.
• My account was hacked by one of the testers – A critical issue was found by Rasmus.
• Good mix of first timers and WT experienced testers.
• Good coverage in terms of OS/browser combination.