Thursday 10 June 2010

A Question Of Character

You can run but you cannot hide..

The internet and real life are two different worlds, whilst these worlds now collide and overlap in many a way that they previously stood apart there still remains differences between the two.

In real life a greater sense of accountability and responsibility for ones actions can lead to often a greater requirement for those who would otherwise prefer to run and hide to actually deal with situations rather than choosing the path of avoidance.

Care of the Internet and social networking / instant messaging one is able to choose to just 'block' those they wish not to deal with and thus can choose the path of avoidance. As a result of this the Internet serves as an interesting medium for revealing the true character of an individual.

Whilst peoples on-line persona can conflict and be at odds with their 'real life' persona this does not alter the fact that both these personas are the creation of one and the same person. As such this means it can be a great revelation into the psychology and mindset of a person when it comes to how they act on-line as to their true nature. This has never been more relevant than now where privacy issues have highlighted that a person’s actions, their words and the thoughts they share on-line can be documented / recorded for time-lengths yet unknown and where a person’s words alone can be sufficient for them to land up in a court or jail.

Despite the fact these two worlds are now closer than ever before this has not prevented people from still demonstrating the kind of behaviour on-line that would be less likely to be accepted within a real life situation. So when an individual selects to just 'block' another over a single discussion or single action it does leave one to question why.

If there has been a succession of circumstances where the issue after numerous attempts still has shown no sign of change then it could be considered understandable to potentially take such measures. This though is in itself an important distinction as it demonstrates a level of maturity from the individual in question as they have made an attempt to find a resolution or to settle the matter rather than choose the easy way out, avoiding the situation and just blocking the person in question.

This action can also occur when someone is presented with an idea that conflicts with their own beliefs or ideologies and that they had found the whole idea so confronting that their only retort was to take an action that could be considered as little more than an emotional response by blocking that user, an action that bears great parallels with that of censorship itself and a certain sign of being closed minded.

Obviously this point does not relate to strangers though who are just out to spam users or the likes as such users are considered little different to receiving junk mail and they neither are engaging the user in discussion and are often little more than some automated script that does not care too much for what its' results are.

Tuesday 8 June 2010

To Err Is To Be Human

The feelings associated in discovering a failure with ones actions are unlikely to stir joy in the average person. It is quite natural if ones desire is to seek something approaching perfection that it is possible that when the outcome, the result falls short of expectation to be disappointed.

As a tester we regularly deliver information of this nature on a regular basis to developers for their own work so it is because of this that the way we communicate that information is so important, to take out notion of blame or fault and rather just explain the results of what was found to them so with as little emotion as possible they can digest this information as objectively as possible and seek to find a resolution to the issue.

The difference though is when one discovers an action of their own that has measured short that there is no immediate separation of fault from actions, especially when one is aware of their own actions, then achieving objectivity is something the tester can only arrive at after the fact.

As someone who prides himself on his work and the quality of what he assists in delivering I would be lying if I did not find such experiences a bitter-sweet experience. Even though moments where a short-coming in my actions have occurred are few and far between, when they do occur it becomes a moment of disappointment as I am immediately aware as to the circumstances of the matter and know it was an area of my responsibility.

Whilst these moments are not ones I seek out they are ones that ultimately prove beneficial. In such situations I have often found myself having been acutely aware of what I had been thinking and what I had or had not been doing at the time when the mistake occurred.

Resultantly and what I believe is the distinction between an average and a good tester is recognising the situation for what it is, an opportunity to analyse what my shortcomings were in that situation and where there is room for improvement and what else I am able to take/learn from the experience. I also value the humility it brings in the reminder of the discovery of one owns short comings, so in short, the whole experience becomes something potentially positive and becomes an opportunity to grow.

So, even though one should never seek to fail, one can still fail to succeed if they let arrogance or ego get the better of them and miss chances like those as an opportunity and something to embrace regardless of any initial feelings associated with it all.

Friday 4 June 2010

A War Of Words

The Fine Art of Miscommunication...

Within the testing field one has to adapt their methods of communication on the job to assist with avoiding ambiguities where the tester feels or receives feedback that it should be present.

Whilst I would not have anticipated that the complexities of my language might muddle or baffle my fellow testers, my colleagues in this area, the requirement for simplicity when communicating as was observed via a recent conversation via twitter highlighted this need (care of a discussion with Michael Bolton who I thank for taking the time to discuss this subject with me further).

What was construed as a failure on my behalf with what they believed was a contradiction was not actually a contradiction at all, one of the issues at hand was that the form of communication being utilised proved itself ineffective in communicating the idea at hand, so whilst the form was at fault it did not mean the message was too. Part of this construed contradiction was also due to the fact I re-worded what I said but had not altered what I meant on several occasions in an attempt to get the idea across.

This conversation was itself born out of another subject, one also relating to communication, that being the matter of what my colleagues stated as the importance and requirement of having precise definitions for terminologies used. Whilst the discussion of this subject in itself demonstrated the potential ambiguities of the English language and did serve to show that there are relevant, appropriate and important times where distinctions are beneficial, distinctions that come from an exact / precise choice of terminology to express an idea, the point of contention came one over the necessity for such distinctions at all times, for all related matters. A necessity I viewed as a shortcoming in the ability to communicate, a statement which was taken quite harshly by the audience in question.

Let me repeat this just in case there are any who just missed it.. The point of contention became one over the necessity for such distinctions at all times, for all matters. I believed this to be a shortcoming as it diminishes the importance of context; it rides off the assumption that the terminology will be shared amongst those discussing the subject and focuses a discussion or idea more on the choice of terminology used rather than focusing on the meaning behind it. It should be noted however and this is of importance that I am not dismissing or deriding the value of shared understandings of terminology and do indeed feel it can be beneficial / valuable, I am commenting on the dependence on and pre-requisite for such terminology being present to be able to effectively communicate.

To use an anecdote here let me make a comparison to testing. Whilst one could use in their reporting specific terminology in reference to a particular issue this does not necessarily translate to the developer being aware of the context of which the issue occurred and the developer may not even be familiar with the terminology or have a different understanding of it. What is more productive in such situations is providing sufficient context and ensure one is conveying the meaning rather than going into what I had described as the 'semantics' of definitions (which represented another thought of mine that was considered offensive in this discussion). If the developer does happen to share this understanding of terminology then it could indeed be considered a benefit but it cannot be an expectation of the tester that it will be automatically understood due to the use of precise terminology either.

My discussion with Michael went on to solidify this where he expressed that the 'community' takes precision of expression very seriously, and that being dismissive of it and resorting to generalities might see repercussions out of what he cited as frustration. Confirmation of this matter provided what was in my mind a rather interesting insight into the thought processes behind those involved. Whilst the English language is indeed prone to ambiguities why there was this expectation and dependence on this precision as a necessity in all situations though is a different question that is left to be answered, especially given that even in its absence communication can still be effective and clarity can still be achieved.