2 ms·
Exactly. Drew Perttula put it better than I'll be able to: "IMHO, manual testing has only two advantages: it’s the easiest thing to [try to] do; and it has a lo
by TimothyFitz 18y ago
Exactly. Drew Perttula put it better than I'll be able to:
"IMHO, manual testing has only two advantages: it’s the easiest thing to [try to] do; and it has a lovely accountability chain. You can always blame the developer, and non-technical people will easily accept that this is the “inevitable cost of software engineering”."
- mst 18y agoThe thing I'd be really interested in is how you deal with UI changes - I've never found a satisfactory way to test "is this ugly/confusing" other than letting a few users bang on it on a staging server.
- TimothyFitz 18y agoUI is an interesting problem. The ultimate solution is to have business metrics drive your UI changes, usually in the form of an A/B test. Then you have a clear winner. This A/B would be run separate from the roll out structure (and indeed, we do LOTS of A/B tests). Sometimes that's not possible, for a new feature or for content without a clear business metric to evaluate for. Either way we often have someone manually test new UI, so that we're not exposing users to something fundamentally broken. We usually do this by using the existing deploy system, but turning the frontend on only for QA users. In the end, you do what works and is cheap, and that's usually something slightly different for every project.