5 ms·

I think the results have to do with your questioning. For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality so

by dkyc 12y ago

I think the results have to do with your questioning. For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. So some people give testing a 0, because it's not something you actively want to do. And others give testing a 5, because they know that whatever job they'll take, they probably have to test their code. I don't really see much difference to the classic self-made bullet-point-list of skills.

warcode 12y ago
The "What would I like to do" vs "What would be agreeable to do in a job" scenario would probably explain the specialists vs generalists. Unless everybody is forced to answer the same question the shapes are useless.
dagw 12y ago
I would interpret a testing of 0 as willing to write the minimal number of tests needed to get their code working and 5 as willing to spend all their time developing the company wide testing framework and testing policy and making sure it's continually updated and being followed, as well as being the last person in the chain to sign off on the fact that any software leaving the shop as passed all the tests. Basically being a 5 means you want to own that aspect, if necessary at the exclusion of everything else.
- dkyc 12y ago
  Your interpretation seems like a reasonable scale - however, it is a very vague definition of "0". I'm sure some people want a 0 to mean an actual 0, like a blind developer asked to do UI development.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Yeah, sounds like a joke. But I worked at a company where the tech writer was legally blind, the marketing guy was shy and the spokesperson (CEO) stuttered. Weird place.
  - jeffbr13 12y ago
    Interfaces aren't only visual - blind users still have to interact with something.
  - dagw 12y ago
    OK, let's take 0 to mean does not write tests on principle and 1 to mean writes minimal tests grudgingly if required by policy.
onion2k 12y ago
For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. Why? Someone has to do the testing, obviously, but why does it have to be you just because you want to write good quality software? Why can't you work with a brilliant QA[1] team who can generate an awesome set of processes and tests based on your specifications? You don't have to do the bit you find boring if there's someone else around who loves doing it and will do a better job of it because they don't find it boring. Giving up parts of the development process is part of being in a team. A very important part. Using the idea in the article along with good knowledge of what's needed in the particular problem domain, it should be possible to use 'workshapes' to put together a very suitable team of people for a project. [1] Important note for the unfamiliar: Most QA teams are actually QC teams. QA (quality assurance) has to happen from the very first stages of a project, putting in processes that assure the right level of quality will be met. QC (quality checking) happens at the end where someone goes through a project and makes sure it's been done well. If your "QA" only happens at the end then it's QC, and it's probably not helping you build the best product you're capable of building.
- GordyMD 12y ago
  Like that you have picked on the team aspect. We have a very exciting new feature in the works which focuses on presenting the team that you would be joining and how you will compliment each other in terms of how you collectively want to spend time.
- JustSomeNobody 12y ago
  Before the code even gets to QA it needs to be functional and as bug free as possible. As a developer, I _hate_ it when my fellow developers send crap to QA because they could not be bothered to make it not crap. It is unprofessional. The goal should be to produce SW that does not get rejected at QA.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Yeah, I agree on principle. But sometimes you look bad in front of QA because you ask them to do their job. To give you an example - I was implementing an achievement for a console game. The achievement took roughly 3-4 hours to test fully. I was specifically told by my manager to do my best to make sure that it works,but not to spend time testing it myself,because it would be a waste of my time - it's QAs job to test things like this. So obviously, when the achievement didn't trigger after 4 hours of testing, I looked like a dick to QA,who just spent 4 hours testing this thing. Unfortunately some people take this approach for everything and never test their code - that's bad.

by dkyc 12y ago

warcode 12y ago

The "What would I like to do" vs "What would be agreeable to do in a job" scenario would probably explain the specialists vs generalists. Unless everybody is forced to answer the same question the shapes are useless.

dagw 12y ago

I would interpret a testing of 0 as willing to write the minimal number of tests needed to get their code working and 5 as willing to spend all their time developing the company wide testing framework and testing policy and making sure it's continually updated and being followed, as well as being the last person in the chain to sign off on the fact that any software leaving the shop as passed all the tests. Basically being a 5 means you want to own that aspect, if necessary at the exclusion of everything else.

dkyc 12y ago
Your interpretation seems like a reasonable scale - however, it is a very vague definition of "0". I'm sure some people want a 0 to mean an actual 0, like a blind developer asked to do UI development.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Yeah, sounds like a joke. But I worked at a company where the tech writer was legally blind, the marketing guy was shy and the spokesperson (CEO) stuttered. Weird place.
- jeffbr13 12y ago
  Interfaces aren't only visual - blind users still have to interact with something.
- dagw 12y ago
  OK, let's take 0 to mean does not write tests on principle and 1 to mean writes minimal tests grudgingly if required by policy.

onion2k 12y ago

For example, I don't want to spend my time testing, but I have to do it if I want to write high quality software. Why? Someone has to do the testing, obviously, but why does it have to be you just because you want to write good quality software? Why can't you work with a brilliant QA[1] team who can generate an awesome set of processes and tests based on your specifications? You don't have to do the bit you find boring if there's someone else around who loves doing it and will do a better job of it because they don't find it boring. Giving up parts of the development process is part of being in a team. A very important part. Using the idea in the article along with good knowledge of what's needed in the particular problem domain, it should be possible to use 'workshapes' to put together a very suitable team of people for a project. [1] Important note for the unfamiliar: Most QA teams are actually QC teams. QA (quality assurance) has to happen from the very first stages of a project, putting in processes that assure the right level of quality will be met. QC (quality checking) happens at the end where someone goes through a project and makes sure it's been done well. If your "QA" only happens at the end then it's QC, and it's probably not helping you build the best product you're capable of building.

GordyMD 12y ago
Like that you have picked on the team aspect. We have a very exciting new feature in the works which focuses on presenting the team that you would be joining and how you will compliment each other in terms of how you collectively want to spend time.
JustSomeNobody 12y ago
Before the code even gets to QA it needs to be functional and as bug free as possible. As a developer, I _hate_ it when my fellow developers send crap to QA because they could not be bothered to make it not crap. It is unprofessional. The goal should be to produce SW that does not get rejected at QA.
- gambiting 12y ago
  Yeah, I agree on principle. But sometimes you look bad in front of QA because you ask them to do their job. To give you an example - I was implementing an achievement for a console game. The achievement took roughly 3-4 hours to test fully. I was specifically told by my manager to do my best to make sure that it works,but not to spend time testing it myself,because it would be a waste of my time - it's QAs job to test things like this. So obviously, when the achievement didn't trigger after 4 hours of testing, I looked like a dick to QA,who just spent 4 hours testing this thing. Unfortunately some people take this approach for everything and never test their code - that's bad.