QA Hates You

When one browser dies, another rises to join the pantheon:

Google Inc is set to introduce on Tuesday a new Web browser designed to more quickly handle video-rich applications, posing a challenge to browsers designed originally to handle text and graphics.

This browser will probably eat into Firefox’s market share, as some of the hip developers switch to using it instead.  Maybe some civilians will try it out, but probably the same civilians out there who run Firefox.  I don’t expect Roberta to run right out and adopt it, and I expect the same tightly locked down businesses that don’t allow installation of Firefox on business computers will not rush right out and allow installation of Chrome.

Still, it will prove to be one more example of your organization’s developers writing code that works on a browser with geek cachet and then complaining when you tell them to make sure it works in IE.

At DailyWTF, a reader offers another object lesson in having clever developer messages, not for public consumption, consumed by the public.

Whereas the article at DailyWTF talks about the hard-coded messages within the application, remember, ungentle reader, that QA also has the chance to enter badness into the system when creating junk data for testing (see Keeping Your Test Data Clean).

Developers need to assume that the impossible error condition will occur (assuming the application even works, that is), and QA needs to assume that the business stakeholders will be stupid enough to use the test environment for demos or for milestone meetings with the client.

As some sort of perception/perspective gimmick, Gojko Adzic asks how many points there are to a star.

I got your QA answer right here, buddy: There is no point to the star.  Destroy it.

If you’re not in the business to serve your own nihilism, you’re in it for the wrong reasons.