This. Mod parent up.

In (very) short, "testing is evaluating a product via experimentation" (see http://www.satisfice.com/blog/...). According to this definition, truly anyone can test. Anyone can "evaluate a product via experimentation".

However, formal, professional testing also has a purpose: to inform. That is, "testing provides information about the quality of a product so that others can make informed decisions."

So, formal, professional testing is "evaluating a product via experimentation - in order to inform". And /that/ requires "a modicum of skill and critical thinking".

Sadly, not everyone thinks like you.

By using words like "internationally agreed" (instead of "locally agreed" or "internationally begrudgingly accepted") and "standard" (implying "the way", and not "a way"), ISO/IEC/IEEE strikes fear into the following, unthinking leaders of companies, who then force the workers to...begrudgingly implement and comply with the "internationally agreed standards".

Anyway, I don't believe that something like testing can be standardized anyway. There simply is no "one size fits all" way to test. "Internationally agreed", or not.

Mod parent up.

http://www.developsense.com/bl... is a treasure-trove of testing (and other) information. Simply reading his (and similar) blogs is an quick, easy, and effective (and free!) way to learn about testing. Also, be sure to check out the blog of James Bach for the same reasons: http://www.satisfice.com/blog/.

Companies can't do anything. But, people that run companies can. And people that run companies might be leading, thinking, reasonable people. But, very often, they're following, reacting, unreasonable people. People that will blindly follow "standards" simply because they're called "standards". And other people that report to those people must implement and live by those "standards". Even if the "standards" hinder, instead of help.

This sounds a bit like Sega Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Channel). I was one of the morons subscribers back in the day. Unfortunately, actual did not equal expected. I thought I'd have access to a lot of fun and popular games. In fact, they provided neither.

This tastes the same.

Wonderful stuff. Reminded me of this site: http://www.informationisbeauti... (beautiful ways to view typically boring stuff).

What is your experience and opinion on the many Donkey Kong clones, like Congo Bongo, Crazy Kong, Konkey Kong, Monkey Kong, Donkey King, or even Popeye?

FWIW, aside from "satisfaction", the other pieces of my "compensation pie" are "salary" (+raise/bonus), "benefits", "time-off", and "investment options".

In the past 2 years, I've been at 5 companies and taken 2 pay cuts. All voluntary.

My “compensation pie” is made up of many pieces. Only one of them is salary. The piece of the pie that was sorely missing was "satisfaction" ("happiness", "contentment").

After 2 years, I finally found a company that *wants* me (my skills and what I have to offer), and actually allows me to contribute. This helps fill my "satisfaction" piece of my "compensation pie”.

You need to figure out your own pie pieces, and the size/importance of each.

Meanwhile, I'm confident enough in my abilities that I'm not too worried about future salaries.

Did anyone try blowing on him?

I just held a meeting yesterday with my entire team to discuss this very topic. Generally, I explained that the onus of successful communication lies with the giver (not the receiver). That is, if I want you to understand me, I must communicate in such a way that is understandable by you. (If I speak gibberish, I can't get upset if/when you don't understand me) I explained that submitting a bug report is simply a form of communication, and the the bug report submitter is the "giver" of the communication. Thus, if they want to be understood, they must ensure that their communication is understandable by the receiver. And, since they don't know who the receiver might be, they must make is understandable to the "lowest common denominator" receiver. I said, "If you write a bug report that your grandmother can understand, there is less possibility that it will be misunderstood". I explained that, "if you write a bug report...with the intent that is will be read and used by SOMEONE ELSE...there is a good chance you will write a good bug report." That said, I also implemented a very simple, auto-populate "bug report template" that helps guide and remind users what to enter (ex: "Description of bug, What I did to cause the bug, What I thought was supposed to happen, What actually happened, etc.).

Appropriate, for once...