Let’s go a little deeper into the curious phenomenon of the programming mindset-biased references within the Software Testing community that I mentioned in the previous post of this series.
Through a meetup about so-called “Automated Testing” I recently attended, a lot of pyramids were shown, being the only exception the original ones (I mean those ones involving Egyptian slaves).
I was surprised by the fact that nobody among the attendants (except myself, of course) questioned the “test automation pyramid” model, as though it wasn’t the tester’s job to challenge assumptions.
I was also surprised by the fact nobody among the attendants (again except myself) was aware of the alternative Round Earth model proposed by James Bach.
I was even more surprised by the fact that some of the attendants were trying to dismiss any alternative to their beloved models and sources on the basis of a very poor argument: “Those people (James Bach, Michael Bolton, etc.) are just doing Manual Testing: we are doing Automated Testing!”
Pardon me? Maybe over my dead body, guys…
Please, watch your mouth, and consider reviewing your references next time!
By the way, you should know that James, Michael and me abhor the term “Manual Testing”, basically because it refers to something we perform with our brain (much more than with our hands): something extremely challenging and powerful that we usually call Exploratory Testing.
And if you try to dismiss my point saying that this meetup is not about Exploratory Testing, but Automated Testing, well, this seems to me just another poor argument…
Thanks for reading this article.
Feel free to recommend it or to add a comment.
Should you have any doubts about Software Testing, please contact me: I will be glad to help you.
On the other hand, if you want to get notified about my blog posts, please sign up through the BLOG > SUBSCRIBE TO THE BLOG NEWSLETTER menu.