All great tips so far.
I’ve given about 60 conference talks (or facilitated more informal sessions) over a span of 15 years. I’m still getting plenty of rejections.
So the first tip I’ve got for first-time speakers is: don’t worry about being turned down. The one surefire way to *not* get into a conference program is not to submit at…[Read more]
“If you get the impression that the activities are rigid, I’m afraid you have not heard everything I said. I said, several times, that this is not about doing things in a specific order, or making documentation […]Try to get the perspective right here, please.”
This isn’t a matter of “perspective”. It’s a matter of verifiable fact that, even i…[Read more]
Following up on the question about “signing off”:
“It is not every tiny bit of you work that the standard suggest that you should get stakeholder agree on – as far as I remember, it is the final test specification, i.e. the test procedures.”
I’m afraid you are remembering incorrectly. The standard mandates (“shall” statement, except where n…[Read more]
How have the principles documented in the ISO 29119 been applied to evaluating the quality of the standard itself?
In particular, what is the test plan for testing the ISO 29119 standard? Where are its feature sets, test items, test conditions, test coverage items, test cases, test design specifications, test execution logs?
If the ISO 29119…[Read more]
As a follow-up to the previous question (is “never look at the code” the official standard or merely personal prejudice), how can you expect people to know what is officially part of the standard, and what is only the personal preferences of the people discussing the standard? Given that the standard is not freely available but only at a…[Read more]
Early on in the webinar, it was asserted that it was not mandatory to record in writing the various information items produced.
This statement seems at odds with the repeated emphasis, including at a very fine level of detail in the dynamic test process, on having the various information items “agreed by the stakeholders”.
Why is the standard so…[Read more]
More generally, why does the standard introduce a substantial amount of terminology – “test basis”, “test condition”, “test converage item” – in addition to the more familiar “test case” – which, as Anne-Mette noted during the Webinar, is likely to be unfamiliar to most people (and so, arguably, “non standard”)?
What is the added value of this…[Read more]