Skip to main content

Conspicuous in their absence

If you're a tester then you'll no doubt of heard phrases to the effect of "That's pretty unlikely", "Our users don't do that" or "Thats a fairly minor browser". Its been blogged about before, and elsewhere. The argument is many users are niche, novice, confused or from different backgrounds / viewpoints / languages. These are realistic and probably correct hypotheses, for many situations.

From my experience, thats often where the discussion ends, someone makes a judgement call, and the issue is fixed, mitigated or ignored. More often, than not, its ignored. That decision should probably be a business decision, its their money. But can they make such a decision safely? We are asking for consent to 'not operate' or 'operate' on their software. To come to the right decision, they need to be fully informed. i.e.: Are we sure that the issue is indeed rare? Are they making a properly informed decision?

For example what if the issue is: that a website has several serious issues when viewed in a particular web browser, but not in a more 'mainstream' browser. When this issue is presented to the decision maker - How could it be presented?

A) Users of Browser XYZ ... can't play/view the video
B) A browser used by < 1% of our users ... can't play/view the video

Option (B) appears to give more information. But we are also including a reporting bias here. The users maybe only make up 1% of our users - because - the video doesn't work. They tried to use the site but gave up in frustration or found a competitors site had fully working video - and so took their custom there.

Whenever we try to quantify a user's behaviour as it appears to us - we need to remember that we are not seeing the full picture. Rather we are glimpsing just the tip of the iceberg. The users probably haven't complained about how the system crashes, when you use that feature, because they've learned not to use that button "as it's flakey". They'd love to use that button - if only it worked.

This survivorship bias is endemic in the world around us, not just in software development. How many times have you seen adverts that read something like "90% of our customers would recommend us to a friend!". The adverts fail to mention that most of the customers ran screaming away to a competitor, or failed to even get through a tortuous ordering process - leaving the rest who love the -one- working feature. Now that those other 'disgruntled users' are out of the picture, the few remaining customers may generally be happy.

Many companies even make it harder still to get the feedback they need. Rather than a Help page or Help button having an easy to find web-form to submit problems or questions - they hide or remove this functionality altogether. Thats free testing - by real users - providing details of actual real world bugs and requirements - being ignored in the belief that they are saving the company money.

From a testing standpoint, we provide information, and its important not only to provide the facts, but maybe some context and explanation as to how the issue reports might relate to real world applications e.g. for the above there is an option (C): iPhone users won't be able to view the video. Or: these users make up 1% of users here, but Google/Microsoft etc has them at 10% of its users, Why don't we see all of those users?

Comments

  1. Splendid piece, as usual.

    A related bias is in thinking about the symptom as being the problem, when the problem is something poorly understood and potentially far bigger. (I wrote about that here.

    Mark Federman wrote a wonderful piece related to the your notes on survivorship bias. You can find that here .

    ---Michael B.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's hard for some stakeholders to listen to testers when profits are louder than our concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Second link in the first comment is giving 404 error because it has quote symbol at the end . I removed the quote and this seems to be correct link
    http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/VoiceoftheCustomer.pdf

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why you might need testers

I remember teaching my son to ride his bike. No, Strike that, Helping him to learn to ride his bike. It’s that way round – if we are honest – he was changing his brain so it could adapt to the mechanism and behaviour of the bike. I was just holding the bike, pushing and showering him with praise and tips.
If he fell, I didn’t and couldn’t change the way he was riding the bike. I suggested things, rubbed his sore knee and pointed out that he had just cycled more in that last attempt – than he had ever managed before - Son this is working, you’re getting it.
I had help of course, Gravity being one. When he lost balance, it hurt. Not a lot, but enough for his brain to get the feedback it needed to rewire a few neurons. If the mistakes were subtler, advice might help – try going faster – that will make the bike less wobbly. The excitement of going faster and better helped rewire a few more neurons.
When we have this sort of immediate feedback we learn quicker, we improve our game. When the f…

Thank you for finding the bug I missed.

Thank you to the colleague/customer/product owner, who found the bug I missed. That oversight, was (at least in part) my mistake. I've been thinking about what happened and what that means to me and my team.

I'm happy you told me about the issue you found, because you...

1) Opened my eyes to a situation I'd never have thought to investigate.

2) Gave me another item for my checklist of things to check in future.

3) Made me remember, that we are never done testing.

4) Are never sure if the application 'works' well enough.

5) Reminded me to explore more and build less.

6) To request that we may wish to assign more time to finding these issues.

7) Let me experience the hindsight bias, so that the edge-case now seems obvious!

Being a square keeps you from going around in circles.

After a weary few hours sorting through, re-running and manually double checking the "automated test" results, the team decide they need to "run the tests again!", that's a problem to the team. Why? because they are too slow. The 'test' runs take too long and they won't have the results until tomorrow.
How does our team intend to fix the problem? ... make the tests run faster. Maybe use a new framework, get better hardware or some other cool trick. The team get busy, update the test tools and soon find them selves in a similar position. Now of course they need to rewrite them in language X or using a new [A-Z]+DD methodology. I can't believe you are still using technology Z , Luddites!
Updating your tooling, and using a methodology appropriate to your context makes sense and should be factored into your workflow and estimates. But the above approach to solving the problem, starts with the wrong problem. As such, its not likely to find the right ans…