Skip to main content

'No More ASCII' Firefox Add-on

Many of my clients have a multi-national (and multi-lingual) user base, and their software receives input from a range of devices, not just those configured to UK or US locales. The sites may also need to process and publish content that is 'non-ASCII'.

So when I'm quickly testing a website or web application, I need to investigate how they handle inputs from a multitude of locales, quickly.

That's why I created the No More ASCII, a Firefox Add-on, it has a set of stock text strings from a range of languages and scripts. These have been chosen for their widespread use around the world, as well as their ability to highlight deficiencies in many web-sites. For example these features of the scripts can cause problems for ASCII/poor-Unicode implementations:
  • Right To Left text  - Hebrew
  • Diacritics - Swedish
  • Non-Roman - Mandarin, Hindi etc.
The text strings may not make 'sense' as some are partial sentences or Monty Python quotes. They are aimed to have a selection of characters that may not be well encoded by your software.



Here is an example of a web site ( The Telegraph ) that doesn’t handle a Hebrew query of their articles very well:



Or take a look at the Firefox website. Queries for Mandarin Chinese characters return 'No results found.' But a search for Hindi script, returns 'Search is temporarily unavailable'. That looks like an issue i might want to investigate...



The free add-on is available to download now, and I hope to expand the list of languages/scripts available. Requests are welcome. Credit goes to Wikipedia and Omniglot for the text used.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The gamification of Software Testing

A while back, I sat in on a planning meeting. Many planning meetings slide awkwardly into a sort of ad-hoc technical analysis discussion, and this was no exception. With a little prompting, the team started to draw up what they wanted to build on a whiteboard.

The picture spoke its thousand words, and I could feel that the team now understood what needed to be done. The right questions were being asked, and initial development guesstimates were approaching common sense levels.

The discussion came around to testing, skipping over how they might test the feature, the team focused immediately on how long testing would take.

When probed as to how the testing would be performed? How we might find out what the team did wrong? Confused faces stared back at me. During our ensuing chat, I realised that they had been using BDD scenarios [only] as a metric of what testing needs to be done and when they are ready to ship. (Now I knew why I was hired to help)



There is nothing wrong with checking t…

Manumation, the worst best practice.

There is a pattern I see with many clients, often enough that I sought out a word to describe it: Manumation, A sort of well-meaning automation that usually requires frequent, extensive and expensive intervention to keep it 'working'.

You have probably seen it, the build server that needs a prod and a restart 'when things get a bit busy'. Or a deployment tool that, 'gets confused' and a 'test suite' that just needs another run or three.

The cause can be any number of the usual suspects - a corporate standard tool warped 5 ways to make it fit what your team needs. A one-off script 'that manager' decided was an investment and needed to be re-used... A well-intended attempt to 'automate all the things' that achieved the opposite.

They result in a manually intensive - automated process, where your team is like a character in the movie Metropolis, fighting with levers all day, just to keep the lights on upstairs. Manual-automation, manumatio…

Scatter guns and muskets.

Many, Many years ago I worked at a startup called Lastminute.com (a European online travel company, back when a travel company didn't have to be online). For a while, I worked in what would now be described as a 'DevOps' team. A group of technical people with both programming and operational skills.

I was in a hybrid development/operations role, where I spent my time investigating and remedying production issues using my development, investigative and still nascent testing skills. It was a hectic job working long hours away from home. Finding myself overloaded with work, I quickly learned to be a little ruthless with my time when trying to figure out what was broken and what needed to be fixed.
One skill I picked up, was being able to distinguish whether I was researching a bug or trying to find a new bug. When researching, I would be changing one thing or removing something (etc) and seeing if that made the issue better or worse. When looking for bugs, I'd be casting…