Google Maps Queue Jumps.

Google Maps directs me to and from my client sites. I've saved the location of the client's car parks, when I start the app in the morning - it knows where I want to go. When I start it at the end of the day, Google knows where I want to go.

This is great! It guides me around traffic jams, adjusts when I miss a turn and even offers faster routes en-route as they become available.

But sometimes Google Maps does something wrong. I don't mean incorrect, like how it sometimes gets a street name wrong (typically in a rural area). I don't mean how its GPS fix might put me in a neighbouring street (10m to my left - when there are trees overhead).

I mean wrong - As in something unfair and socially unacceptable. An action, that if a person did it, would be frowned upon.

Example:

Let’s assume a road has a traffic jam, so instead of the cars doing around 60 mph, we are crawling at <10 mph.

In the middle of this traffic jam, the road has a junction, an example is shown here:

Click to enlarge.

Google Maps, using its algorithm/AI, directs me off at exit (A), but rather than finding an alternative route it directs back down on to the road at point (B).

Google Maps has queue-jumped. Google's decision was reasonable and met its goals. Goals, That I assume include reducing journey time (for me). It has bypassed approx 1/4 mile of queuing cars.

It’s an intriguing issue, for a number of reasons:

In cultures where queues are not expected, it might be OK (it’s a clever optimisation!)
Conversely, some cultures may consider it a bug.
Could we even alter/educate the algorithm to reliably distinguish between some routes (short-cuts) and others (queue-jumps)?
What else might the AI deem OK, that I would consider wrong?
What are Google Maps goals? Are they all in my interest and safety?
These seem very far from pass/fail scenarios

For example, What if Google noticed that users used google, YouTube or its adverts more after a certain route, than if they had taken another?

What if that advert-hungry route was slower? Or more dangerous? (E.g. people use google more after that route, as they need to get their car repaired.)

Are these issues being tested for? Are the right questions being asked?

Comments

Betting in Testing

“I’ve completed my testing of this feature, and I think it's ready to ship” “Are you willing to bet on that?” No, Don't worry, I’m not going to list various ways you could test the feature better or things you might have forgotten. Instead, I recommend you to ask yourself that question next time you believe you are finished. Why? It might cause you to analyse your belief more critically. We arrive at a decision usually by means of a mixture of emotion, convention and reason. Considering the question of whether the feature and the app are good enough as a bet is likely to make you use a more evidence-based approach. Testing is gambling with your time to find information about the app. Why do I think I am done here? Would I bet money/reputation on it? I have a checklist stuck to one of my screens, that I read and contemplate when I get to this point. When you have considered the options, you may decide to check some more things or ship the app

Test Engineers, counsel for... all of the above!

Sometimes people discuss test engineers and QA as if they were a sort of police force, patrolling the streets of code looking for offences and offenders. While I can see the parallels, the investigation, checking the veracity of claims and a belief that we are making things safer. The simile soon falls down. But testers are not on the other side of the problem, we work alongside core developers, we often write code and follow all the same procedures (pull requests, planning, requirements analysis etc) they do. We also have the same goals, the delivery of working software that fulfills the team’s/company's goals and avoids harm. "A few good men" a great courtroom drama, all about finding the truth. Software quality, whatever that means for you and your company is helped by Test Engineers. Test Engineers approach the problem from another vantage point. We are the lawyers (& their investigators) in the court-room, sifting the evidence, questioning the facts and viewing t

XSS and Open Redirect on Telegraph.co.uk Authentication pages

I recently found a couple of security issues with the Telegraph.co.uk website. The site contained an Open redirect as well as an XSS vulnerability. These issues were in the authentication section of the website, https://auth.telegraph.co.uk/ . The flaws could provide an easy means to phish customer details and passwords from unsuspecting users. I informed the telegraph's technical management, as part of a responsible disclosure process. The telegraph management forwarded the issue report and thanked me the same day. (12th May 2014) The fix went live between the 11th and 14th of July, 2 months after the issue was reported. The details: The code served via auth.telegraph.co.uk appeared to have 2 vulnerabilities, an open redirect and a reflected Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. Both types of vulnerabilty are in the OWASP Top 10 and can be used to manipulate and phish users of a website. As well has potentially hijack a user's session. Compromised URLs, that exp

investigating software

Search This Blog