Successful quality assurance (QA) seeks to provide a clear and
realistic model for meeting the customer's expectations. In this
context, "transparent" QA will adopt a policy of steady communication
and evaluation from the top-down about all business decisions, testing,
hiring, and user experience (UX). In addition, transparent QA will
strive to anticipate and prevent problems before they occur and do so
from the project's earliest stages, throughout development, and after
release.
The transparency must begin with the CIO and filter down through the entire team. QA should be treated as a business decision to commit the company to the delivery of a product that meets or exceeds the consumers' expectations. This decision must manifest itself from the project's inception, beginning with the identification of the customer's needs and the means with which the project will attend them. Ideally, this will fill an as-yet-unfilled demand, or fill it in a more efficient way. These expectations must be clear, realistic, and made transparent to anyone involved in the project. Secrets, ambiguities, or procrastinations will only cripple the project at its onset.
There also exists a natural tendency to reduce QA to a software testing role. Limiting QA to a simple "black box" role strips it of its transparency by removing the need for it. Black-box testing merely ensures a certain output produces the desired output without comprehension of the program's inner workings in an attempt to mimic the typical user. It is the most inexpensive form of testing, thus the temptation. Though it has its place, it neglects the top-down, all-encompassing approach of transparent QA. For example, black-box QA will be denied the chance to apply the customers' needs to the hiring process for UX engineers, or even to place their specific needs into a publicized job posting. As another example, black-box QA might verify input-output functionality, but neglect UX and discover too late that the market despises the user interface (UI).
UX works with QA to provide consumers with a positive experience, and transparency must be evident on both sides to succeed. If QA's role is to identify the customers' needs, front-end objectives, and technical issues, then UX works to ensure the team's solutions translate into a pleasant experience for the users. In practice, UX focuses on the UI by group testing, analyzing usage data, and making suggestions to the QA team based on user feedback. If QA fails to consider the market's needs or properly communicate them to the UX team, then things like group testing and data analytics will be frustrating and expensive to implement.
Clear expectations and open two-way communication between QA, UX, and programmers will do much to solve problems before they occur. Prevention saves money, time, and effort. Delivering a relatively bug-free product is only one facet of a successful launch; companies must rely on QA to identify the customers' needs at the project's conception and to maintain a spirit of collaboration between all team members.
The transparency must begin with the CIO and filter down through the entire team. QA should be treated as a business decision to commit the company to the delivery of a product that meets or exceeds the consumers' expectations. This decision must manifest itself from the project's inception, beginning with the identification of the customer's needs and the means with which the project will attend them. Ideally, this will fill an as-yet-unfilled demand, or fill it in a more efficient way. These expectations must be clear, realistic, and made transparent to anyone involved in the project. Secrets, ambiguities, or procrastinations will only cripple the project at its onset.
There also exists a natural tendency to reduce QA to a software testing role. Limiting QA to a simple "black box" role strips it of its transparency by removing the need for it. Black-box testing merely ensures a certain output produces the desired output without comprehension of the program's inner workings in an attempt to mimic the typical user. It is the most inexpensive form of testing, thus the temptation. Though it has its place, it neglects the top-down, all-encompassing approach of transparent QA. For example, black-box QA will be denied the chance to apply the customers' needs to the hiring process for UX engineers, or even to place their specific needs into a publicized job posting. As another example, black-box QA might verify input-output functionality, but neglect UX and discover too late that the market despises the user interface (UI).
UX works with QA to provide consumers with a positive experience, and transparency must be evident on both sides to succeed. If QA's role is to identify the customers' needs, front-end objectives, and technical issues, then UX works to ensure the team's solutions translate into a pleasant experience for the users. In practice, UX focuses on the UI by group testing, analyzing usage data, and making suggestions to the QA team based on user feedback. If QA fails to consider the market's needs or properly communicate them to the UX team, then things like group testing and data analytics will be frustrating and expensive to implement.
Clear expectations and open two-way communication between QA, UX, and programmers will do much to solve problems before they occur. Prevention saves money, time, and effort. Delivering a relatively bug-free product is only one facet of a successful launch; companies must rely on QA to identify the customers' needs at the project's conception and to maintain a spirit of collaboration between all team members.
For more information about software quality assurance and testing, visit Magenic
who have been one of the leading software development companies
providing innovative custom software development to meet unique business
challenges for some of the most recognized companies and organizations
in the nation.
Post a Comment