<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Book Review: Agile Testing by John Watkins</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.compendiumdev.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/09/21/book-review-agile-testing-by-john-watkins/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.compendiumdev.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/09/21/book-review-agile-testing-by-john-watkins/</link>
	<description>Software Testing Essays, Tools, Book Reviews and Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:12:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dai Bradshaw</title>
		<link>http://www.compendiumdev.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/09/21/book-review-agile-testing-by-john-watkins/#comment-11559</link>
		<dc:creator>Dai Bradshaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:46:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.compendiumdev.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/09/21/book-review-agile-testing-by-john-watkins/#comment-11559</guid>
		<description>I didn&#039;t find this strangely anonymous review very useful.  My overall impression is of a reviewer with an inflated oppinion of themselves (who freely claims to be a Miracle QA person) who doesn&#039;t believe mere mortal testers need any guidance.  The list of contributors to this book reads like a who&#039;s who of testing - they are Miracle QA&#039;ers, and people the reviewer might well gain some benefit from studying their humility and experience (although I am sure the reviewer is far too Great a QA Miracle to learn from these lesser-beings).

&lt;em&gt;Thanks for the comment Dai.

I assume you haven&#039;t read Watkins&#039; book.

It seems as though I have written a reverse psychology review that will cause you to rush out and buy it, instead of the far far better Lisa and Janet book.

When you do, read Watkins&#039; book you will see that the &quot;Miracle QA&quot; quote is Watkins&#039; and he does not apply it to anyone in the book. He applies it to people, and I try to make this clear in the review but must have failed, &lt;strong&gt;who invent their own test approach as the circumstances change based on a consistent understanding of how they test&lt;/strong&gt;, again using Watkins&#039; words. Since I see the good testers I know actually doing this, and yes I do think I do this too, I consider this normal, not miraculous. 

Do you really consider this description of a tester miraculous?

Just to clarify, I would never describe myself as a QA person. I describe myself as a tester.

I re-read the review and I&#039;m pretty sure I did not describe any contributor to the book as a &quot;lesser-being&quot;. I know some of the contributors and, those I know I also respect and have discussed the book perfectly pleasantly with them.

Best of luck reading the book. Although I think &quot;mere mortal testers&quot; will gain much more from reading Lisa and Janet&#039;s book - I know I did - and that was the main point of the review, the rest was to provide some justification for that statement. 

I guess my review wasn&#039;t written well enough to communicate these points fully, so thank you for the feedback. 

I appreciate that my writing style may come across with an absence of humility, and I don&#039;t mind that. So even if the tone of this comment doesn&#039;t sound like it, I really do appreciate you writing the comment. All comments help me look back at what I&#039;ve written and ask myself &quot;was I too hard?&quot;, &quot;do I still stand by what I have written?&quot;. 

And I still agree with my reading of the review.  I will live with the fact that I haven&#039;t communicated as well as I had hoped to, so I&#039;ll try to make my closing statement clear.

&lt;strong&gt;I gained much more benefit from studying Lisa and Janet&#039;s book. I think everyone else will too.&lt;/strong&gt;

Thanks,

Alan Richardson (Compendium Developments) and www.eviltester.com 
&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I didn&#8217;t find this strangely anonymous review very useful.  My overall impression is of a reviewer with an inflated oppinion of themselves (who freely claims to be a Miracle QA person) who doesn&#8217;t believe mere mortal testers need any guidance.  The list of contributors to this book reads like a who&#8217;s who of testing &#8211; they are Miracle QA&#8217;ers, and people the reviewer might well gain some benefit from studying their humility and experience (although I am sure the reviewer is far too Great a QA Miracle to learn from these lesser-beings).</p>
<p><em>Thanks for the comment Dai.</p>
<p>I assume you haven&#8217;t read Watkins&#8217; book.</p>
<p>It seems as though I have written a reverse psychology review that will cause you to rush out and buy it, instead of the far far better Lisa and Janet book.</p>
<p>When you do, read Watkins&#8217; book you will see that the &#8220;Miracle QA&#8221; quote is Watkins&#8217; and he does not apply it to anyone in the book. He applies it to people, and I try to make this clear in the review but must have failed, <strong>who invent their own test approach as the circumstances change based on a consistent understanding of how they test</strong>, again using Watkins&#8217; words. Since I see the good testers I know actually doing this, and yes I do think I do this too, I consider this normal, not miraculous. </p>
<p>Do you really consider this description of a tester miraculous?</p>
<p>Just to clarify, I would never describe myself as a QA person. I describe myself as a tester.</p>
<p>I re-read the review and I&#8217;m pretty sure I did not describe any contributor to the book as a &#8220;lesser-being&#8221;. I know some of the contributors and, those I know I also respect and have discussed the book perfectly pleasantly with them.</p>
<p>Best of luck reading the book. Although I think &#8220;mere mortal testers&#8221; will gain much more from reading Lisa and Janet&#8217;s book &#8211; I know I did &#8211; and that was the main point of the review, the rest was to provide some justification for that statement. </p>
<p>I guess my review wasn&#8217;t written well enough to communicate these points fully, so thank you for the feedback. </p>
<p>I appreciate that my writing style may come across with an absence of humility, and I don&#8217;t mind that. So even if the tone of this comment doesn&#8217;t sound like it, I really do appreciate you writing the comment. All comments help me look back at what I&#8217;ve written and ask myself &#8220;was I too hard?&#8221;, &#8220;do I still stand by what I have written?&#8221;. </p>
<p>And I still agree with my reading of the review.  I will live with the fact that I haven&#8217;t communicated as well as I had hoped to, so I&#8217;ll try to make my closing statement clear.</p>
<p><strong>I gained much more benefit from studying Lisa and Janet&#8217;s book. I think everyone else will too.</strong></p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Alan Richardson (Compendium Developments) and <a href="http://www.eviltester.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eviltester.com</a><br />
</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

