The better it looks, the more narrow the feedback

The next time someone tells you that polished demos are more professional, send them to this Kathy Sierra blog entry on making demos look as "done" as they actually are:

We see this with books and software all the time. Show them something polished and pretty, and you'll get feedback on font sizes. The reviewers make incremental tweaks, blinded by what's in front of them. But show a napkin sketch, and they don't just see what's there, they see what's possible.

To re-emphasise Kathy's point, it's not that all demos should be on napkin sketches. It's more that demos should reflect the underlying state of completeness of the system so that we can get the appropriate type of feedback.

12 questions with Mary Poppendieck

Peter Abilla organised a Q&A with Mary Poppendieck on his blog at the end of August. Several interesting answers but my favourite excerpt is below:

I don’t like the term ‘plan-driven’ when it is used as an antonym for Agile, because Agile is as ‘plan-driven’ as any other approach; I would use the term ‘forecast-driven’ instead. Agile is feedback-driven, while non-agile approaches tend to be driven by forecasts of the future. In domains where these forecasts are likely to be accurate, you can assume that the forecast is fact and devise a plan based on that assumption. Just remember when variances occur that they are as likely to be caused by faulty assumptions as faulty execution.

When a forecast is a mere guess, it is far better to use an approach which adapts to the future as it unfolds. In manufacturing feed-back-driven (pull) approaches produce better results than forecast-driven (push) approaches in almost all cases. I would speculate that the same is true of development, although I don’t believe that any single approach can fit all situations.

The perceived safety of testing

The purpose of testing is to provide confidence that the system does what we want it to do... or really to provide confidence that we understand how the system will behave.

However, there is a difference between an actual increase in safety from real information and an increase in perceived safety from compelling but "unnecessary" information.

For example, we've seen a move in web testing tools away from browser simulators (e.g., HttpUnit, HtmlUnit) to browser drivers (e.g., Watir, Selenium). Granted, browser drivers do provide some additional real information over browser simulators. It's a real browser, not a fake one, so we should be more confident that verified behaviour is actually verified.

But what really seems to sell the browser driver, especially to non-technical people, is the ability to glance over at the build machine and see the browser pop-up and flicker through all the screens of our application.

Now if I was concerned purely with actual safety, I wouldn't really care about being able to see the browser flickering. In fact, I'd rather it didn't. That just makes tests take longer. I prefer reducing reliance on GUI-driven testing.

But...

Testing is not just about providing information; it's also about selling information.

It doesn't matter how much actual safety we provide with our testing practices. We won't be able to replace less efficient testing approaches if the perceived safety of our approach is lower.

So what to do when we don’t know what will deliver the best results?

Get off your butt and think.

Jonathan Mendez on The Death of Best Practices in the context of marketing.

Via Frank Patrick.

Automated testing using annotated wireframes

Brian Marick blogs about the possibility of using OmniGraffle and FIT to allow using annotated wireframes to drive automated tests.

Wow, that would be cool.

The philosophy of the fedora

From an old Crucial Skills newsletter, Kerry Patterson of Crucial Conversations/Confrontations talks about what philosophy influenced him the most:

Like a lot of useful philosophy lessons, it all started with a Roy Rogers double feature.

As for me, I don't care how creative they are...

As for me, I don't care how creative they are, I won't want to work with -- or for -- any crazy assholes.

Hear, hear.

Bob Sutton on the "enfant terrible".

An effective presentation is an effective conversation

No humility. No arrogance. No exaggeration.
These things indicate insecurity.

Avoid "very", "lots of" and similar verbal noise. Sure, natural speech will have a few of those thrown in but repeat it often enough and it's just wasteful.

Be specific, not generic.

Talk to me, don't talk at me. I've seen people presenting with shaky voices and nervous movement but are otherwise fine in a conversation. I suspect a lot of the fear of public speaking comes from a mistaken belief that you're supposed to talk at people instead of just having a conversation with a bunch of people (who have a tendency to listen instead of responding).

If at first you don't succeed...

If at first you don't succeed, try again. Then quit. There is no point in making a fool of yourself.

W. C. Fields

My first exposure to the concept of focusing on strengths rather than on weaknesses came from Martin Seligman's Authentic Happiness and the VIA Strengths survey. I was aware of the Clifton StrengthsFinder but I didn't like the bias toward strengths related to work as opposed to general human strengths and virtues.

A while back, some other ThoughtWorkers were telling me about Now, Discover Your Strengths and how great it was. I responded with the above but the reaction, as might be expected, was that I should try StrengthsFinder first before I make judgement.

Fine.

So now let's demonstrate the difference.

My top five StrengthsFinder themes:

1. Ideation - "You are fascinated by ideas"
   
2. Maximizer - "Excellence, not average, is your measure"
   
3. Strategic - "...sort through the clutter and find the best route"
   
4. Input - "You are inquisitive. You collect things."
   
5. Intellection - "You like to think. You like mental activity."
   

My five VIA Signature Strengths:

1. Fairness, equity, and justice - "Treating all people fairly is one of your abiding principles"
   
2. Judgment, critical thinking, and open-mindedness - "Thinking things through and and examining them from all sides are important aspects of who you are"
   
3. Love of learning - "You love learning new things, whether in a class or on your own"
   
4. Self-control and self-regulation - "You self-consciously regulate what you feel and what you do"
   
5. Creativity, ingenuity, and originality - "Thinking of new ways to do things is a crucial part of who you are"

Although some of the strengths are similar, notice the difference in language? Ideation? Intellection? Which form speaks to people? Which form looks like a buzzword?

Which one says more about who I am? and not just what I'm good at?

From the introduction of Now, Discover Your Strengths:

These are the two assumptions that guide the world's best managers:

1. Each person's talents are enduring and unique.
2. Each person's greatest room for growth is in the areas of his or her greatest strength.
   

My point is that these two assumptions guide the world's best people, not just those that identify themselves as managers.

XML evolution vs XML security?

Mark Baker blogs about why XML validation makes evolution difficult.

I've blogged about this before though Mark's version goes into more technical detail.

On the other hand, I just recently heard Bill Hines talk about XML threats, so I'm wondering about the security implications of loose validation. Better for evolution but is it a problem for security?

Thou shalt never badmouth a competitor

Via Seth,

Tom Peters on why he wants his competitors to thrive.

My take on this is that I don't want to be someone who bad mouths other people for my own self-interest. And that's enough.

What separates us?

"I know better" VS "I actually believe in democracy and the wisdom of crowds"

"It's faster if the experts make the decision" VS "No involvement equals no commitment"

"Bravado and heroics" VS "Humility and discipline "

If you chose the left over the right, I probably won't like you.

Has anyone ever done this at a conference?

When the speaker asked for questions, raise your hand, and if you're the first one selected, respond with...

First Post!