I think one of the questions that you will always get an answer in Affirmative, when asked is- "Have you ever made a mistake ?". I believe till the time human race exists the answer to this question will always be "Yes". On the contrary, one of the more significant questions is- "What do you do when a mistake is made ?" or "How do you react to mistakes ?" or "What are the thoughts that run through your mind after you make a mistake ?". Answers to this questions largely depend upon myriad of factors such as one's social orientation, the education system which always teaches or rather prompt us to be "correct" or "perfect" always or sometimes the value system-which sees you in bad light on making mistakes.
The rule in learning something new is quite simple- You cannot learn to walk without falling down. You cannot learn to swim without accidentally slipping your head inside water. You cannot learn to ride a bicycle without falling down and hurting self.
Our present life is largely as a result of choices we make. So, after making a mistake one can either choose to criticize self and become overly cautious and defensive for rest of the life or one can safely ignore the mistake and live in the world of illusion as if nothing happened or one can move on and take the positives out of mistakes and learn from them.
I have been reading through a some stuff over the past few months and have observed some striking similarities in the thinking of successful people in how they dealt with their failures. Here are few instances-
Source# 1- http://www.rediff.com/getahead/2009/mar/12starting-a-business-on-your-own.htm
This article is about Anand Chhatpar who is the CEO of BrainReactions, which is in the business of identifying new opportunities for entrepreneurs and companies by generating creative new ideas. Anand says-"Let me assure you that everyone makes mistakes when starting a new business. What is needed to succeed is the will to recognise your mistakes and to fix them quickly. As I learned from my mentors during my internship, 'Fail fast to succeed sooner!'
Source# 2- Book: The little book of coaching (Authors: Ken Blanchard and Don Shula)
Don Shula , one of the most successful football coaches wrote in the book-"I had a Twenty-four rule. I allowed myself, my coaches, and our players a maximum of twenty four hours after a football game to celebrate victory or bemoan a defeat.
During that time, everyone was encouraged to experience the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat as deeply as possible, while learning as much as we could from that same experience. Once the twenty four hour deadline had passed, we put it behind us and focused our energies on preparing for next opponent."
Source# 3- Book: Micheal Phelps- The untold Story of a Champion (Author: Bob Schaller)
After his amazing feats in 2004 and 2008 Olympics, Michael Phelps
needs no introduction. This book primarily talks about his journey from childhood and exclusively covers his run in 2008 Olympics. There's a mention of one of his fellow champion swimmer in the book as follows-"Not making the Olympic team at 2004 Olympic trials really gave Garett Weber Gale a focus he needed in 2008 to avoid mistakes he made 4 years earlier."I have this quote from [UT Assistant] Kris Kubik,' Weber Gale said. "I was just totally broken up at the time, bawling. Kris came up and said, "The way to get through this is to take a minute, remember how this feels, and don't ever let it happen again." I promised myself that day, I wouldn't feel that again- that much disappointment. Its important, to me, to keep promises to myself- its a big deal."
Source# 4- Book: The Greatness Guide2 (Author: Robin Sharma)
"The CEO of Coca-Cola at the annual meeting informed shareholders that the company was now going on an innovation tear and that his organization's reinvention plan was contained in a documented entitled "The Manifesto for Growth." He noted that spending on marketing and innovation would increase by US$400 million and then- and here's the big line- observed, "You will see some failures. As we take more risks,
this is something we must accept as a part of the regeneration process." Which brings me to the imperative of Failing Fast. There can be no success without failure. Its just part of the success...You need to fail to win.
I think one thing that is quite clear from these instances is that the smart people know how to "Fail fast". To me Failing faster constitutes of several factors-
- First is to accept that failures are a part of day-to-day life. No matter how perfect may one claim to be, mistakes are inevitable.
- Do not kill yourself with negative thoughts whenever the mistakes happen.
- Let your failures have a limited shelf life. Remember, Don Shula's (Source# 2) Twenty-hour rule. Don't let your mistakes ruin your thinking after the shelf life expires. But do take learnings beyond twenty four hours.
- As with the case of swimmer Garett Weber Gale (Source# 3), always do remember how bad it feels whenever the mistake is made and use that feeling to enhance your resolve to not do it again.
- Don't just give up something that you believe in just because you have failed in a particular step.
- Learn not only from your mistakes but from others too and all the above rules apply appropriately.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Are you being heard the way you want to be heard ?
Here's a real life story-
The Clallenger Spacecraft was launched on 28th-Jan-1986, but unfortunately exploded 73 seconds post liftoff. There has been a lot of research that has gone into finding the actual reasons for this crash. Much of the research of what went wrong with Challenger launch focuses on the lack of communication between NASA and Morton Thiokil, Inc (MTI). MTI was the contractor responsible for the component that failed during the launch. Almost 2 years before the fatal launch, MTI became aware that there could be a problem with O-ring, a sealing component that prevent hot gases from escaping the solid rocket booster and burning a hole in the fuel tank which was the physical cause of to this disaster. The engineers at MTI documented this problem and insisted that the further testing needed to be done to determine the reliability of O-ring. Upon further testing they confirmed that the O-ring was not reliable, particularly when temperatures dropped below 53 degrees. The question is-
Why then was the Challenger given the go to launch on that fateful day, when the temperature at launch time was 36 degrees, well below safety margin ?
One strong possibility, the researchers say- the people around the table were afraid to express their doubts or even to ask questions that they had determined before entering the room that morning that they would ask.
Source for above excerpt: The book- "Leading with questions" Author: Michael Marquardt
The above story caught my imagination because it was a very strong co-relation with Software Testing real life situations. The very fact that Engineers at MIT had documented the problem in advance was not enough to avert this disaster.
- How many times have you as a tester been in a situation or unknowingly gets into a situation wherein you feel your responsibility ends as soon as you log a defect ?
- Arent testers the owners of the defect- right from the time its logged till the time it is reported as fixed and later verified ?
Another point of view regarding the above excerpt-
- This story again shows that there is a vast difference between passive communication and an active, impact communication. What was required in above situation was the courage by the person who knew about the problem to raise his voice "loud enough" to be heard. And probably the person who tested was contented with the fact that he has already documented the problem and his job is done.
Conveying the bad news is an art that every tester has to master. And this is not as easy as it may seem. It does require a rare courage and will to stand by what is right and communicate with tact to all the stakeholders.
You must learn from the mistakes of others. You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.
- Samuel Levenson
Are Software testers listening, and learning ?
Keep testing passionately!
The Clallenger Spacecraft was launched on 28th-Jan-1986, but unfortunately exploded 73 seconds post liftoff. There has been a lot of research that has gone into finding the actual reasons for this crash. Much of the research of what went wrong with Challenger launch focuses on the lack of communication between NASA and Morton Thiokil, Inc (MTI). MTI was the contractor responsible for the component that failed during the launch. Almost 2 years before the fatal launch, MTI became aware that there could be a problem with O-ring, a sealing component that prevent hot gases from escaping the solid rocket booster and burning a hole in the fuel tank which was the physical cause of to this disaster. The engineers at MTI documented this problem and insisted that the further testing needed to be done to determine the reliability of O-ring. Upon further testing they confirmed that the O-ring was not reliable, particularly when temperatures dropped below 53 degrees. The question is-
Why then was the Challenger given the go to launch on that fateful day, when the temperature at launch time was 36 degrees, well below safety margin ?
One strong possibility, the researchers say- the people around the table were afraid to express their doubts or even to ask questions that they had determined before entering the room that morning that they would ask.
Source for above excerpt: The book- "Leading with questions" Author: Michael Marquardt
The above story caught my imagination because it was a very strong co-relation with Software Testing real life situations. The very fact that Engineers at MIT had documented the problem in advance was not enough to avert this disaster.
- How many times have you as a tester been in a situation or unknowingly gets into a situation wherein you feel your responsibility ends as soon as you log a defect ?
- Arent testers the owners of the defect- right from the time its logged till the time it is reported as fixed and later verified ?
Another point of view regarding the above excerpt-
- This story again shows that there is a vast difference between passive communication and an active, impact communication. What was required in above situation was the courage by the person who knew about the problem to raise his voice "loud enough" to be heard. And probably the person who tested was contented with the fact that he has already documented the problem and his job is done.
Conveying the bad news is an art that every tester has to master. And this is not as easy as it may seem. It does require a rare courage and will to stand by what is right and communicate with tact to all the stakeholders.
You must learn from the mistakes of others. You can't possibly live long enough to make them all yourself.
- Samuel Levenson
Are Software testers listening, and learning ?
Keep testing passionately!
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Building communication bridges through better Vocabulary
For a while now, i have been thinking to start a Testing Thoughts series in my blog. Basically the thoughts that are an outcome of the day-to-day observations of seeing Software testing at in action. The inspiration of this is primarily to share the learnings arising from the myriad of testing activities and challenges from day-to-day life. True to the precept- "Begin with the end in mind", the end goal that i foresee with this series is to capture the imagination of anyone who reads this and initiate a thought process that may be unique or may be dormant in your minds or may be in sync with your thoughts. I am trying to keep the format - Simple and crisp.
Here's to a new beginning-
When was the last time you put an conscious effort to learn a new word in your business language ? Vocabulary enhancement is something we do as a kids quite actively but as the time passes the knack to learn new words somehow reduces as we get into our cozy comfort zones. According to a research- "The average student learns about 3,000 words per year in the early school years -- that's 8 words per day (Baumann & Kameenui, 1991; Beck & McKeown, 1991; Graves, 1986)". Do you think we match this or even half or one fourth of this in our day-to-day lives as business people or employees ?
Why am i bringing the point of Vocabulary building in my blog ? One prime reason is that Communication (be it verbal or written), plays a vital role in your success in Software Testing Profession. Be it your conversation with developer, fellow testers, offshore teams, clients, customers etc. , one thing that sets most of the testers apart from others is effective communication. And sound Vocabulary acts as a building block to effective communication. How often have you felt at loss of words to explain your thoughts in business language and preferred to stay quiet or wished that you could explain the matter in your native language ?
Isn’t it the time one starts rating communication skills also (in addition to other factors such as clarity, fluidity etc.) on number of new words learnt and implemented in day-to-day communication ?
Do you agree with me or differ with me ? Do share your thoughts...
Keep testing creatively!
Here's to a new beginning-
When was the last time you put an conscious effort to learn a new word in your business language ? Vocabulary enhancement is something we do as a kids quite actively but as the time passes the knack to learn new words somehow reduces as we get into our cozy comfort zones. According to a research- "The average student learns about 3,000 words per year in the early school years -- that's 8 words per day (Baumann & Kameenui, 1991; Beck & McKeown, 1991; Graves, 1986)". Do you think we match this or even half or one fourth of this in our day-to-day lives as business people or employees ?
Why am i bringing the point of Vocabulary building in my blog ? One prime reason is that Communication (be it verbal or written), plays a vital role in your success in Software Testing Profession. Be it your conversation with developer, fellow testers, offshore teams, clients, customers etc. , one thing that sets most of the testers apart from others is effective communication. And sound Vocabulary acts as a building block to effective communication. How often have you felt at loss of words to explain your thoughts in business language and preferred to stay quiet or wished that you could explain the matter in your native language ?
Isn’t it the time one starts rating communication skills also (in addition to other factors such as clarity, fluidity etc.) on number of new words learnt and implemented in day-to-day communication ?
Do you agree with me or differ with me ? Do share your thoughts...
Keep testing creatively!
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Wake up, Shake up and then test...
You can't master testing unless you reinvent it
This is how one of the lessons of the book "Lessons learned in Software Testing" goes. And this statement is so very true. Just adding to the above statement based on my experience-
You can't master testing unless you reinvent it and you can't reinvent testing unless you reinvent your thinking
Software Testing is a job that requires extensive thinking. And unlike many people's beliefs - thinking is a skill, something that can be acquired and sharpened always. In order to test an application efficiently, we do need to sharpen our thinking skills and mental routine and apply the renewed thinking to test an application. There are many credible ways by which thinking can be enhanced or sharpened. Some ways include mastering Edward de bono's better thinking principles, studying epistemology, understanding cognitive psychology etc. These are the techniques and studies which can be learnt and applied to enhance one's thinking skills and in turn the efficiency of a tester.
Recently, while reading a book- "Instant Analysis" by David J. Lieberman- i came across a different thought line on how our physical routines can affect our thinking and even our thinking outputs. Life does get monotonous, mechanical and predictable as we move on. For example, as the day passes notice certain day-to-day behaviors-
- Once you get into office, look around your desk- you would probably find that picture on the same place as it has been for months or years, same place for a to-do list, same place where you keep your laptop and work.
- Look at the pattern in which you decide your password. Its probably following the same sequence for as long as you can remember.
- Are you in a habit of keeping your desk or your PC desktop unorganized and cluttered ?
There can be a numerous such examples (based on one’s life style) that you can relate to just by looking around your physical world. Probably the list of things that you have been doing the same way for a long time just because they have been part of your habit, something your subconscious mind drives you to do without you realizing it. As Dr. David puts it-
"You see something and you instantly go into a conditioned state associated with your environment."
The idea here is to be aware of such sub-conscious habits and behavior patterns and take a step forward to break the pattern by shaking up your daily routine. By doing so, it helps to jolt your usual thought patterns and open up new avenues of thinking. And it does work! I have tried this in my daily life and this kind of pattern interrupting exercises actually help to open new pathways in your brain eventually affecting the thinking outputs. Here is what needs to be done -
- Based on your life style, make a note of different aspects of your daily routine.
- Slight change any of the ordinary behaviors (e.g. organize your desk, move the stuff and rearrange, slightly change the order of things you do when you reach office etc.)
- Do things that you usually dont do and vice versa (by slightly adjusting the behavior)
Have more awareness of self and age-old pattern and eventually breaking them introduces you to a new thought process. A thought process that has the potential to bring in new ideas to your work, help you in coming up with new ways of testing.
As Software Testing is a job that requires immense thinking abilities, these slight adjustments to the physical routine has a potential to go a long way to bring in necessary change and freshness in a way you have been approaching testing.
I am quite keen to experiment more with this thought while testing and managing the testing in the time to come.
This is how one of the lessons of the book "Lessons learned in Software Testing" goes. And this statement is so very true. Just adding to the above statement based on my experience-
You can't master testing unless you reinvent it and you can't reinvent testing unless you reinvent your thinking
Software Testing is a job that requires extensive thinking. And unlike many people's beliefs - thinking is a skill, something that can be acquired and sharpened always. In order to test an application efficiently, we do need to sharpen our thinking skills and mental routine and apply the renewed thinking to test an application. There are many credible ways by which thinking can be enhanced or sharpened. Some ways include mastering Edward de bono's better thinking principles, studying epistemology, understanding cognitive psychology etc. These are the techniques and studies which can be learnt and applied to enhance one's thinking skills and in turn the efficiency of a tester.
Recently, while reading a book- "Instant Analysis" by David J. Lieberman- i came across a different thought line on how our physical routines can affect our thinking and even our thinking outputs. Life does get monotonous, mechanical and predictable as we move on. For example, as the day passes notice certain day-to-day behaviors-
- Once you get into office, look around your desk- you would probably find that picture on the same place as it has been for months or years, same place for a to-do list, same place where you keep your laptop and work.
- Look at the pattern in which you decide your password. Its probably following the same sequence for as long as you can remember.
- Are you in a habit of keeping your desk or your PC desktop unorganized and cluttered ?
There can be a numerous such examples (based on one’s life style) that you can relate to just by looking around your physical world. Probably the list of things that you have been doing the same way for a long time just because they have been part of your habit, something your subconscious mind drives you to do without you realizing it. As Dr. David puts it-
"You see something and you instantly go into a conditioned state associated with your environment."
The idea here is to be aware of such sub-conscious habits and behavior patterns and take a step forward to break the pattern by shaking up your daily routine. By doing so, it helps to jolt your usual thought patterns and open up new avenues of thinking. And it does work! I have tried this in my daily life and this kind of pattern interrupting exercises actually help to open new pathways in your brain eventually affecting the thinking outputs. Here is what needs to be done -
- Based on your life style, make a note of different aspects of your daily routine.
- Slight change any of the ordinary behaviors (e.g. organize your desk, move the stuff and rearrange, slightly change the order of things you do when you reach office etc.)
- Do things that you usually dont do and vice versa (by slightly adjusting the behavior)
Have more awareness of self and age-old pattern and eventually breaking them introduces you to a new thought process. A thought process that has the potential to bring in new ideas to your work, help you in coming up with new ways of testing.
As Software Testing is a job that requires immense thinking abilities, these slight adjustments to the physical routine has a potential to go a long way to bring in necessary change and freshness in a way you have been approaching testing.
I am quite keen to experiment more with this thought while testing and managing the testing in the time to come.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Uncovering Myths about Globalization Testing- 4
Myth 11: Localization - means Localized product on a localized Operating System, Internationalization- means Localized product on English Operating System
One of the readers of my previous Globalization testing related post had commented the following-
I have always heard the below definitions for L10n and I18n:
Localization - means Localized product on a localized Operating System.
Internationalization- means Localized product on English Operating System.
Could you please clarify. As a person who has not done any such testing, I am always in doubt regarding this.
It made me realize that one of the most misunderstood aspects in the world of Software Globalization is comprehension of terms “Internationalization” and “Localization”. I too used to be having a wrong notion about these terms before I started working in this field. I think the major reason for the incorrect understanding about these terms is the lack of awareness and exposure in the field (particularly in India). Moreover, the available definitions and literature also makes it a bit hard for a person with no background in Software Globalization to fathom the basic differences in Software Internationalization and Localization. So, without delving any deeper into text book definitions of Internationalization and Localization, let me attempt to explain these terms as I have experienced while working in the Industry.
Software Globalization:
At the most basic level, Software Globalization= Software Internationalization + Software Localization.
Simply explained, the term “Globalization” relates to all the activities that are required to conceptualize, design, develop, test, maintain and probably sell and market the product in supported International geographies. Globalization is a superset term which constitutes Software Internationalization and Software Localization. Whenever someone uses the term “Globalization testing”, it primarily includes testing of all the changes that needs to be included into the Software to make it fit to be developed in different languages or technically put- Internationalize it. We will look deeper into the phrase “testing of all the changes” (used in previous sentence) in the following points.
What is Software Internationalization ?:
As we now know, one of the activities that come under Software Globalization umbrella is “Internationalization”. Lets forget about Internationalization testing for a moment and focus our thoughts on “What is Internationalization ?”. The primary thing to keep in mind when we talk about Internationalization is that- Internationalization is a Software Design and Development activity.
One question that comes to mind at this point is- If Internationalization is a Software Design and Development activity then how is it different from Design and Development of base Software product (By base Software product I mean that English language Software assuming the Software gets developed in English language first and then into other languages). Base Software development includes development of all the features and functionalities of the application e.g. Taking an example of Windows Notepad application, Base product development includes- writing code for functionality of File/New, Open, Save, Save-as menu, Edit menu and so on. So base product development ensure that the basic features that a product offers are in place.
So, where does Internationalization come into Picture here ?
When we talk of selling the Software in International market, broadly 2 types of requirements are taken in to consideration
a) The features and functionalities that the base language product offers should be available in International version of the Software (there can of course be some exception e.g. say German market does not need a feature that may be a in demand in US market)
b) International requirements i.e. requirements pertaining to the locale in which the Software is being sold. Consider the following examples-
• For a software being developed for Arabic market, it should provide a provision to write in a Left to Right fashion (as against English- Right to left).
• Traditional Chinese is written from Top to bottom so the Software product being sold in that market should have UI supporting text from Top to bottom.
• For a software being sold in International market, one of the primary requirements is that it should support the character sets for that particular language e.g. German, Japanese text etc. If the product does not support the local character sets, it cannot be sold in those markets as the consumers will invariably reject the Software whose UI is translated but it does not support data entry in translated language.
• If a product supports multiple languages then one of the possible Internationalization feature is ability to changing the language at a run time.
• One of the important Internationalization requirements is that the core binaries of product (having code for product’s core features) should not change when Software is internationalized in different languages i.e. same code base should be used for a Software in English, German, Japanese languages etc. One of the aims of Internationalization is achieve the same code base across all the languages. If the code base differs as we move from one language to another, then the overall cost of product development and testing becomes multifold.
• And there can be many more such requirements.
And relooking at above 2 broad classifications of requirements, the requirement b) comes under scope of Internationalization i.e. these requirements are covered as a part of Internationalization design and development. So an international Software leverages the features developed in base language (requirement a) above) and in addition includes varios International requirements.
I hope the above examples provides some insights into what Design and Development activities comes under the scope of Internationalization, why is Internationalization important and how is Internationalization different from base product development.
What is Software Localization ?
So, where does Software Localization comes into picture in Software Globalization ? As mentioned earlier- Software Localization is one of the activities of Software Globalization. In simple terms, Localization deals with presentation aspects of International Software. So if I ask what is the basic difference one observes after having a look at German language User Interface as against an English Language user Interface ? The obvious answer is “Language”. So, one of the prime tasks of Software Localization is translation of various User Interface elements in target language. Remember- we are not talking about Localization testing here, its just an plain explanation of term “Software Localization”.
Who does what ?
Software Internationalization is carried out by either the base product developers who are well versed with Internationalization concepts or it is done by the Software Internationalization experts. Internationalization is indeed an experts’ job.
Translation activity in Software Localization is carried out by the language experts preferably by the people who are the native speakers of the language (usually not the people who have learnt the target language as a second language).
Where does Software Internationalization and Software Localization meet ?
In an ideal scenario, Software Internationalization is done when the base product development is being done i.e. Internationalization requirements are built into the Software when the base product is being developed. An important point here is that Internationalization is built into the Software much before it is actually translated. This is an important concept to understand.
The translation work starts only after the base product User Interface is finalized i.e. no more changes are planned to the User Interface. After the User Interface Freeze, the language experts get the English text, they work to translate the same and after the entire translation is done , the translated resources files are included in the product.
Keep watching this space, there’s still a lot more to come on Software Globalization!
One of the readers of my previous Globalization testing related post had commented the following-
I have always heard the below definitions for L10n and I18n:
Localization - means Localized product on a localized Operating System.
Internationalization- means Localized product on English Operating System.
Could you please clarify. As a person who has not done any such testing, I am always in doubt regarding this.
It made me realize that one of the most misunderstood aspects in the world of Software Globalization is comprehension of terms “Internationalization” and “Localization”. I too used to be having a wrong notion about these terms before I started working in this field. I think the major reason for the incorrect understanding about these terms is the lack of awareness and exposure in the field (particularly in India). Moreover, the available definitions and literature also makes it a bit hard for a person with no background in Software Globalization to fathom the basic differences in Software Internationalization and Localization. So, without delving any deeper into text book definitions of Internationalization and Localization, let me attempt to explain these terms as I have experienced while working in the Industry.
Software Globalization:
At the most basic level, Software Globalization= Software Internationalization + Software Localization.
Simply explained, the term “Globalization” relates to all the activities that are required to conceptualize, design, develop, test, maintain and probably sell and market the product in supported International geographies. Globalization is a superset term which constitutes Software Internationalization and Software Localization. Whenever someone uses the term “Globalization testing”, it primarily includes testing of all the changes that needs to be included into the Software to make it fit to be developed in different languages or technically put- Internationalize it. We will look deeper into the phrase “testing of all the changes” (used in previous sentence) in the following points.
What is Software Internationalization ?:
As we now know, one of the activities that come under Software Globalization umbrella is “Internationalization”. Lets forget about Internationalization testing for a moment and focus our thoughts on “What is Internationalization ?”. The primary thing to keep in mind when we talk about Internationalization is that- Internationalization is a Software Design and Development activity.
One question that comes to mind at this point is- If Internationalization is a Software Design and Development activity then how is it different from Design and Development of base Software product (By base Software product I mean that English language Software assuming the Software gets developed in English language first and then into other languages). Base Software development includes development of all the features and functionalities of the application e.g. Taking an example of Windows Notepad application, Base product development includes- writing code for functionality of File/New, Open, Save, Save-as menu, Edit menu and so on. So base product development ensure that the basic features that a product offers are in place.
So, where does Internationalization come into Picture here ?
When we talk of selling the Software in International market, broadly 2 types of requirements are taken in to consideration
a) The features and functionalities that the base language product offers should be available in International version of the Software (there can of course be some exception e.g. say German market does not need a feature that may be a in demand in US market)
b) International requirements i.e. requirements pertaining to the locale in which the Software is being sold. Consider the following examples-
• For a software being developed for Arabic market, it should provide a provision to write in a Left to Right fashion (as against English- Right to left).
• Traditional Chinese is written from Top to bottom so the Software product being sold in that market should have UI supporting text from Top to bottom.
• For a software being sold in International market, one of the primary requirements is that it should support the character sets for that particular language e.g. German, Japanese text etc. If the product does not support the local character sets, it cannot be sold in those markets as the consumers will invariably reject the Software whose UI is translated but it does not support data entry in translated language.
• If a product supports multiple languages then one of the possible Internationalization feature is ability to changing the language at a run time.
• One of the important Internationalization requirements is that the core binaries of product (having code for product’s core features) should not change when Software is internationalized in different languages i.e. same code base should be used for a Software in English, German, Japanese languages etc. One of the aims of Internationalization is achieve the same code base across all the languages. If the code base differs as we move from one language to another, then the overall cost of product development and testing becomes multifold.
• And there can be many more such requirements.
And relooking at above 2 broad classifications of requirements, the requirement b) comes under scope of Internationalization i.e. these requirements are covered as a part of Internationalization design and development. So an international Software leverages the features developed in base language (requirement a) above) and in addition includes varios International requirements.
I hope the above examples provides some insights into what Design and Development activities comes under the scope of Internationalization, why is Internationalization important and how is Internationalization different from base product development.
What is Software Localization ?
So, where does Software Localization comes into picture in Software Globalization ? As mentioned earlier- Software Localization is one of the activities of Software Globalization. In simple terms, Localization deals with presentation aspects of International Software. So if I ask what is the basic difference one observes after having a look at German language User Interface as against an English Language user Interface ? The obvious answer is “Language”. So, one of the prime tasks of Software Localization is translation of various User Interface elements in target language. Remember- we are not talking about Localization testing here, its just an plain explanation of term “Software Localization”.
Who does what ?
Software Internationalization is carried out by either the base product developers who are well versed with Internationalization concepts or it is done by the Software Internationalization experts. Internationalization is indeed an experts’ job.
Translation activity in Software Localization is carried out by the language experts preferably by the people who are the native speakers of the language (usually not the people who have learnt the target language as a second language).
Where does Software Internationalization and Software Localization meet ?
In an ideal scenario, Software Internationalization is done when the base product development is being done i.e. Internationalization requirements are built into the Software when the base product is being developed. An important point here is that Internationalization is built into the Software much before it is actually translated. This is an important concept to understand.
The translation work starts only after the base product User Interface is finalized i.e. no more changes are planned to the User Interface. After the User Interface Freeze, the language experts get the English text, they work to translate the same and after the entire translation is done , the translated resources files are included in the product.
Keep watching this space, there’s still a lot more to come on Software Globalization!
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Uncovering Myths about Globalization testing-3
Continuing from my previous post , here are a few more myths about Globalization testing uncovered.
Myth 8: If a test case works fine in French language, it will work fine in German language as well
This one is little tricky to explain but it is definitely a myth. Some thoughts around this-
1. Lets consider a case of application being Internationalized for the first time. And assume that the application is going to support multiple languages. There are several factors that need to be kept in mind before defining the testing scope-
a. Check with the developer if there are any changes in application binaries between the languages. If the developer confirms the binaries are the same across all the languages, then get the information about what changes have been done to the product from the Internationalization perspective across all the languages. Also, consider the changes that have been done to the product while building the product or creating the executables. If the product is using the same binaries across all the languages AND there are no changes to the product from the Internationalization perspective AND there are no changes done to build the product AND there are no other changes in the application between languages, then one may confidently say that "If a test case works fine in one language, it will work fine in other language as well. "
In practical scenario, the answer to different if’s in previous sentence are usually not known or is not known to an extent to help you make a right decision. In such a case, to assume that a test case will behave the same way across all the languages may turn out to me quite risky.
b. Continuing with the previous point, another important point is the skill of a developer performing the Internationalization changes to the product. Designing and developing a product from I18N perspective is a specialized skill. More often you will see that the developer who does core application development may not be fully well versed with I18N concepts. If this is the case, as a tester one should better take special care when deciding to omit any test case.
c. If the application is Internationalized for the first time, then the testing should be as thorough as possible as chances for mistakes are high.
2. On the other hand, for the applications that have been through multiple Internationalization releases i.e. already support multiple languages are generally going to be more stable and the variations of test results across the languages would majorly depend upon the changes that has gone into the Software between previous releases and the current one.
3. In order to perform the Risk based testing across the different languages that are supported, one thought-line that is usually applied is that all the Single byte languages such as French, Spanish, German usually tend to behave the same way and the testing can be equally distributed across all these languages.
A special care must be taken to handle the testing of multi-byte languages such as Japanese, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese etc. majorly because of the different character-sets that these languages deal with.
Myth 9: If the Foreign text input in application text fields work fine by using the Soft keys, then it means the data input through respective Foreign language key board would also work fine.
Soft keys are the "Soft" key boards layout in different languages that are provided by Windows Operating System. It can be accessed from the following locations-
- Start Menu/Programs/Accessories/Accessibility/On Screen Keyboards
- Start Menu/Programs/Accessories/System tools/Character Maps
Soft keys basically helps one enter the Foreign text without the need of an external keyboard. For majority of the testing with Foreign text, the use of Soft keys should suffice but there are a few situations that i can think of which requires one to use actual hardware-
- For some languages there are a multiple types of Keyboards (with different makes and models) available in the market. The customers of respective locales can use any of those keyboards. In such a scenarios, it is worthwhile checking at the earlier phases on what models of Keyboards are supported by the application under test and use the same for testing purposes.
- In my testing experience with Internationalized applications, i have not come across a situation where i would have found a bug in which a test scenario worked fine on Soft keyboard but not on physical keyboard but reading about other's experience here's what i found after reading the book- "Galileo Computing- Software Testing and Internationalization"
As the book states- I have seen a program in the past where foreign data was able to be entered correctly using an English keyboard on Portuguese system, so the product was shipped. However, when the program was installed by people in Brazil, who were using a Portuguese keyboard, they were not able to enter the C Celidda character(ҁ).
Though i dont know the exact reason for the above experience mentioned in the book, but this experience is a good enough indicator to not treat the tests related to entering foreign text lightly and to use the physical keyboard for different languages for testing International versions of the Software.
Always, remember- do not take chances with features related to handling the foreign text within the program. Always test it thoroughly.
Myth 10: Globalization testing doesn't require the same test setup as is required to do the Base language testing. Globalization testing can be done with a minimum test setup.
This myth came up as a result of one of the discussions i was having with Development manager of one group. This is a myth because Globalization testing too can be as setup intensive as the base language testing can be.
Remember- one of the basic purposes of Globalization testing is to ensure that the International version of the application on the respective language test setup works the same as English language version would work on English test setup. By test setup here, i mean the Operating System, Third party products, any specific hardware etc.
One cannot possibly carry out all the necessary tests if the test setup of Internationalized applications is not same as the base language test setup.
Myth 8: If a test case works fine in French language, it will work fine in German language as well
This one is little tricky to explain but it is definitely a myth. Some thoughts around this-
1. Lets consider a case of application being Internationalized for the first time. And assume that the application is going to support multiple languages. There are several factors that need to be kept in mind before defining the testing scope-
a. Check with the developer if there are any changes in application binaries between the languages. If the developer confirms the binaries are the same across all the languages, then get the information about what changes have been done to the product from the Internationalization perspective across all the languages. Also, consider the changes that have been done to the product while building the product or creating the executables. If the product is using the same binaries across all the languages AND there are no changes to the product from the Internationalization perspective AND there are no changes done to build the product AND there are no other changes in the application between languages, then one may confidently say that "If a test case works fine in one language, it will work fine in other language as well. "
In practical scenario, the answer to different if’s in previous sentence are usually not known or is not known to an extent to help you make a right decision. In such a case, to assume that a test case will behave the same way across all the languages may turn out to me quite risky.
b. Continuing with the previous point, another important point is the skill of a developer performing the Internationalization changes to the product. Designing and developing a product from I18N perspective is a specialized skill. More often you will see that the developer who does core application development may not be fully well versed with I18N concepts. If this is the case, as a tester one should better take special care when deciding to omit any test case.
c. If the application is Internationalized for the first time, then the testing should be as thorough as possible as chances for mistakes are high.
2. On the other hand, for the applications that have been through multiple Internationalization releases i.e. already support multiple languages are generally going to be more stable and the variations of test results across the languages would majorly depend upon the changes that has gone into the Software between previous releases and the current one.
3. In order to perform the Risk based testing across the different languages that are supported, one thought-line that is usually applied is that all the Single byte languages such as French, Spanish, German usually tend to behave the same way and the testing can be equally distributed across all these languages.
A special care must be taken to handle the testing of multi-byte languages such as Japanese, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese etc. majorly because of the different character-sets that these languages deal with.
Myth 9: If the Foreign text input in application text fields work fine by using the Soft keys, then it means the data input through respective Foreign language key board would also work fine.
Soft keys are the "Soft" key boards layout in different languages that are provided by Windows Operating System. It can be accessed from the following locations-
- Start Menu/Programs/Accessories/Accessibility/On Screen Keyboards
- Start Menu/Programs/Accessories/System tools/Character Maps
Soft keys basically helps one enter the Foreign text without the need of an external keyboard. For majority of the testing with Foreign text, the use of Soft keys should suffice but there are a few situations that i can think of which requires one to use actual hardware-
- For some languages there are a multiple types of Keyboards (with different makes and models) available in the market. The customers of respective locales can use any of those keyboards. In such a scenarios, it is worthwhile checking at the earlier phases on what models of Keyboards are supported by the application under test and use the same for testing purposes.
- In my testing experience with Internationalized applications, i have not come across a situation where i would have found a bug in which a test scenario worked fine on Soft keyboard but not on physical keyboard but reading about other's experience here's what i found after reading the book- "Galileo Computing- Software Testing and Internationalization"
As the book states- I have seen a program in the past where foreign data was able to be entered correctly using an English keyboard on Portuguese system, so the product was shipped. However, when the program was installed by people in Brazil, who were using a Portuguese keyboard, they were not able to enter the C Celidda character(ҁ).
Though i dont know the exact reason for the above experience mentioned in the book, but this experience is a good enough indicator to not treat the tests related to entering foreign text lightly and to use the physical keyboard for different languages for testing International versions of the Software.
Always, remember- do not take chances with features related to handling the foreign text within the program. Always test it thoroughly.
Myth 10: Globalization testing doesn't require the same test setup as is required to do the Base language testing. Globalization testing can be done with a minimum test setup.
This myth came up as a result of one of the discussions i was having with Development manager of one group. This is a myth because Globalization testing too can be as setup intensive as the base language testing can be.
Remember- one of the basic purposes of Globalization testing is to ensure that the International version of the application on the respective language test setup works the same as English language version would work on English test setup. By test setup here, i mean the Operating System, Third party products, any specific hardware etc.
One cannot possibly carry out all the necessary tests if the test setup of Internationalized applications is not same as the base language test setup.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Uncovering Myths about Globalization testing -2
This post is a continuation of my previous post on the same topic and is based on the real time myths about Globalization testing as i have experienced.
Myth 4: A person who doesn't know French cannot test the French version of the Software
The fact here is that except for the testing required to do the Language verification on the User Interface and the documents, every other aspect of Globalization testing can be done by a tester who is not well versed with the language under test. In my experience, I have seen most of the Internationalization testing being done by people who are not language experts. There are a few points that come to my mind regarding this fact-
1. The User Interface of localized Software products is generally consistent with the English language User Interface. A tester first gets trained on the English version of the Software product and then switches to testing on a language specific version of Software. This way the tester is acquainted of the entire User Interface map in English language and thus knows what options is he/she clicking on a language specific build. It’s probably same as using English language say Windows XP as against German language Windows XP. The entire look and feel is the same, so a person who doesn’t know the target language still knows what actions he/she is doing.
2. The language part of testing is best done by the native speakers of that language. There is a difference between native speakers and the person who has learnt a foreign language with his/her's native language being something else. It is generally very difficult to find a person who is technically sound, an Expert in Software testing and a native language expert as well. If at all one manages to find one such person for one supported language, it may not be equally feasible to find such a person for all the supported languages. In such a scenario, the language part of Globalization testing (usually referred to as Localization testing) is the responsibility of native language expert and the Functional part of Globalization testing (referred as Internationalization testing) is done by testing Experts.
3. Having said this much, it must be understood that there will still be some situations in which a person unaware of language and testing the same may get struck especially while troubleshooting things or upon coming up with some sort of error message that requires translation. In such a scenario, the help of language experts or sometimes the freely available text translation tools is required.
Myth 5: A tester only needs to follow the test cases executed for Base language in order to thoroughly test the internationalized applications
International versions of a Software program in majority of cases have the same features and functionalities as the English version of Software. This may not be true if there is a specific feature request for a particular locale. In my experience, I have not generally come across any such instance. Going by this thought, many people new to the Globalization testing tend to believe that the test cases same as English language can be used for testing the International versions of the Software. This is not typically correct. Let me try to put things in perspective here-
1. It is true that for the sizable chunk of Globalization testing, the Base language (usually English) Functional test cases are used. The prime reason of following this approach is that one of the objectives of Globalization testing is to ensure that the localized version of Software works as reliably on localized test environment as English language product does on English language test environment.
2. However, it is very costly and inefficient to run all the English language functional test cases for all the languages being supported. Suppose a Software product supports 4 languages, if one intends to run all the English language test cases for all the languages, then the overall effort would be 400% more. In a usual resource crunch scenario in Software releases, spending this much effort is impractical and often not required. And if at all this much effort is spent, then the Simship is not possible ("Simship" is releasing all the supported languages for a software product on the same date). In order to deal with such a situation, the English test cases are usually striped across languages meaning- running 25% of test cases on say French language, 25% each on say German, Spanish and Italian). The word of caution before agreeing to go for such an approach is basically understanding the code changes that have happened across different languages. Usually, if the product is properly Internationalized- there would be a single code base catering to all the supported languages. If this is the case, there won’t be much risk in basing the testing by dividing the test cases across the languages.
3. However, it is equally untrue that Globalization testing constitutes "just" executing the English language test cases on localized languages. Apart of executing English based test cases on the localized test setup, there is a great deal of testing that needs to be done to test the cultural requirements/International requirements of a particular language under test e.g. If you are testing an German language Software, one needs to focus on German keyboard and testing using German text, test for German date/time format, number formats, Sorting order, printer settings and a list of related things. Usually one ends up testing whole lot of additional things.
Myth 6: There is no scope of exploratory testing while testing internationalized applications
This myth has it's root in the previous myth- A tester only needs to follow the test cases executed for Base language in order to thoroughly test the Internationalized applications
There are quite a few challenges associated with the Globalization testing. Let me summarize a few of these-
1. The localized version of Software works as reliably on localized test environment as English language product does on English language test environment.
2. One of the major activities for Globalization testing is to ensure that the testing touches entire User Interface at least once. In absence of a good methodology to exactly figure out whether the entire UI is covered, this is usually a big challenge.
3. The cultural changes that need to be tested when one switches from one language to other. E.g. the UI layout, Date/time, sorting etc. would be entirely different in German language as compared to say Arabic language.
So considering these challenges and many such other challenges, the testing approach that is defined for Globalization testing may not always be robust enough to find all major defects. In such a scenario, Exploratory testing plays a very important role in uncovering the defects timely.
I have seen James' Bach's Session based Test management philosophy being successfully used to uncover many hidden Internationalization bugs.
Myth 7: The language verification of User Interface can be done by comparing the text on screen with translation outputs of any freely available Online translator.
For all the professionally developed International version of Software, the translation of text is carried out by Language experts. Couple of reasons for this-
1. The Language experts being the native speakers of the language are the best judges as to what is appropriate text for the context in which a message/User Interface element is being displayed. It is a real possibility that a Foreign customer may get annoyed if the text is not localized appropriately. Just think of your case, if you are using any Software product in your native language and some text is not localized properly, it would for sure cause for discomfort.
2. Using freely available Online translators may be useful for doing some sort of troubleshooting if you are unaware of language under test. But it is definitely not advisable to log bugs by taking Online translators as Oracle. First of all, the translator software may not be accurate for your context. Secondly, if you still ask the language expert to fix the bug based on the output of online translators, it is highly likely that you may end up annoying the language expert who translated the text for your application.
Watch out this space again till more myths get uncovered!
Myth 4: A person who doesn't know French cannot test the French version of the Software
The fact here is that except for the testing required to do the Language verification on the User Interface and the documents, every other aspect of Globalization testing can be done by a tester who is not well versed with the language under test. In my experience, I have seen most of the Internationalization testing being done by people who are not language experts. There are a few points that come to my mind regarding this fact-
1. The User Interface of localized Software products is generally consistent with the English language User Interface. A tester first gets trained on the English version of the Software product and then switches to testing on a language specific version of Software. This way the tester is acquainted of the entire User Interface map in English language and thus knows what options is he/she clicking on a language specific build. It’s probably same as using English language say Windows XP as against German language Windows XP. The entire look and feel is the same, so a person who doesn’t know the target language still knows what actions he/she is doing.
2. The language part of testing is best done by the native speakers of that language. There is a difference between native speakers and the person who has learnt a foreign language with his/her's native language being something else. It is generally very difficult to find a person who is technically sound, an Expert in Software testing and a native language expert as well. If at all one manages to find one such person for one supported language, it may not be equally feasible to find such a person for all the supported languages. In such a scenario, the language part of Globalization testing (usually referred to as Localization testing) is the responsibility of native language expert and the Functional part of Globalization testing (referred as Internationalization testing) is done by testing Experts.
3. Having said this much, it must be understood that there will still be some situations in which a person unaware of language and testing the same may get struck especially while troubleshooting things or upon coming up with some sort of error message that requires translation. In such a scenario, the help of language experts or sometimes the freely available text translation tools is required.
Myth 5: A tester only needs to follow the test cases executed for Base language in order to thoroughly test the internationalized applications
International versions of a Software program in majority of cases have the same features and functionalities as the English version of Software. This may not be true if there is a specific feature request for a particular locale. In my experience, I have not generally come across any such instance. Going by this thought, many people new to the Globalization testing tend to believe that the test cases same as English language can be used for testing the International versions of the Software. This is not typically correct. Let me try to put things in perspective here-
1. It is true that for the sizable chunk of Globalization testing, the Base language (usually English) Functional test cases are used. The prime reason of following this approach is that one of the objectives of Globalization testing is to ensure that the localized version of Software works as reliably on localized test environment as English language product does on English language test environment.
2. However, it is very costly and inefficient to run all the English language functional test cases for all the languages being supported. Suppose a Software product supports 4 languages, if one intends to run all the English language test cases for all the languages, then the overall effort would be 400% more. In a usual resource crunch scenario in Software releases, spending this much effort is impractical and often not required. And if at all this much effort is spent, then the Simship is not possible ("Simship" is releasing all the supported languages for a software product on the same date). In order to deal with such a situation, the English test cases are usually striped across languages meaning- running 25% of test cases on say French language, 25% each on say German, Spanish and Italian). The word of caution before agreeing to go for such an approach is basically understanding the code changes that have happened across different languages. Usually, if the product is properly Internationalized- there would be a single code base catering to all the supported languages. If this is the case, there won’t be much risk in basing the testing by dividing the test cases across the languages.
3. However, it is equally untrue that Globalization testing constitutes "just" executing the English language test cases on localized languages. Apart of executing English based test cases on the localized test setup, there is a great deal of testing that needs to be done to test the cultural requirements/International requirements of a particular language under test e.g. If you are testing an German language Software, one needs to focus on German keyboard and testing using German text, test for German date/time format, number formats, Sorting order, printer settings and a list of related things. Usually one ends up testing whole lot of additional things.
Myth 6: There is no scope of exploratory testing while testing internationalized applications
This myth has it's root in the previous myth- A tester only needs to follow the test cases executed for Base language in order to thoroughly test the Internationalized applications
There are quite a few challenges associated with the Globalization testing. Let me summarize a few of these-
1. The localized version of Software works as reliably on localized test environment as English language product does on English language test environment.
2. One of the major activities for Globalization testing is to ensure that the testing touches entire User Interface at least once. In absence of a good methodology to exactly figure out whether the entire UI is covered, this is usually a big challenge.
3. The cultural changes that need to be tested when one switches from one language to other. E.g. the UI layout, Date/time, sorting etc. would be entirely different in German language as compared to say Arabic language.
So considering these challenges and many such other challenges, the testing approach that is defined for Globalization testing may not always be robust enough to find all major defects. In such a scenario, Exploratory testing plays a very important role in uncovering the defects timely.
I have seen James' Bach's Session based Test management philosophy being successfully used to uncover many hidden Internationalization bugs.
Myth 7: The language verification of User Interface can be done by comparing the text on screen with translation outputs of any freely available Online translator.
For all the professionally developed International version of Software, the translation of text is carried out by Language experts. Couple of reasons for this-
1. The Language experts being the native speakers of the language are the best judges as to what is appropriate text for the context in which a message/User Interface element is being displayed. It is a real possibility that a Foreign customer may get annoyed if the text is not localized appropriately. Just think of your case, if you are using any Software product in your native language and some text is not localized properly, it would for sure cause for discomfort.
2. Using freely available Online translators may be useful for doing some sort of troubleshooting if you are unaware of language under test. But it is definitely not advisable to log bugs by taking Online translators as Oracle. First of all, the translator software may not be accurate for your context. Secondly, if you still ask the language expert to fix the bug based on the output of online translators, it is highly likely that you may end up annoying the language expert who translated the text for your application.
Watch out this space again till more myths get uncovered!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
