Amr Elssamadisy | 1 Sep 01:53 2004

RE: XP and Big Interaction Design Up Front

I've been reading this post - and I was wondering - has anyone ever worked
with a 'usability expert'?  I haven't and I wouldn't know what that kind of
expertise would bring to the game.  I consider myself anti-talented when it
comes to GUIs and usually find that working with the client in tight
feedback loops helps give them a UI that seems to work well for them.

Based on Paolo's notes (I haven't read the book) - it seems that workflow is
the key part.  The successful XP teams I've worked on that incorporated
FIT-like tests with the customers actually thought this way and worked this
way.  That is - the FIT tests were coded use cases - they drove the
workflow.  When work was done in this test-first manner it became easier to
write and modify a good GUI - because the service layer to support the FIT
tests were based on use cases....

 Amr

To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming <at> eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> eGroups.com

ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
(Continue reading)

jhrothjr | 1 Sep 01:45 2004

Re: BRUF

--- In extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com, "Graves, Joseph" 
<jgraves <at> n...> wrote:
> 
> > Actually, I think BRUF is a practice that occurs in some 
> > organizations before the "bid process" begins. Before it's 
decided 
> > that team X will work on project Y, someone usually has to decide 
> > what project Y is, how much it will cost, and if the organization 
is 
> > going to spend the money.
> >
> > Now if BRUF is a cause of project failure with XP projects, then 
it 
> > seems to be that XP teams may not want to work on any project 
where 
> > BRUF has been done in advance. On the other hand, if XP can 
result in 
> > a successful project when BRUF was done before the bid, then we 
> > should have no need to fear BRUF. In my opinion, this is an 
important 
> > question since it further defines the scope of problems where XP 
can 
> > and should be applied.
> > 
> > I don't feel that BRUF is detrimental to the processes that 
follow it 
> > if the processes are agile and the whole team buys into agility. 
> > Other people may not feel that way.
> 
> In a sense, a shop that is not XP-enabled requires that this cost 
(Continue reading)

Randy MacDonald | 1 Sep 03:13 2004
Picon

Re: Continuous Testing

tHE
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries <at> XProgramming.com>
To: <extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: [XP] Continuous Testing

> I take Kari's point to be similar to the one that Watts Humphrey made to
> me. Watts' belief is:
>
>   If we manually check our code before compiling and removing the syntax
>   errors that the compiler (or IDE) would find, we will //also// find
other
>   logic errors, owing to the extra scrutiny, that the compiler would not
>   find.

As I may have said before, up-front tests provide this scrutiny at silicon
speed, eventually covering anything the language designers have yet to
implement. The benefits of a manual scan do not justify the extra time and
effort.

>   If we let the compiler find the syntax errors, the concern is that we'll
>   somehow miss the other logic errors that we would have seen under the
>   intense scan, because the compiler can't find those.
>
> I intended to try the practice, but found that I was so addicted to the
> immediate feedback of the IDE and compile, that I just couldn't bring
> myself to do it. So I don't know whether it would help or not.

It is wise to heed that feeling. Immediate feedback is justifiably
(Continue reading)

Ron Jeffries | 1 Sep 04:04 2004

Re: Continuous Testing

On Tuesday, August 31, 2004, at 9:13:49 PM, Randy MacDonald wrote:

> From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries <at> XProgramming.com>
> To: <extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [XP] Continuous Testing

>> I take Kari's point to be similar to the one that Watts Humphrey made to
>> me. Watts' belief is:
>>
>>   If we manually check our code before compiling and removing the syntax
>>   errors that the compiler (or IDE) would find, we will //also// find
> other
>>   logic errors, owing to the extra scrutiny, that the compiler would not
>>   find.

> As I may have said before, up-front tests provide this scrutiny at silicon
> speed, eventually covering anything the language designers have yet to
> implement. The benefits of a manual scan do not justify the extra time and
> effort.

How do you know? I know that I don't know, because I never tried it.

>>   If we let the compiler find the syntax errors, the concern is that we'll
>>   somehow miss the other logic errors that we would have seen under the
>>   intense scan, because the compiler can't find those.
>>
>> I intended to try the practice, but found that I was so addicted to the
>> immediate feedback of the IDE and compile, that I just couldn't bring
>> myself to do it. So I don't know whether it would help or not.
(Continue reading)

glbrown | 1 Sep 04:26 2004
Picon

Re: Continuous Testing

Quoting Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries <at> XProgramming.com>:

<snip> 

> I do know that my code, with TDD, is very free of defects compared to what
> I used to write with nothing but compiler diagnostics and sporadic testing
> to help me. I still don't know whether intense scrutiny would find
> additional things, but I can certainly see why it might.

But at what cost?  What potential ROI?

Gary Brown

To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming <at> eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> eGroups.com

ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

(Continue reading)

Randy MacDonald | 1 Sep 04:43 2004
Picon

Re: Continuous Testing

I recall an exercise I did a couple of years ago, to count the M's in a page
of random characters. A tiring, monotonous half-hour which got a result that
was 10% off, when I knew that a dozen or so keystrokes would have gotten me
the exact answer on the Word document used to print the page. No, computers
have outpaced people since the 80's.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries <at> XProgramming.com>
To: <extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: [XP] Continuous Testing

> On Tuesday, August 31, 2004, at 9:13:49 PM, Randy MacDonald wrote:
>
> > From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries <at> XProgramming.com>
> > To: <extremeprogramming <at> yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: [XP] Continuous Testing
>
> >> I take Kari's point to be similar to the one that Watts Humphrey made
to
> >> me. Watts' belief is:
> >>
> >>   If we manually check our code before compiling and removing the
syntax
> >>   errors that the compiler (or IDE) would find, we will //also// find
> > other
> >>   logic errors, owing to the extra scrutiny, that the compiler would
not
> >>   find.
(Continue reading)

Jeff Grigg | 1 Sep 04:59 2004
Picon

Re: Testing vs Inspection

>>> I take Kari's point to be similar to the one that Watts
>>> Humphrey made to me. Watts' belief is:
>>> 
>>>   If we manually check our code before compiling and
>>>   removing the syntax errors that the compiler (or
>>>   IDE) would find, we will //also// find other logic
>>>   errors, owing to the extra scrutiny, that the
>>>   compiler would not find.

> --- Randy MacDonald wrote:
>> As I may have said before, up-front tests provide this
>> scrutiny at silicon speed, eventually covering anything
>> the language designers have yet to implement. The
>> benefits of a manual scan do not justify the extra time
>> and effort.

Test Driven Development (TDD) is good at catching functional 
regression.  But it doesn't detect code smells.  People still have 
to do that.

--- Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries <at> X...> wrote:
>>> I do know that my code, with TDD, is very free of
>>> defects compared to what I used to write with
>>> nothing but compiler diagnostics and sporadic
>>> testing to help me.

Me too.  And my code was /very/ good before.

--- Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries <at> X...> wrote:
> My code is better when I TDD, but it is emphatically not
(Continue reading)

Ron Jeffries | 1 Sep 05:01 2004

Re: Continuous Testing

On Tuesday, August 31, 2004, at 10:43:46 PM, Randy MacDonald wrote:

> I recall an exercise I did a couple of years ago, to count the M's in a page
> of random characters. A tiring, monotonous half-hour which got a result that
> was 10% off, when I knew that a dozen or so keystrokes would have gotten me
> the exact answer on the Word document used to print the page. No, computers
> have outpaced people since the 80's.

My code's not as bug-free as I'd like it to be.

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
What is your dream? And knowing this, what have you 
done to work towards realizing it today? -- Les Brown

To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming <at> eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> eGroups.com

ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
(Continue reading)

Ron Jeffries | 1 Sep 05:00 2004

Re: Continuous Testing

On Tuesday, August 31, 2004, at 10:26:32 PM, glbrown <at> inebraska.com wrote:

> Quoting Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries <at> XProgramming.com>:

> <snip> 

>> I do know that my code, with TDD, is very free of defects compared to what
>> I used to write with nothing but compiler diagnostics and sporadic testing
>> to help me. I still don't know whether intense scrutiny would find
>> additional things, but I can certainly see why it might.

> But at what cost?  What potential ROI?

I don't know. Until I try it, how could I know?

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Will Turner: In a fair fight I'd kill you.
Jack Sparrow: That's not much incentive for me to fight fair, then, is it?

To Post a message, send it to:   extremeprogramming <at> eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe <at> eGroups.com

ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/

(Continue reading)

Brad Appleton | 1 Sep 07:48 2004
Picon

Re: Information, Propaganda; Influence, Manipulation.


Hi Ron!
I re-ordered some things just a tad in my response ...

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 10:22:31PM -0400, Ron Jeffries wrote:
> I'm passionate about what I believe, and at the same
> time, I think, open to learning new things, even things
> that contradict what I believe.
[...]
> I'm in this to influence people, and I feel confident
> that that's written all over me. Sometimes I do
> it surprisingly well, sometimes I do it incredibly
> poorly. Always I do it from my heart. I say what I
> believe. The listener gets to decide what to do with it.

Your description above seem to describe what I and others
might call an "Evangelist". Would you agree with that
characterization?

> There are those who hear propaganda if our material is
> well organized, who feel manipulated if approached with
> passion and fervor. That doesn't make it true.

I think there are also those who see passonate advocacy
or evangelism and label it preaching/preachy. Some (even
some who aren't already in "the choir") like being preached
to. Others don't mind. Still others do mind - feeling as if
are being judged or invalidated simply because some things
they thought they knew were challenged/invalidated.

(Continue reading)


Gmane