On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Joe Hourcle
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Coral Sheldon-Hess wrote:
> > I apologize for the self promotion, but not all libraries' cultures
> > for the "big public test" approach. Mine ... might, now, but probably
> > wouldn't have, a couple of years ago.
> There's been a recommendation for years that big public tests are a
> waste of people's time ... you don't do that until it's effectively
> a release candidate.
> Here are the problems:
> (1) there's going to be one or two problems that are the majority
> of the problem reports.
> (2) once everyone's tested out the buggy version, they're tainted
> so can't be a clean slate when testing the next version.
I don't think you and Coral are using the term "big public test" in the
same way. It sounds to me like you mean "test a whole ginormous bunch of
users", whereas Coral meant "invite everyone at your workplace to watch the
test (which probably has only a handful of users)".
LITA Board of Directors, Director-at-Large, 2013-2016