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
> allow
> > 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)".



Andromeda Yelton
LITA Board of Directors, Director-at-Large, 2013-2016
http://andromedayelton.com
@ThatAndromeda