 |
 |
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