# from Ovid
# on Friday 28 March 2008 07:26:
>Those of them who have worked with FIT are also those who object to it
>the loudest. "Too painful to implement and maintain". "Too difficult
>to train users." "Too difficult to get users to participate." "Too
>little bang for the buck compared to other testing methodologies."
Well, the 2nd and 3rd sentiments stem from different places than the 1st
and 4th. I haven't used it, but I'll certainly think "too little bang
for the buck" until I see a much more convincing example of a set of
data/algorithm where Fit would be a good approach.
Getting users involved is important, but it needs to be at a balance of
complexity and tedium they can tolerate and they need to feel like what
they're doing is useful. I don't think any of the Fit examples I've
seen meet the useful criteria and they seem rather high on the tedium
scale.
You've told us what the developers want to do. What do the *users* want
to do? Is there any buy-in from the users for participating in the qa?
Do you *need* them participating in the qa (vs say participating in the
encoding of business rules)?
Fit is just a tool, and I have yet to see a task for which it is the
right tool. Maybe you need to talk to your hammer-wielding team about
spokeshaves.
>In other words, it seems that as a general rule, those who support FIT
>the most seem to be those who haven't used it.
You can mark me as an exception, but you probably already knew that :-D
--Eric
--
Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to
predict the future is to invent it.
--Alan Kay
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
