>JeffM wrote: >>Describe more fully "incapable of testing". >> Paul B. Gallagher wrote: >What I mean is that most end users can demo a program, >play around for a bit, >and generally satisfy themselves that "it works" for their favorite tasks. > That actually constitutes a lot of data points.
>They might accidentally stumble upon a problem. >But they won't perform rigorous, systematic testing >such as navigating to each and every option on a menu. > "From each, according to his abilities; to each, according to his needs." >So if you have a feature that's rarely used, or >if it doesn't elicit interest or curiosity because of >its menu location, name, or description, it won't be tested. > Hmmm. I've already used this analogy once today (elsewhere). Sometimes it only takes ONE individual to affect a change: http://google.com/search?tbs=dfn:1&q=hung-jury >In this scenario, you need a very large cohort of testers >with very diverse interests (ways of using the program). > Yup. That's the ideal. "Many eyes make all bugs shallow." http://www.venndiagram.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/gallery/venndiagram.org/venn-diagram-1.png The question that remains is "How is that best achieved?". Again, I'm not that smart, so I don't have the answer. Maybe this aggregated-input thing can arrive at a solution. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
