tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24100580.post5366837710274175908..comments2008-05-14T16:32:58.809-05:00Randy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17967655042475308182noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24100580.post-44243280787079825922008-05-14T16:32:00.000-05:002008-05-14T16:32:00.000-05:00Hi Annie,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. It was like throwing meat to Piranhas when I said I only had a dozen or so CDs left. So, if anyone missed out on getting a disk, let me know and I'll mail one to you (US mailing addresses only, please).<BR/><BR/>One very helpful addition to exploratory testing is Jon Bach's session-based testing. I thought his track session was great on this topic. You can also find info on this on the web.<BR/><BR/>To me, the take-away is that testing needs more visibility into the item being tested than pure black-box testing can deliver (e.g. gray box testing).<BR/><BR/>I agree that many of us take the path of least resistance in testing!<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your comments, Annie!<BR/><BR/>RandyRandy Ricehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17967655042475308182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24100580.post-7296513033786642652008-05-14T10:49:00.000-05:002008-05-14T10:49:00.000-05:00Thanks for the great writeup, Randy. I really enjoyed attending your talk (it's always good to know that disasters occur everywhere) and the conference overall was wonderful. I've been reading the disk you handed out on being a good test team leader and it's very thought provoking.<BR/><BR/>I also think you're right in your interpretation of James' "Lewis and Clark" metaphor, but I think that exploratory testing as a whole should also be reexamined. Lots of people want to be lazy about documentation and I feel like this is their back-door to getting away with as little as possible!Anniehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02039054006681469110noreply@blogger.com