Preparation costs energy

After all the last weeks’ changes I could finally start my actual workshop.

I felt an energy drop and watched an expectant audience from a far distance. I used my automatic pilot for the intro.

While nobody moved, my distance to the audience became closer while I was talking.

Boom.
I was back in the room.

First test session

For me the most elementary things of Exploratory Testing are

• Charter
• Test idea
• Explore
• Debrief

For this I created a heuristic. CTED is pronounced as See TED. If I need some inspirational talks, then I go to Ted.com.

A charter is a short instruction for a test session.

Explore < target >
with < resources >
to discover < information>

This template of Elisabeth Hendrickson is compact and informative. As mentioned in Explore it.

For the interested people test charter is not found in the index, charter is.

In my workshop the Target was a website. But it is still quite big. Resources is often a web browser.

Information was focused on privacy. General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR, an European privacy law, is still quite huge, so the next step was to select some articles of GDPR.

Ik picked 2. 1 lead to the following question:
Does the website ask consent to gather information?

A charter can be quite abstract. A test idea can be used to focus on a feature, window, or term used in the website to explore.

Consent is not frequently used, but which words are used in a web site?
Privacy, cookies, permission, private data, etcetera.

Using the charter and test ideas it is possible to explore the web site, whether consent is actually asked from the user.

During the debrief the attendees shared their information, which could be used for the following test session.

Background information first test session

For the basic structure of the test session I used the heuristic DiSSS from Tim Ferriss. This stands for Deconstruction Selection Sequence Stakes.
I assume that i was added for pronounciation reasons.

I looked to all the steps I took during Exploratory testing.
Are detailed test cases needed? Not in every case. Most of the times a good description of the precondition is good enough.

What I noticed during Deconstruction was that certain steps always came back. These steps I used for the Selection for CTED. This also led to a logical Sequence. The Stakes were twofold: people had to tell whether the workshop is worthwhile. Also the fines for privacy could be quite high.

Second test session

One test session done.
Another one to do.

At the beginning of the session I enhanced the resources with personas. For me a persona is a person with a need, who interacts with the system.

Examples for a need are: acceptance, cooperation , safety, purpose, learning, support, inclusion, etc.

E.g. a known persona is a marketeer. The more she or he knows about a website visitor, the more she or he will sell.
For this purpose I had made a set of persona cards.

I also handed out an one pager to the attendees with articles and test techniques which could be used for testing websites on GDPR compliancy.

The test techniques were selected using DiSSS.

After the Explore phase more issues were mentioned during the Debrief phase.

Background information second test session

Once again I used a heuristic of Tim Feriss, CaFE. This is an abbreviation for Compression Frequency Encryption. Once again I assume that ‘a’ was added for pronunciation.

Was it possible to compress information for testing GDPR? Yes, by making an one pager.

I tried to make to Frequency high, so attendees had to go through Charter – Test idea – Explore – Debrief cycle multiple times.
I used Encryption by using CTED.

In case you need more background information, please have a mind map.

What went wrong

The time to explore was quite short. I did this on purpose. For beginners it can be terrible to click through a site for 10 minutes on your own without finding anything.

In hindsight a group activity was better suited to explore the website.

While I tried to keep the introvert involved, it was a challenge to give them enough speaking time. I really liked the sticky notes for found bugs in the workshop of Lisa Crispin and Lena Pejgan.

My prerequisite for the workshop for a laptop was not needed. I could demo certain tools using my own laptop. Luckily there was an Open Space to demonstrate GDPR and Exploratory Testing.

What went right

The demo was a great way to change the pace of the workshop. I had good feedback during the repetitions

My impression was, that most attendees were hesitant to test their own websites or websites of their employers. My test website provided a safe environment to explore.

During the preparations I learned a lot about websites and tools.

Thank you José Diaz and your team for this wonderful journey.

On November 5th I gave a workshop about Exploratory Testing and General Data Protection Regulation. GDPR is an European privacy law.

Need

In the past I wrote about the Code of Conduct. A good set of rules will ensure the safety of the delegates, the speakers, and the organisers of a conference. When enforced.

Therefore I was keen to adhere to this Code. The more diverse people at a conference, the more perspectives being shared. A new perspective is not always out of the box thinking, but natural for some people.

A woman looks different to privacy than a man.

Now I had a dilemma: I had a workshop about privacy. If a name and address would become public, then unpleasant things could happen to certain people.

I remembered a conversation with a white man not realising the consequences of a data breach. So I shared a story with him. It had some impact on him.

But this same trick would have a bad impact on women present in my workshop. So I would not stick to the Code of Conduct.

Imagine being removed from the conference as a speaker. Not good. At all.

Contact

It was time for me to mail to Uwe Gelfrich, my contact at the conference. I made a brutal honest warning like:
the workshop contains situations about violence and harassment.

In this way I could still talk about certain situations. Because people were warned in advance.

Uwe replied thoughtfully: violence and harassment would not be used in the workshop. And he proposed a warning along the following lines:
the workshop may contain situations about violence and harassment.

I agreed.
The warning was set on my abstract on the website.

And I would not use a rant.

Attention

During the preparation of my workshop I read a tweet about an anxiety attack of a delegate on a conference. According to me this person was angered about the vague content warning.

I reacted with the following tweet:
“During Global Diversity CFP Day this year I heard about trigger warnings for the first time.

So I did my homework.

I contacted the conference about a suitable and specific warning. It is on my abstract. It will be shown before and right after the start. I will tell it.”

Start

On the day of my workshop I tweeted about the warning. It was retweeted by Agile Testing Days.

During the arrival of the delegates I regularly switched between the workshop title slide and the warning slide.

After the opening I gave a warning and an explicit permission to leave the room. I would not be offended. Then I waited about 20 seconds before continuing.

So this looked like an inclusive opening of my workshop.

Actually no.
I missed some accessibility items which will be covered in the next blog post. Reads like a pretty cliff-hanger.

Change

On the Women and Allies evening a delegate told about a talk with HR. If colleagues would not behave themselves, then they would probably be removed from conferences because of the Code of Conduct.