Are developers good testers?
Jul 7, 2023
Sam
While developers have valuable skills, they're not necessarily the best testers as their perspective may be biased towards their own code.
Imagine a dog owner entering their dog in a competition and then being a judge. Naturally, they're going to have a soft spot for their own pooch. Every wag of the tail will be a show of exceptional behavior, every bark, a symphony.
Their view of their dog's performance will undoubtedly be clouded by their affection and familiarity. Similarly, developers testing their own code might overlook flaws or misunderstandings, just like the dog owner would be blind to their pet's shortcomings.
Developers bring a unique perspective to testing. They know the inner workings of the system, understand the architecture, and often anticipate areas where problems might arise. However, this deep knowledge might also hinder them from noticing usability issues or unexpected behavior that could be evident to an end-user.
This bias is called the "curse of knowledge," and it can lead developers to overlook problems that would be obvious to others.
By championing user behavior testers or manual testers, we get the perspective of the end-user. They approach the software like a customer would, without prior knowledge of how the system should behave.
They can identify usability issues, misinterpretations, and inconsistencies that might fly over the developer's head.
To speed up the process and enhance reliability, codeless and low-code automation tools can be employed. These tools allow manual testers to automate repetitive tasks and focus on the more exploratory aspects of testing, ensuring a high-quality user experience.
While developers have valuable skills, they're not necessarily the best testers as their perspective may be biased towards their own code.
Imagine a dog owner entering their dog in a competition and then being a judge. Naturally, they're going to have a soft spot for their own pooch. Every wag of the tail will be a show of exceptional behavior, every bark, a symphony.
Their view of their dog's performance will undoubtedly be clouded by their affection and familiarity. Similarly, developers testing their own code might overlook flaws or misunderstandings, just like the dog owner would be blind to their pet's shortcomings.
Developers bring a unique perspective to testing. They know the inner workings of the system, understand the architecture, and often anticipate areas where problems might arise. However, this deep knowledge might also hinder them from noticing usability issues or unexpected behavior that could be evident to an end-user.
This bias is called the "curse of knowledge," and it can lead developers to overlook problems that would be obvious to others.
By championing user behavior testers or manual testers, we get the perspective of the end-user. They approach the software like a customer would, without prior knowledge of how the system should behave.
They can identify usability issues, misinterpretations, and inconsistencies that might fly over the developer's head.
To speed up the process and enhance reliability, codeless and low-code automation tools can be employed. These tools allow manual testers to automate repetitive tasks and focus on the more exploratory aspects of testing, ensuring a high-quality user experience.
While developers have valuable skills, they're not necessarily the best testers as their perspective may be biased towards their own code.
Imagine a dog owner entering their dog in a competition and then being a judge. Naturally, they're going to have a soft spot for their own pooch. Every wag of the tail will be a show of exceptional behavior, every bark, a symphony.
Their view of their dog's performance will undoubtedly be clouded by their affection and familiarity. Similarly, developers testing their own code might overlook flaws or misunderstandings, just like the dog owner would be blind to their pet's shortcomings.
Developers bring a unique perspective to testing. They know the inner workings of the system, understand the architecture, and often anticipate areas where problems might arise. However, this deep knowledge might also hinder them from noticing usability issues or unexpected behavior that could be evident to an end-user.
This bias is called the "curse of knowledge," and it can lead developers to overlook problems that would be obvious to others.
By championing user behavior testers or manual testers, we get the perspective of the end-user. They approach the software like a customer would, without prior knowledge of how the system should behave.
They can identify usability issues, misinterpretations, and inconsistencies that might fly over the developer's head.
To speed up the process and enhance reliability, codeless and low-code automation tools can be employed. These tools allow manual testers to automate repetitive tasks and focus on the more exploratory aspects of testing, ensuring a high-quality user experience.
