Successful
quality assurance (QA) looks for to offer an unambiguous and realistic model
for meeting the client's expectations. In this background,
"transparent" QA will take up a policy of steady communication and
evaluation from the top-down about all business decisions, testing, hiring, and
user experience (UX). In toting up, transparent QA will endeavor to anticipate
and avert problems before they occur and do so from the project's initial
stages, throughout development, and subsequent to release.
The
transparency ought to begin with the CIO and filter down through the entire
team. QA should be considered as a business choice to commit the company to the
delivery of a product that congregates or exceeds the customers' expectations.
This decision must clear itself from the project's inception, beginning with
the recognition of the customer's needs and the means with which the project
will attend them. Ideally, this will fill an as-yet-unfilled demand, or fill it
in a more well-organized way. These expectations must be comprehensible, pragmatic,
and made transparent to anyone involved in the project. Furtive, ambiguities,
or unnecessary delays will only cripple the project at its onset.
There
also exists a likely tendency to reduce QA to a software testing role. Limiting
QA to a simple "black box" role despoils it of its transparency by
removing the need for it. Black-box testing purely guarantees a certain output
produces the desired output without understanding of the program's inner
workings in an attempt to mimic the typical user. It is one of the main
inexpensive forms of testing, thus the enticement. Though it has its set, it abandons
the top-down, all-encompassing approach of transparent QA. For instance,
black-box QA will be denied the opportunity to apply the client’s needs to the
hiring process for UX engineers, or even to place their detailed needs into a
publicized job posting. As another example, black-box QA might verify
input-output functionality, but overlook UX and discover too late that the
market despises the user interface (UI).
UX
works with QA to present consumers with a optimistic experience, and
transparency must be marked on both sides to succeed. If QA's role is to recognize
the customers' needs, upfront objectives, and technical issues, then UX works
to make sure the team's solutions translate into a pleasant experience for the
users. In process, UX focuses on the UI by group testing, analyzing usage data,
and making propositions to the QA team based on user feedback. If QA falls
short to consider the market's needs or properly commune them to the UX team,
then procedures like group testing and data analytics will be exasperating and
expensive to implement.
Clear
expectations and open two-way communication between QA, UX, and programmers
will to a great extent solve problems before they occur. Anticipation saves
money, time, and effort. Delivering a relatively bug-free product is only one surface
of a successful launch; companies must depend on QA to identify the customers'
needs at the project's conception and to maintain a spirit of collaboration
between all team members.
