As I wait for Claude Code to complete a series of tasks for me, one thing comes to mind.  Am I more lazy, impatient, or cautious of gaps?It occurs to me that AI can be a great assistant, but o...

 Thank you to everyone who joined my AI masterclass yesterday!Loved the engagement, energy, and enthusiasm that you all brought.Of course, always grateful for the opportunities like these.Than...

Very much enjoyed a practical discussion between Cassandra H. Leung and Jessica Mosley.As part of the Software Quality Engineering Certificate (SQEC), Module 9 Lesson 3, they discuss how to qu...

This question is taken from the AMA about quality beyond correctness, and comes from Gary Hawkes. How do you communicate confidence in quality to those outside QE, when the confidence is beyond jus...

This question is taken from the AMA about quality beyond correctness, and comes from Dan Caseley. How much of Quality Beyond Correctness is about the implied acceptance criteria? Clearly you c...

This question is taken from the AMA about quality beyond correctness, and comes from Emily O'Connor. How would you persuade engineers and product owners to prioritise bugs and features that go beyo...

This question is taken from the AMA about quality beyond correctness, and comes from Ashutosh Mishra. In your experience, what are some of the ways/ parameters / statistics / examples which can be ...

"Eating your own dog food" is an expression meaning that the creator(s) of a product / service also use that product / service as a way to test and gather feedback.  Whilst this can provide good, real-world insights as to the experience of using the product / service in question, others argue that this should not be the sole means of testing, as creators are inherently biased towards viewing their creations in a positive light, meaning that critical issues and poor user experiences (UX) could go unnoticed and / or unresolved.