One of the interesting things about being in software development and also being a consumer of software is you notice oversights or (less often) niceties in how things are done.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kevlin@mastodon.social
One of the most common I notice is blind spots in a product's testing. E.g., it's fairly obvious that testing of font-spacing in Microsoft PowerPoint is very weak.
A common consequence of an update I notice is text gets nudged one way or another in an existing file (and sometimes when you're editing). This means that sometimes previously carefully sized text will wrap around or that it will misalign from slide to slide.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kevlin@mastodon.social
If they regression-tested the visual effect with any thoroughness, this would be picked up. If they unit-tested the code responsible for calculation, this would be picked up.
But I guess that either the calculation code is so messy that "There's no way we can unit test that" or it's considered so trivial that "There's no point in testing that". And for UI-level testing, they may have made an explicit decision to not worry about things visually being misplaced by a pixel or two.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kevlin@mastodon.social
Empirically, we can conclude that none of these decisions has survived contact with reality, and that revisiting the decisions and improving testing is what needs to be done.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kevlin@mastodon.social
@kevlin, you're forgetting that "there are no significant bugs in [Microsoft's] released software that any significant number of users want fixed." Bill Gates. Focus Magazine interview. 1995.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from punkstarman@mastodon.social
@punkstarman Ah, such halcyon days!
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kevlin@mastodon.social This content has been proxied by September (ba2dc).Proxy Information
text/gemini