I ran a very interesting session on the terminology of specification by example last week at the UK test management forum, asking people in particular to come up with an alternative to “literal automation”, which I guess is the most disputed name from all our recent discussions.
A suggestion that came out is “automating without changing” – this already came up several times so far so I’m thinking that this is really a better alternative.
I like it because it evokes the right picture in people’s heads, which was the key criteria for all the other names. Going back, whenever I had to explain what I mean by “literally” I did offer something along the lines of “automating without changing”, so using that name directly makes sense.
I don’t like it because it isn’t as easy to use in a sentence. Eg we can talk about “tools for literal automation”, but “tools for automating without changing” is a mouthful.
How do you feel about this?
|
|
Hi Gojko,
I like “Literal Automation”, what was the issue with calling “automating a specification without distorting any information” that? I would think it is no more ambiguous than “automating without changing” though I may be biased by already knowing the definition. Pretty much any term will need to be defined, so perhaps (as you mention) saying “automating without changing” is most appropriate as it is in the definition – the less jargon (potential barrier to communication for all stakeholders) the better?
Just to contradict all that, here’s a few suggestions off the top of my head
Honest Automation
Contract Automation
Agreed Automation
Verbatim Automation
- Mark
lots of people didn’t like “literal” as the name for “without distorting any information”.
I’ve not been keen on ‘literal automation’ and in my limited trials of using it in conversations this is the phrase bit most people didn’t get. All the other terms were clearly understood without requiring further elaboration or explanation, but ‘literal automation’ tended to leave most people puzzled (particular those more business facing).
The best alternatives I’ve come up with are
faithful automation
or
faithful translation
Both have appeared a bit more acceptable. I’ve tried it on a few people by saying something along the lines of “… the Key Examples are then faithfully translated into an executable form…”
The second phrase is borrowed from the domain of language translation, where a translation is said to be faithful when it accurately renders the meaning of the source text, without distortion. This seems to be what we are trying to say with literal automation.
- A