The Human Score

I caught this interesting piece on the PSFK site over the weekend, Reebok Platform Lets You Reclaim Your Humanity with Human Score, about a current Reebok marketing campaign and associated 'humanness' quiz. And since I have heard quizzes on the internet might be a thing, I clicked over and spent 5 minutes taking the test to find out my 'human' score, (pic of my result embedded on the right, click to see a giant version if you are so inclined).

According to Reebok, The Human Score is the world’s first test to put a numeric value on one’s ‘humanness,’ and is strategically designed by scientist David McRaney.

McRaney enlisted average people to help define what it means to be human and gathered different responses about generosity, humor, resilience, discipline and other characteristics. The test asks questions in a five-part series of questions aggregated from the collective data, from the type of guest you might mingle with at a party, to your attitudes towards fitness, and even what kind of news headlines  might catch your attention.

My 'human' score labels me as a 'Brain Buff', and Reebok says that Brain Buffs "make for a pretty great human specimen. Brain Buffs do more than keep their bodies fit – they actively work to keep their minds sharp. With their curious nature and insatiable hunger for knowledge, they’re always on the go. For Brain Buffs, there is pretty much no end to self-improvement. There is always room upstairs to add more theories, ideas and wisdom. They make it a point to regularly challenge themselves to think big thoughts way outside the box. And they are rigorous thinkers inclined to do their own research and ask questions rather than take information at face value. Smarty-pants Brain Buffs use all their intellectual gifts to help reach their fullest human potential."

I guess some of that is true, I don't know about the 'fullest human potential' part - I probably watch too much basketball for that to be totally true.

Anyway, it is a fun little exercise, as these things go, and good for a 10 minute diversion as you hit the middle of the work week.

If you take the 'human' test, let me know how it goes.

Happy Wednesday.

Diversity, testing, and how bugs often go unnoticed

Recently I was talking to a friend who told me that he was in the market for a new car. My friend, who has been a loyal driver of a particular brand of vehicle for many years, for argument's sake let's call it Lexura (not the actual brand, but since I don't want to get hassled by any PR folks, I am making up this brand). When I asked him if he was considering the latest Lexura luxury model, a brand new one for 2015 that has generated significant buzz and some really stellar initial reviews, my friend surprised me by saying 'No', that he had soured on the Lexura brand.

When I asked why the conversation went more or less as follows:

Him: 'I like Lexura, I really do. But the last two Lexura's I owned have had the exact same problem. When it is raining, and I have the windshield wipers on, the water comes right inside the driver's window. I am always getting wet.'

Me: 'Why would you have the window open if it is raining so much that you have to have the wipers on? That seems a little odd. Most people you know, close the windows when it's raining.

Him: 'Well, usually I do. But sometimes I am smoking. And I like to keep the window open when I am smoking in the car. And then if it is raining the water comes right in off the wipers.'

A sort of odd story, and immediately after hearing the 'when I am smoking in the rain the wipers get me wet' take from my friend I starting thinking about software, (and really any other kind of product), that is developed, tested (significantly), and then is released into the wide, strange, and harsh world of customers and users.

My friend should not, on paper anyway, be driving in the rain, wipers on, driver's side window rolled down, getting wet. It does not really make much sense to most of us. It's raining. Roll up the window, dummy.

But if you are a smoker, then it is pretty common that when you are smoking and driving that you want/need the window down, at least part of the way. I guess even smokers don't really want to be trapped in a small, enclosed area with their own second hand smoke. So they open the window. And most of the time it works out just fine. Unless it's raining and your Lexura has the bad habit of directing water off of the windshield wipers right into the open window and in your face.

So let's spin this back to technology and testing and think about how/why 'bugs' like the Lexura spitting water back through the driver's window (let's just assume that it is actually, a bug for now), can make it past the testers and developers and engineers and make it into the world. Could it be, perhaps, that no one on the Lexura design/dev team was a smoker? That driving in the rain with the wipers on and window open was never actually tested, as it would have never occurred to the non-smokers at Lexura that this was actually a thing that would be important to some customers? That this possible lack of 'diversity' in the makeup of the Lexura team led to a bug that was only likely to be experienced by customers whose specific issues were not adequately represented at Lexura?

This is kind of a odd story, as I mentioned above, but I think there is something important here nonetheless.

First, it is almost impossible in the design, development, and testing processes of software, hardware, or products of any sort to test everything, every potential use case that is possible. It just cant' be done. Bugs will results, often from customers using the product in a way the builders never considered or even could have reasonably imagined.

And second, 'diversity', at least the way we usually think about it, is often a very incomplete way to frame the noble notion of ensuring all important and representative voices are heard. Because every time you think you have incorporated ideas and points of view from all the necessary constituencies, one new one you never thought about raises a hand, and wants to be heard.

Even smokers who drive in the rain with the windows open.

Have a great week.

Could you pass this question from the Chinese version of the SAT?

Pretty interesting story from over the weekend at Business Insider on the lenghts that some test-takers will go to try and get an edge, i.e., cheat, on the test in China that is largely equivalent, (except it seems even more important), to the United States SATs.

The piece, titled Chinese Teens Have Found Remarkable High-Tech Ways To Cheat On Tests, focuses on some of the 'creative' ways that test takers are attempting to use in order to better their chances of passing this hugely important test. While creative and high-tech cheating is always kind of interesting, I thought the most interesting bit of detail in the story was this translation of one of the tests' essay questions. Take a look at this question, then ponder just how you might take a shot at answering.

"You can choose your own road and method to make it across the desert, which means you are free; you have no choice but finding a way to make it across the desert, which makes you not free.Choose your own angle and title to write an article that is not less than 800 words."

A totally fair question, right? And much better than the ones that seemed to dominate the SATs for years. Things like "Crumb is to bread as BLANK is to pencil", or some such nonsense.

But having to drop, in a high-pressure set of conditions, 800+ words on freewill, choice, deserts, roads, and sorting out just exactly what is it that the testers are looking for in your answer seems ridiculously tough to me. Plus, remember these are 18, 19 year old kids trying to figure this out.

Where would you do with that question? 

You are free but also not free. 

Probably, just a little maybe, the way you feel on a summer Monday morning, settling in to a job that you could both walk away from and are chained to at the same time.

Happy Monday.

You can still see, right?

In a few short weeks my New York State issued driver's license will expire, and to continue to remain in the good graces of our fine state's laws and regulations I will need to renew said license, a fairly simple exercise in filling out some forms, paying some kind of fee, (it's a FEE not a tax), and interestingly to me, submit to an pass the State's vision test, (picture of the state's 'Eye Test Report' accompanies this post).Read the fourth line starting on the left, please?

It makes sense I think, that for the renewal of my driving privileges that the State desires not only to receive my additional $64.50 and a new and current picture of my handsome mug, they also want me to prove, (or have a registered Health Care Provider attest), that I can actually handle the first and most basic element required to safely operate a motor vehicle - I can actually see. 

And I applaud the State of New York for making sure to verify my ability to see before sanctioning me for another four years out on the roadways as an authorized operator of (most) any car, truck, van, I can get my hands on. 

But putting aside the practical and budgetary realities aside for a moment, (believe me in New York we do not need to pay any more taxes), the license renewal process and the associated Eye Test reveals the obvious flaw in the process - in order to be a safe and responsible driver, it doesn't really matter if I can see, what matters is whether or not I know how and can demonstrate that I can drive.  And while I know in New York, or in any other place for that matter, road re-testing of long time drivers is not feasible (and probably doesn't make sense), this necessarily flawed process reminds us that most of the time when making decisions surrounding the capability and suitability of someone to successfully perform any task, we almost always make our judgement with imperfect and incomplete information.

And in the 'checking of the boxes' process of traits and experiences we often fail to remember the essential function or task that we really need to have accomplished.

New York State will re-authorize me for $64.50 and proof I can see. Whether or not I know how to drive, well that is another story.

And by the way, I am an excellent driver - it's all of you people that are a menace out on the roads.

Have a great week!