sss ssss rrrrrrrrrrr
ssss ss rrrr rrrr
sssss s rrrr rrrr
ssssss rrrr rrrr
ssssssss rrrr rrrr
ssssss rrrrrrrrr
s ssssss rrrr rrrr
ss sssss rrrr rrrr
sss sssss rrrr rrrr
s sssssss rrrrr rrrrr
+===================================================+
+======= Quality Techniques Newsletter =======+
+======= April 2004 =======+
+===================================================+
QUALITY TECHNIQUES NEWSLETTER (QTN) is E-mailed monthly to
subscribers worldwide to support the Software Research, Inc. (SR),
eValid, and TestWorks user communities and to other interested
parties to provide information of general use to the worldwide
internet and software quality and testing community.
Permission to copy and/or re-distribute is granted, and secondary
circulation is encouraged by recipients of QTN, provided that the
entire document/file is kept intact and this complete copyright
notice appears in all copies. Information on how to subscribe or
unsubscribe is at the end of this issue. (c) Copyright 2003 by
Software Research, Inc.
========================================================================
Contents of This Issue
o 2nd National Software Summit
o The Walk-Around, by Boriz Beizer
o ATVA-2004: Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis
o Software Reliability Engineering, by John Musa
o 13Th International Symposium of Formal Methods/Europe
o eValid Summary
o 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE
2005)
o International Workshop on Web Engineering
o QTN Article Submittal, Subscription Information
========================================================================
2nd National Software Summit
Senior Executives, Legislators and Academics to
Consider Global Outsourcing, R&D and Competitiveness
in Creation of National Software Agenda
<http://www.cnsoftware.org>
The second National Software Summit (NSS2), themed "Software: The
Critical Infrastructure Within the Critical Infrastructures!", will
convene in Washington, D.C., May 10-12 at the J.W. Marriott hotel.
NSS2 will gather an invited group of senior software and technology
leaders from industry, academia and government to address growing
concerns over the role of software and the software industry in our
nation today.
The objective of this summit meeting is to develop findings and
recommendations leading to the creation of a national software
public policy agenda, as well as a follow-on action plan.
Phillip Bond, United States Undersecretary of Commerce for
Technology, will keynote the summit at a dinner address the evening
of May 10th. Additional keynotes the following morning will be
delivered by Amit Yoran, National Cybersecurity "Czar" with the
United States Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Alan Merten,
president of George Mason University; and John Chen, chairman,
president and CEO of Sybase, Inc. Sybase software is widely deployed
within corporate and government infrastructures, particularly in the
financial services, government, defense and telecommunications
sectors. Dr. William A. Wulf, president of the National Academy of
Engineering will also address the summit participants at their May
11th luncheon.
"The first software summit was held in 1995 with Steve Case, then
CEO of AOL, and Arati Prabkahar, then Director of NIST, delivering
the keynote addresses," said Dr. Alan Salisbury, President of the
CNSS and General Chairman for NSS2.
"In a post-9/11 world, it's particularly important that we elevate
the attention given to the primacy of software in maintaining both
national security and global economic leadership, and to advance a
national software agenda. NSS2 will start this process."
As the theme of NSS2 indicates, software underpins virtually all of
the nation's critical infrastructures, but policy on this critical
part of our economy is ill defined. Issues of major concern that
will be addressed at the conference include the trustworthiness of
software, the education and qualifications of the software
workforce, the adequacy of current software research and
development, the impacts of outsourcing, and the competitiveness and
stability of the nation's software industry.
To frame these issues, NSS2 is being preceded by a series of four
one-day workshops:
Trustworthy Software Systems, co-chaired by Dr. Jeff Voas, CTO of
Cigital, Rick Linger of the CMU Software Engineering Institute, and
Prof. Bret Michael of the Naval Postgraduate School
The Software Workforce, chaired by Harris Miller, CEO of the
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
Software Research & Development, co-chaired by Prof. Bill Scherlis
of Carnegie-Mellon University, Dr. Larry Druffel, CEO of the South
Carolina Research Authority (SCRA), and Tony Jordano, corporate vice
president of SAIC
The Software Industry chaired by Jim Kane, CEO of the Software
Productivity Consortium (SPC). NSS2 is being hosted by the Center
for National Software Studies (CNSS) in cooperation with a growing
list of organizations, including the Council on Competitiveness, the
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), the Software
Productivity Consortium (SPC), and the IEEE Reliability Society.
Participating universities include George Mason University, George
Washington University, Carnegie Mellon University and the Naval
Postgraduate School.
Additional information on NSS2 and the workshop series can be found
at www.cnsoftware.org/nss2.
About the Center for National Software Studies Headquartered in
Washington D.C., the Center for National Software Studies is a not-
for-profit organization whose mission is to elevate software to the
national agenda, and to provide objective expertise, studies and
recommendations on national software issues. More information about
the Center is available at <http://www.cnsoftware.org>.
Contact: Dr. Alan B. Salisbury, President, Center for National
Software Studies, (703) 319-2187.
========================================================================
The Walk-Around
Note: This article is taken from a collection of Dr.
Boris Beizer's essays "Software Quality Reflections" and
is reprinted with permission of the author. We plan to
include additional items from this collection in future
months.
Copies of "Software Quality Reflections," "Software
Testing Techniques (2nd Edition)," and "Software System
Testing and Quality Assurance," can be purchased
directly from the author by contacting him at
.
1. Evaluations
One of my more interesting assignments as a consultant is evaluating
the state of an organization's esting and QA practices. It is an
intensive process. At the heart of it is the thirty to fifty
interviews that I usually conduct over the course of a week. This
is in addition to a thorough review of all pertinent documentation
such as test plans, process documents, organization charts, etc. As
important as the interviews and document reviews are, the most
important part of the process is what I call the "Walk-Around." It
takes no more than a half-hour, but in that half-hour you can often
get at the heart of issues, so that the interviews are primarily
used to confirm and detail what the walk-around revealed.
While my primary use of the walk-around is as an evaluator, the same
techniques are very useful for a prospective employee who wants to
get a handle on what kind of organization she is thinking of
joining.
Organizations that are willing to spend the $75,000 or so that a
typical evaluation costs are usually sincere, at some level, in
improving themselves. If they weren't why would they spend the
money? I have found that organizations that go in for external
evaluations fall into several patterns, or combinations of these
patterns:
1.1. Winners. Over-all, the organization is in good shape. They
are profitable. The software they ship has the quality appropriate
to their market. But they want to improve their effectiveness.
They may want to reduce climbing testing costs by improving test
efficiency. They foresee structural changes in the industry and
want to be sure to be on top of such changes. Their market share
may have slipped a half-point or so and they have identified user-
perceived quality, and therefore testing, as a component of that
slippage. Competition is getting more intense and they look to
process improvement as a key factor in maintaining that
competitiveness. All excellent reasons for being evaluated. One of
the more pleasant things I find about such winners is that they are
often very harshly self-critical: they perceive themselves as being
far worse than they actually are. I love working with winners.
1.2. Basket Cases. About the only valid self-perception they have
is that they are in deep trouble over software. The quality isn't
there, the software is always very late, the users are screaming,
the market share has plunged, personnel turnover looks like a
turnstile in a New York City subway and worst of all they are so
far back on the quality process and testing curves that they're
unlikely to last out the year. Sad cases. They're looking for
miracles miracles which no ethical evaluator will offer. The
problem is that it isn't always easy to spot the basket cases
because on the surface, they could look just like the winners.
1.3. The Mythologists. These are organizations that have conned
themselves into believing that they are really great and they're
looking to the evaluator not recommend real improvements, but to
give them a rubber stamp of approval. They know all the buzzwords,
they seem to have all the right things in place (e.g., SQA,
independent testing, TQM, etc. etc. ) but none of it is real. It
is all fluff and fake, devoid of substance. These are even harder
to help than losers -- who at least realize that they're in
trouble. And again, based on superficial signs, they may look just
like the winners.
1.4. The Con Artists. Their whole approach is cynical. They don't
want to change the way they're doing software, because as far as
they're concerned, the way they did it back in 1965 was just great.
However, because of customer pressure, especially government
pressure, or because of perceived marketing advantage, they decide
that they better get themselves certified as ISO-9000 compliant
and/or CMM level V. Last I heard, the going price for an ISO-9000
kit is about $50,000. A full set of procedures, documents, etc.
needed for passing certification. I haven't heard of it yet, but
I'm sure that there are some unscrupulous expert's out there
peddling similar kits of CMM. This is the worst type -- and I have
even been conned into doing an assessment for such groups because
doing such an assessment was part of the con.
There are many variations of these extremes, and each of the four
above types could co-exist within one organization. What makes the
evaluation job both difficult and interesting is that the
superficial signs (process documents, organization charts, titles on
the door) could be virtually identical. So how do you tell them
apart? That's what the walk-around is for. But before the walk-
around, it's a good idea to do some document reviews.
2. Documentation Review
Before you go out there, ask to see samples of all pertinent
documentation: process definition documents, internal standards,
external standards they claim to follow, organization charts,
internal and external training documents (as they pertain to quality
issues, testing, and tools), sample test plans and scripts, change
control documents, issue resolution documents, metrics, etc.
What matters is not the documents themselves, or even if they do or
don't have such documents. Excellent organizations may have no
formal documents and the worst con-artists always have the best.
The documents are merely a point of reference from which you can
tell what is real and what is merely paper. You're looking for
differences between the formal documents (if any) and reality.
Having seen the documents gives you a perspective for the in-depth
interviews, but more important, helps you set a mental agenda for
the walk-around.
3. The Walk-Around
You can usually do this in 15 to 30 minutes. Often, it takes almost
no time because I do it as I am walking from one interview to the
next. In no particular order, here are the things to look at:
3.1. Bulletin Boards. Things to look for on bulletin boards:
3.1.a. Metrics. Copious bug statistics, bug reports from the field,
bug resolution rates, testing progress. Lots and lots of real
metrics on the board. Metrics on the boards tell you that there
isn't just a number-crunching group that publishes metrics that no
one sees or uses. However, no metrics on the boards could mean that
these are transmitted as messages on the intra-net. Be sure to
check.
3.1.b. Conferences and Brown Bag Sessions. Internal technology
conferences, brown-bag technology discussion groups, external
technology conference announcements, sign-up sheets for training
seminars (of the right kinde.g., technology, not motivational), all
good. Motivational sessions, meetings of the third-subcommittee on
quality imperative initiative, mass meetings to explain the latest
reorg, new procedures for getting paperclips, all bad.
3.1.c. Social Stuff. Neutral. Too little and it may be a very
harsh place to work. Too much and they may be too busy feeling good
about themselves to do good software.
3.2. Conference Room Agenda. Many places post an agenda for the
coming week for the use of the conference rooms and/or training
rooms. What's being scheduled and how big a part of the time does
it take?
Assume that the room will be filled to say, 75% capacity and figure
out how many work hours are being spent on productive stuff and how
much on procedural garbage. As a rule of thumb, I'm dubious about
most meetings. I can see 1-1 meetings, three person meetings, four
person meetings, and of course, one-many meetings to explain policy
items. But as for the typical many-many meetings, dump them;
they're more often a forum for avoiding responsibility by blaming it
on the anonymous consensus of a meeting than they are a mechanism
for actually doing anything.
3.2.a. Productive. Among productive uses I include: project
kick-off meetings; tools and technology vendor presentations (if
not overdone); almost any technology training; "How I used this neat
trick to improve..." kind of presentation; formal (e.g., Fagan)
inspections; and of course, a consultant's evaluation of the
organization.
3.2.b. Counter-productive. Any kind of rah-rah, motivational,
"quality is good" garbage. Brainstorming sessions. Creativity
enhancement meetings. Weekly progress review meetings. Pre-weekly
progress review coordination and preparation meetings.
Reorganizational meetings. Most "coordinating committee" meetings.
Quality initiative task force subcommittee meetings.
3.3. The Library. Ask if there is one. If there isn't it could be
a very bad sign. Just because there is one doesn't mean it's any
good, and if even if it is good, doesn't mean it is used.
3.3.a. Books. See what books they have on testing and QA. Don't
just go by the shelves, because all the good ones could be out.
Look at the card catalog. If you don't see Beizer, of course dump
them as losers. Kidding aside, though, what authors do they have?
Are the most important books there and in sufficient quantities? If
the books are on the shelf, look at the cards and see how many have
been read and if they are all being read by the same three people.
In the best libraries, all the good books are there, often in
multiple copies, and they are being read by lots of people.
3.3.b. Journals and Trade Publications. Same with technical
journals and trade publications. I expect to see a broad spectrum
of journals, including IEEE SE, ACM TOSEM, ACM SIGSOFT, IEEE
Software, conference proceedings, QA newsletters, etc. I expect it
to be at least as good as my personal library. Check to see if the
subscriptions are current. If they dropped the technical journals
two years ago, they're probably on an irrecoverable downward slide.
Look for trade journals also, both free and especially paid
subscriptions. Is anybody reading these journals or are they also
show-and-tell shelfware like the books?
3.3.c. Librarian. I hope to see a full-time, professional
librarian. That's the only real way to get and maintain a good
organizational library. Typically, that means an MS or MA from a
recognized library training school such as Drexel University.
Amateur librarians are no more effective than amateur software
developers or amateur testers. What kind of person is this
librarian? Is she a facilitator who works hard to see to it that
people have the books and journals they need when they need it or is
she some throwback to the 19th century a guardian of books?
Professionally trained librarians these days rarely have that
guardian mentality and yes, 90% of them are women; but don't be put
off by a male librarian. They can be just as effective.
3.4. Personal Bookcases. This one can be tricky, because more and
more these days, what used to be on the personal bookcase is now
available on the Intranet. If you don't see the right stuff on the
personal bookcases, be sure to cross check with other forms of
availability.
3.4.a. Books and Journals. People are what they're d. Also, what
they display on their personal bookcase tells you what they think is
important (to display, that is. What they think is actually
important could be totally different). How up-to-date are these
guys?
Look for process documents and books. Then open a few and see if
they have actually been read. If the pages are pristine warning
sign. Dog-ears, coffee stains, lots of yellow highlights and red
underlines good signs.
3.4.b. Training Manuals. I put heavy emphasis on technology and
tools training. Process training is also acceptable. But
motivational garbage and Ten steps toward greater creativity?
brraaap! However, too many tools manuals could be indicative of
massive shelfware and tools chaos. Also, remember that much of this
stuff could be available on the intranet, so it pays to check if you
don't see anything technical on their shelves.
3.4.c. Personal Stuff. Tells you a lot about the person.
If the personal stuff repeats on many shelves and forms a pattern,
it can tell you a lot about the underlying culture -- a quality
neutral issue in itself unless overdone, but good to be aware of.
By overdone, I mean things like half of the people have the same set
of books on sport X. Probably means that that sport is more
important to them than the software they're supposed to be
producing. I'm more comfortable with organizations that show lots
of diversity in the personal stuff. I'm also suspicious of
organizations that don't have any personal stuff on the shelves at
all.
3.5. The Cubicles. I'm a throwback. I personally don't like
cubicles, never have, and never will. But I suppose that I must
accept, this almost universal fact of organizational life. But they
can tell you a lot about an organization.
3.5.a. Testers Versus Developers. Except, perhaps, by what's on the
bookcases, I hope that I can't tell a developer's cubicle from a
tester's. I expect to see the same quality furniture, the same kind
of terminals and computers, the same condition of cleanliness or
chaos. At most, I'll accept different colors, but even that is
probably bad. In the best groups not only can't I distinguish
between a tester's and developer's cubicle, but I can't even tell if
I'm in a test group or developer group because the two are so
thoroughly intertwined.
3.5.b. Screens and Equipment. One screen (e.g., computer) per
cubicle is the mandatory minimum these days: many organizations have
two screens and some may have three. What computer is powering
those screens? Is it a Intel-8086 with a 5 meg hard drive? Or the
latest model high-powered work station? Don't put too much stock on
printers, though. Shared printers are rapidly becoming the norm and
they become less important as people increasingly work with
electronics only documents.
3.5.c. Neat Versus Chaotic. I guess that I'm a middle of the
roader when it comes to the neatness/chaos axis. What counts here is
not the individual, but the pattern. Messiness perception is
cultural. Beizers theory on messiness: In Western culture,
horizontal chaos is considered messy while vertical chaos is
considered neat. That is, if your stuff is spread-out horizontally
all over your desk, you are messy by Western standards. However, if
you take that same mess and transfer it to hanging file folders in a
file cabinet (or do the equivalent in a disc directory), you are
socially acceptably organized. Professor Cornelius Weygant, long the
graduate student advisor at the Moore School of Electrical
Engineering, U of P, was the most horizontal person I ever met. Not
only was his desk piled up in mounds two feet high (no kidding, not
an exaggeration) but so were all the credenzas in his huge office.
One of the most brilliant and well-organized persons I have ever had
the pleasure to deal with.
So what's the point? Diversity again. We all have different
degrees of horizontal/vertical orientation and different degrees of
tolerance and effectiveness under superficial chaos. If the
cubicles, as a group, appear to be shifted to one or the other
extreme, look out! It could mean that the naturally chaotic people
don't have the neatnicks to keep them under control. It could, at
the other extreme, mean authoritarian despotism to the right of
Attila The Hun.
3.6. The Cafeteria. Organization cafeterias can be so much more
than a place to eat. When you go to lunch in the cafeteria you do
another walk-around.
3.6.a. The Food. Check the food. Is it good quality. Is it fairly
priced? Is there real diversity? Is it comfortable? Really clean?
These external signs tell you a whole lot about how management
values its employees. Don't look for lavish or exotic. If the
cafeteria is too good it might mean that they're more into keeping
people happy than in writing good software.
3.6.b. Who's Sitting Where? Executive dining rooms are definitely
out in the software business. However, many organizations have
places that can be subdivided or temporary facilities for those
unavoidable high-level (meaning suits and ties) meetings.
3.6.c. Brown Bag Sessions. I love seeing a notice on the wall that
says that the Northeast corner is reserved today for a presentation
on technology X by speaker Y.
3.6.d. Demeanor. Are they content? Do they avert their eyes as
you walk by. Do their voices drop to whispers? I always dress as
they do, so they cant tell by suits and stuff who I am, but I am
usually accompanied to lunch by high-level managers and the people
know who they are. Check it out from day to day and see if there is
de-facto management/peon segregation. I usually can't avoid the
official accompaniment on the first day, but after that I try to go
on my own and sit at random places with my ears open. I can usually
manage to sit in three different places during that lunch period.
You learn a lot by what people talk about and also by what they
don't talk about in front of strangers. Be careful of how you read
the signs, though: on more than one occasion I have been politely
asked if I would mind moving to another table because they were
discussing stuff which was company confidential perfectly
reasonable of them to ask, and appropriate for me to comply with a
smile and no offense taken.
3.7. A Caution. First impressions are just that and they could be
wrong. Don't make your mind up on just the basis of the walk-
around. Every tentative conclusion you come to must be confirmed
through interviews and documentation. Not only because thats the
ethical thing to do, but because no one will believe you, even if
you are right, if you make recommendations based on a 15-30 minute
walk-around. For a calibration, about one out of ten of the
conclusions gotten from the walk-around turn out to be dead wrong.
And it only takes one wrong conclusion to cause the other party to
totally reject all your recommendations. And if it as a prospective
employee that you do the walk-around, that one-out-of ten could be
the wrong reason you passed up what could have been the best job of
your career.
========================================================================
ATVA 2004
2nd International Symposium on
Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis
National Taiwan University
Sunday 31 October - Wednesday 3 November 2004.
http://cc.ee.ntu.edu.tw/~atva04
Encouraged by the success of the first ATVA in December 2003 and the
promise of related research and industry in East Asia, we are very
happy to?announce its continuation - ATVA 2004. The emphasis of
ATVA 2004 will continue to be on various mechanical and informative
techniques, which can give engineers valuable feedbacks to quickly
converge their designs according to the specifications. ATVA 2004
will be a back-to-back occurrence with APLAS 2004 (Asian Symposium
on Programming Languages and Systems, 4-6 November 2004) in Taipei.
SCOPE OF INTEREST: The scope of interest includes the following
research areas: parametric analysis (parameter synthesis), automated
synthesis, optimization, performance analysis, automated tool
supports, model-checking theory, theorem-proving theory, state-space
reduction techniques, languages in automated verification, real-time
systems, embedded systems, infinite-state systems, Petri-nets, UML,
synthesis, practice in industry, decidability and complexity issues,
case studies. Special emphasis will be on the algorithms,
complexities, tools, and experiments of automated verification and
analysis.
SPECIAL TRACKS:
ATVA 2004 will also have three special tracks with independent paper
reviewing processes. The three tracks are
(1) Design of Secure/High-reliable Networks,
(2) HW/SW Coverification and Cosynthesis, and
(3) Hardware Verification.
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS:
Dr. Robert Kurshan (Cadence, USA) Prof. Rajeev Alur (U.
Pennsylvania, USA)
========================================================================
Software Reliability Engineering
by
JOHN D. MUSA
http://members.aol.com/JohnDMusa/
Many of you know that my book "Software Reliability Engineering"
recently went out of print unexpectedly, and I received a lot of
inquiries asking what could be done to make it available again.
This message is in response.
I have talked with McGraw-Hill and they have agreed in principle to
revert the rights to me. I have been investigating the new
publishing technology of "Print on Demand" and have decided that it
would be excellent for this book.
Hence I am working expeditiously to prepare it for publication in
this new format.
I have asked those concerned for their best time estimates; they are
two months for the reversion process and four months for publication
preparation. Thus I hope to have the book available again this
fall.
When it is available, anyone anywhere in the world will be able to
order ONE or more books directly from the printer over the internet
(also by phone, fax, or snail mail if you wish) and have it custom
printed (approximately two days) and shipped direct to you. There
are presses in US and Europe, so shipping should also be fast. What
really sold me on this approach was that the cost of individual
custom printing will be no more than the current cost of the book.
(You can also order indirectly through internet booksellers and
retail booksellers if you wish, but I don't see any advantage in
involving a middleman.)
The key to this is the highly automated technology, which gets rid
of all the risks and costs of keeping an inventory. It also makes
it possible to keep the book available economically as long as even
a few people want to buy it. If you would like to be notified when
the book is available, please send an email to j.musa@ieee.org with
the subject line "Book." I will also post progress information on
my website <http://members.aol.com/JohnDMusa/.>
Would you please forward this message to your email networks, since
my own is not extensive. I understand there's a theory that states
that if it gets forwarded N (N = ~6?) times, we will reach the vast
majority of those who need this information. Our apologies to
anyone who may receive more than one copy in our attempt not to miss
someone.
Best regards,
John
========================================================================
The 13th International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
18-22 July 2005
www.csr.ncl.ac.uk/fm05/
FM'05 is the thirteenth in a series of symposia organized by Formal
Methods Europe, an independent association whose aim is to stimulate
the use of, and research on, formal methods for software
development. The symposia have been notably successful in bringing
together innovators and practitioners in precise mathematical
methods for software development, industrial users as well as
researchers. Submissions will be welcomed in the form of original
papers on research and practice, proposals for workshops and
tutorials, and entries for the exhibition of software tools,
publications and companies.
FM'05 welcomes papers in all aspects of formal methods for computer
systems, including, but not restricted to, the following:
* introducing formal methods in industrial practice (technical,
organizational, social, psychological aspects)
* reports on practical use and case studies (reporting positive or
negative experiences)
* formal methods in hardware and system design
* reusable domain theories
* theoretical foundations (specification and modelling, refining,
verification, calculation etc.)
* tool support and software engineering
* environments for formal methods
* method integration
CONTACT INFORMATION
General Chair: John Fitzgerald, University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
UK John.Fitzgerald@ncl.ac.uk
Programme Chairs: Ian Hayes, University of Queensland, Australia
Ian.Hayes@itee.uq.edu.au Andrzej Tarlecki, Warsaw University, Poland
tarlecki@mimuw.edu.pl
Organisers: Claire Smith & Jon Warwick, University of Newcastle
upon Tyne, UK Claire.Smith@ncl.ac.uk, Jon.Warwick@ncl.ac.uk
Workshops Chair: Juan Bicarregui, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK
J.C.Bicarregui@rl.ac.uk
Tutorials Chair: Neil Henderson, University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
UK Neil.Henderson@ncl.ac.uk
Exhibitions & Sponsorship: Joan Atkinson, University of Newcastle,
UK Joan.Atkinson@ncl.ac.uk
========================================================================
eValid: A Quick Summary
http://www.e-valid.com
eValid technology incorporates virtually every quality and testing
fucntionality in a full-featured browser. Here is a summary of the
main eValid benefits and advantages.
o InBrowser(tm) Technology. All the test functions are built into
the eValid browser. eValid offers total accuracy and natural
access to "all things web." If you can browse it, you can test
it. And, eValid's unique capabilities are used by a growing
number of firms as the basis for their active services
monitoring offerings.
o Mapping and Site Analysis. The built-in WebSite spider travels
through your website and applies a variety of checks and filters
to every accessible page. All done entirely from the users'
perspective -- from a browser -- just as your users will see
your website.
o Functional Testing, Regression Testing. Easy to use GUI based
record and playback with full spectrum of validation functions.
The eVmanage component provides complete, natural test suite
management.
o LoadTest Server Loading. Multiple eValid's play back multiple
independent user sessions -- unparalleled accuracy and
efficiency. Plus: No Virtual Users! Single and multiple
machine usages with consolidated reporting.
o Performance Tuning Services. Outsourcing your server loading
activity can surely save your budget and might even save your
neck! Realistic scenarios, applied from multiple driver
machines, impose totally realistic -- no virtual users! -- loads
on your server.
o Web Services Testing/Validation. eValid tests of web services
start begin by analyzing the WSDL file and creating a custom
HTML testbed page for the candidate service. Special data
generation and analysis commands thoroughly test the web service
and automatically identify a range of failures.
o Desktop, Enterprise Products. eValid test and analysis engines
are delivered at moderate costs for desktop use, and at very
competitive prices for use throughout your enterprise.
o HealthCheck Subscription. For websites up to 1000 pages, eValid
HealthCheck services provide basic detailed analyses of smaller
websites in a very economical, very efficient way.
o eValidation Managed Service. Being introduced soon. the
eValidation Managed WebSite Quality Service offers comprehensive
user-oriented detailed quality analysis for any size website,
including those with 10,000 or more pages.
Resellers, Consultants, Contractors, OEMers Take Note
We have an active program for product and service resellers. We'd
like to hear from you if you are interested in joining the growing
eValid "quality website" delivery team. We also provide OEM
solutions for internal and/or external monitoring, custom-faced
testing browsers, and a range of other possibilities. Let us hear
from you!
========================================================================
ICSE 2005
27th International Conference on Software Engineering
15-21 May 2005
St Louis, Missouri, USA
http://www.icse-conferences.org/2005/
http://www.cs.wustl.edu/icse05/Downloads/ICSE05_CFP_General.pdf
The theme of ICSE 2005 is Software Everywhere. It acknowledges the
increasingly important role software plays in the life of our
society through the technology that sustains it. The theme also
highlights the growing level of responsibility our profession and
its members are expected to assume. As such, an important goal of
this meeting will be to reach out to other disciplines that have an
impact upon or benefit from software engineering know-how.
General Chair
Gruia-Catalin Roman (Washington University in St. Louis, USA)
Program Chairs
William Griswold (University of California, San Diego, USA)
Bashar Nuseibeh (The Open University, UK)
PROGRAM
Lasting impact on our profession and the society at large is the
overarching goal that shaped the programmatic agenda for ICSE 2005.
Format changes, novel initiatives, exceedingly high expectations, an
exceptionally talented team, and an unprecedented level of support
by the local corporate community are some of the ingredients bound
to facilitate a fertile exchange of ideas and experiences likely to
affect the professional life of each participant. The conference
will offer an exciting program of events, including keynote talks by
leaders in the field, invited talks along specialized themes,
tutorials, workshops, and technical paper presentations on
innovative research, the cutting edge of practice, and new
developments in software engineering education.
High quality submissions are invited for papers describing original
unpublished research results, meaningful experiences, and novel
educational insights. Topics of interest include, but are not
restricted to:
* Software requirements engineering
* Software architectures and design
* Software components and reuse
* Software testing and analysis
* Theory and formal methods
* Computer supported cooperative work
* Human-Computer Interaction
* Software processes and workflows
* Software security
* Software safety and reliability
* Reverse engineering and software maintenance
* Software economics
* Empirical software engineering and metrics
* Aspect-orientation and feature interaction
* Distribution and parallelism
* Software tools and development environments
* Software policy and ethics
* Programming languages
* Object-oriented techniques
* AI and Knowledge based software engineering
* Mobile and ubiquitous computing
* Embedded and real-time software
* Internet and information systems development
========================================================================
International Workshop on Web Engineering
(http://www.ht04.org/Workshops/WebEngineering/)
in conjunction with
ACM Hypertext 2004, Santa Cruz, August 9-13, 2004
(http://www.ht04.org/)
"Hypermedia Development & Web Engineering
Principles and Techniques: Put Them In Use."
The goal of the workshop is to bring together researchers and
developers from academia and industry in order to exchange ideas
about emerging problems during current web projects, and discuss
recent and innovative results that may help them.
The main broad topics of the workshop are:
- Web Engineering: modeling and development of web-based
Information
Systems, including data management, hypermedia development,
web
software engineering, web services, e-commerce etc.
- Hypermedia Development: Linking, navigational design,
presentation
aspects, development methods, evaluation & metrics, etc.
Both fields have provided several important research results,
especially during the last decade. However, very few of them have
been transferred to real-life web information systems. Web engineers
need time to study all research results in the fields of Web
Engineering & Hypermedia, or in related fields, like multimedia,
data management, software engineering and network engineering. As
this is a time consuming task to be accomplished in the strict
timeline of a web project, web & hypermedia research results are
not exploited adequately (if at all) during the development of
current web information systems.
These research results (plus several more coming up every year)
constitute a very complex information space that itself needs to be
engineered, in order to be provided to developers in a meaningful
and comprehensive way.
INTENDED AUDIENCE
* Hypertext/Hypermedia Designers and Researchers
* Web Information Systems Developers
* Web Engineers and Integrators
* Web Project Managers
* Web Services Providers
* Users of Web Information Systems
* Web e-commerce Systems Developers
* Web Systems Network Designers
WORKSHOP ORGANISERS
Sotiris Christodoulou
High Performance Information Systems
Computer Engineering and Informatics
University Of Patras
Greece
Phone: +302610993805
Fax: +302610997706
e-mail: spc@hpclab.ceid.upatras.gr
Web: http://www.hpclab.ceid.upatras.gr/spc/
Michail Vaitis
Department of Geography
University of the Aegean
GR-811 00 Mytilene
Greece
Phone: +30 22510 36433
Fax: +30 22510 36409
e-mail: vaitis@aegean.gr
Web: http://www.aegean.gr/Geography/eng/staff/cv/vaitis-eng.htm
Siegfried Reich
Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft
Jakob Haringer Strasse 5/III
5020 Salzburg
Austria
Phone: +43 662 2288 211
Fax: +43 662 2288 222
e-mail: sreich@salzburgresearch.at
Web: http://www.salzburgresearch.at/~sreich/
========================================================================
========================================================================
------------>>> QTN ARTICLE SUBMITTAL POLICY <<<------------
========================================================================
QTN is E-mailed around the middle of each month to over 10,000
subscribers worldwide. To have your event listed in an upcoming
issue E-mail a complete description and full details of your Call
for Papers or Call for Participation to .
QTN's submittal policy is:
o Submission deadlines indicated in "Calls for Papers" should
provide at least a 1-month lead time from the QTN issue date. For
example, submission deadlines for "Calls for Papers" in the March
issue of QTN On-Line should be for April and beyond.
o Length of submitted non-calendar items should not exceed 350 lines
(about four pages). Longer articles are OK but may be serialized.
o Length of submitted calendar items should not exceed 60 lines.
o Publication of submitted items is determined by Software Research,
Inc., and may be edited for style and content as necessary.
DISCLAIMER: Articles and items appearing in QTN represent the
opinions of their authors or submitters; QTN disclaims any
responsibility for their content.
TRADEMARKS: eValid, HealthCheck, eValidation, TestWorks, STW,
STW/Regression, STW/Coverage, STW/Advisor, TCAT, and the SR, eValid,
and TestWorks logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of
Software Research, Inc. All other systems are either trademarks or
registered trademarks of their respective companies.
========================================================================
-------->>> QTN SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION <<<--------
========================================================================
To SUBSCRIBE to QTN, to UNSUBSCRIBE a current subscription, to
CHANGE an address (an UNSUBSCRIBE and a SUBSCRIBE combined) please
use the convenient Subscribe/Unsubscribe facility at:
<http://www.soft.com/News/QTN-Online/subscribe.html>.
QUALITY TECHNIQUES NEWSLETTER
Software Research, Inc.
1663 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103 USA
Phone: +1 (415) 861-2800
Toll Free: +1 (800) 942-SOFT (USA Only)
FAX: +1 (415) 861-9801
Web: <http://www.soft.com/News/QTN-Online>