Great question. When I make updates I put a comment in bold at the beginning or sometimes end of the post like this:
13 June 2018: Corrected minor typos and added demonstration video
If it is a major mistake I might use strike through and comment at the place of correction. If the correction is caught by another it is nice to give credit.
I thought to add this fear, which I am surprised no one has raised as yet, which is the fear of making a mistake or fear of failure. No one likes to write about a failed attempt, even though it is through failure that you learn the most.
This leads me to the next question, if you have uploaded and published your road test and then you yourself find mistakes what is the best way to correct these. Is it:
(a) simply update report and save
(b) update report but use the "update" flag (or something else) and save
(c) write comment below report to indicate changes
I am sure others have been there before where someone in your organisation / business wants an idea implemented and you know what kit could be used but you and the team have limited experience implementing as not familiar with all or parts of the kit and the development platform. You are then put on the spot when pushed to give an assessment on when you would have something ready to demo to others. Either the kit fails or you as a team fail... or you get it right on the night.
So, I think the 60 days is fine as this gives a good indication as to how far you can get versus expectation.
I would have similar sentiments. I would typically have an idea first about how I could develop something using this new untested technology and then take a view that I am documenting the learning experience for the benefit of others, as everyone has to go through this process when trying out any new technology. Then as you begin the roadtest process, it is a bit like any assignment with a deadline. You weigh up your idea against degree of effort and own abilities (or more likely your own familiarities), and adapt accordingly to hopefully provide a useful report for others to read and learn from.
There would definitely be interest, but probably it would be a slightly different group.
Requiring the tester to have some "skin in the game" probably does help ensue some commitment but also reduces altruistic testers who don't need the item - just want to provide a good road test.
Top Comments