Photo summary, September 2010

This month I have focused on eye contact and sun light. To get eye contact I’ve placed myself more visible than before. Pointing my camera right at people. It takes a while to get used to it and I have ta talk myself into it every time. I try to place people in the sunlight to make them stand out.

A week ago I wanted to shoot a wall painting. I stod behind the painting. Composed it with the rule of thirds. Some air, some sky and the painting. I wasn’t happy with the result. I walked around a bit and tried to get a better idea. I took a step back and discovered that the painting was visible from behind a square. A woman sat on the bench. With trees, sun light and the painting in the background. I took two images. The woman looked at me and I shot another and knew I was done.

Wall painting in Agde

I saw the boy sitting at the stairs. In the sun. I raised my camera and took some quick shots. I got a feel for it. I waited a while. I saw two other guys coming down the stair. The sitting boy looked at me. Click.

Boysen i Agde

I’m not sure what I should do when I get eye contact. But for now I just look back and smile. It seems to work. At one point or another I’ll be confronted. But that’s ok. Maybe even fun.

Photo summary, August 2010

I have been following John’s photos for a long time. I like it a lot. He does a great job of capturing people. When I asked him about how he did, he told me that he decided to stop being ashamed of putting a camera to peoples faces. Last month I tried. I got one portrait.

This month I have continued to challenge myself with it. I’m thinking more about trying to capturing feelings and expressions. Don’t get me wrong. I still like to shoot buildings. But I’ll try to make my shooting more variated.

Johan

I’ve always been a bit put of by the skewed perspectives on some photos. I decided to learn how to correct it in post processing. It’s hard. Sometimes you overdo it and it looks unnatural. Sometimes you succeed.

Kronprinsen

I also started a Flickr group (Veckans fotouppgift) where I, every Thursday, come up with one photo mission with a deadline on Sunday.

Pair programming – Research

I’ve read up on some pair programming research. Here is the different papers I’ve read. With a short description for each.

Strengthening the Case for Pair-Programming

They compare results from professional developers working with and without pair programming and teams at the university doing both pair programming and non pair programming. In all cases pair programming deliver better results.

Promiscuous Pairing and Beginner’s Mind: Embrace Inexperience

The optimal time between switching partner is 90 minutes and inexperienced developers solve problems both faster and better that people with previous knowledge about the problem. Beginners luck or just that you are more open without a baggage of experience?

A new developer was totally integrated to the team within 3 weeks of work. When not pairing they noticed a huge impact on productive. In 18 months the longest time it took to find and fix a bug was 6 hours. They also found out that a team is most productive when they own, manage and assign all tasks themselves.

The Agile Toolkit Podcast did an interview with Arlo Belshee Tue, 9 August 2005

Adventures in Promiscuous Pairing: Seeking Beginner’s Mind

They verified the performance boost described in Promiscuous Pairing and Beginner’s Mind: Embrace Inexperience, which means short times (~90 min) between changing pairing partner. They verified the results but it also broke the team.

A Study About Pair Programming in Practice

During a course at Lund University the students answered two surveys about pair programming. The first before the course. The second after.

The students were a bit more negative to pair programming after the course.

Practical recommendations about how to assign partners and tasks. What role should a team coach have in a pair programming team. How often you should change partners.

Most important personality types are not technical skills but social skills and worst personality types are dominant and ineffective.

Weaker developers liked pair programming more than the strongest.

  • Authors: Mia Nyström, Johan Rix, Karin Wanhainen at Lund University
  • 2002
  • Original title: En studie om parprogrammering i praktiken
  • PDF: NystromWanhainenRix.pdf
    Appendix: http://www.cs.lth.se/EDA270/Djupstudier/Articles/2001-2002/NRW-bilagor.pdf

Bachelor Thesis!

In the last semester at the IT University I wrote my Bachelor Thesis together with Peter Thorin. We evaluated the maturity of a Microsoft tool for model driven development called Microsoft Domain-Specific Languge Tools (DSL Tools).

The work included building a MetaModel for Service-Oriented Architectures (SOA) using DSL Tools and compare the results, both in the time it took to develop the MetaModel and the number of elements in our language, with existing studies on similar techniques (UML MetaModel extensions and UML Profiles).

Since no definition for SOA existed a literature review was conducted as part of the work. This resulted in a requirement specification for what elements that should be included in our SOA based on in how many different studies an element was mentioned.

The work was very interesting since no previous work on DSL Tools were available and that DSL Tools will become an important technique when developing software.

The work resulted in an article; Bachelors article: Evaluating Microsoft Domain-Specific Language Tools – an Empirical Study of Domain-Specific Languages and Service-Oriented Architecture. The study was rewarded with an A.

Video from the presentation

Update 071129: This paper has been accepted to the SERPS conference! Read more on the Göteborg University web site.