If a QA person (presumably familiar with the product) misunderstands the point of a feature how do you suppose most users are going to fare with it?

It's a very clear signal that something is wrong with either how the feature was specified or how it was implemented. Maybe both.

▲

seattle_spring 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I took GPs meaning that the QA person in question sucked, but them being the best meant the other QA folks they've worked with were even worse.

▲

golly_ned 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not at all what they meant. They meant they ended up raising their own quality bar tremendously because the QA person represented a ~P5 user, not a P50 or P95 user, and had to design around misuse & sad path instead of happy path, and doing so is actually a good quality in a QA.

▲

bbayles 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let's call the person in question Alex. Having to make every new feature Alex-proof made all of the engineers better.

	▲	seattle_spring 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Did it? Sounds like making things "Alex proof" may have involved a large amount of over-engineering and over-documenting.

▲

SoftTalker 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's possible but I'd guess they are probably not worse than the average user.