Notes from writing for STEC

Software Testing Essentials Certification was one of the first times I worked closely with Ministry of Testing. These were also the early days of my starting to write.

At that time, my goal was simple. I wanted to contribute and learn how other people think about building better products.

I did not write many articles as part of STEC. But I spoke to a lot of people who had very different views on testing and quality. That mattered more than how many pieces I published.

STEC was also the first time I tried to write down what I knew about testing.

Writing was not as simple as I thought

When I started, writing felt hard. All I wanted to do was share what I know and learn what I don’t.

That didn’t last long.

Most of my early drafts came back with similar feedback. Some points were hard to follow. Some sections did not have a clear takeaway. Nothing was “wrong”, but a reader would not know what to do after reading it.

Writing made those gaps obvious in a way conversations never did.

After a few pieces, I started drawing simple visuals to explain how I think about problems. I picked this up after seeing Rahul Parwal, another STEC contributor, do it well. It was a straightforward way to make thinking visible instead of describing it in paragraphs.

When I look back now, I see STEC’s influence in other places, too. One clear example is this blog. Before STEC, it read like notes I was writing for myself. After STEC, the tone is changing continuously.

What changed in how I write

A few habits stuck.

Keeping things simple helped more than trying to sound smart.
Sentence case made reading easier. Avoiding symbols and clever formatting reduced noise. These looked like style rules, but they forced me to slow down and say what I actually meant. My new rule - never use italics.

Actionable became a real check.
If someone read a section and still asked, “so what?”, that was on me. This did not just improve my writing. It changed how I think about problems in general.

My tone also shifted.
Talking to reviewers made me more careful with how I explain ideas. If something was confusing on paper, it would be confusing in conversation too. Writing removed the space to hand-wave.

Noticing how work actually moves

There were twelve writers and one reviewer. Each module had multiple articles. On paper, it sounded messy.

It wasn’t.

What worked was not speed or talent. It was basic setup. People communicated early. Rules were clear. Everything was tracked in Excel. If someone was stuck, they said so. If the reviewer was unavailable, everyone knew.

No one had to chase anyone. Things moved because people wanted them to move.

When the setup is clear, work flows without drama.

What I do differently now

A few things I picked up from STEC still guide how I write and share ideas.

Before sharing anything, I ask myself:

• What is the point of this?
• What should someone do differently after reading it?
• Would this make sense to someone outside my team?

If I can’t answer these clearly, I rewrite. I also write first drafts as rough notes and then cut them down. Anything that does not move the idea forward goes out.

These are small habits, but they changed how clearly I explain problems at work.

Why this stayed with me

I have worked with other communities as well, but this experience stood out because the bar was clear.

Feedback cycles were short. Expectations were explicit. If something was unclear, it was pointed out early. If an idea did not lead anywhere, it didn’t move forward. That pace forced me to slow down and be precise instead of relying on intent.

This was not about writing better sentences. It was about explaining an idea clearly enough that someone else could follow it without extra context.

STEC did not give me ideas. It made me explain the ones I already had.

Working alongside people whose writing I had been reading for years, including Ady Stokes and contributors from Ministry of Testing, made unclear thinking easier to spot, including my own. The pace and consistency I saw from people like Rahul, Sarah, and others acted as a quiet push to keep up.

When one of my articles later appeared in a newsletter I had been reading weekly for the last three years, it felt like a check. I could tell what the reader was supposed to take away.

That habit stayed with me. In writing. In reviews. In how I explain problems now.