beautiful, you're saying that everyone else should appreciate it as well. To put the two into stark relief, take the following example: One programmer might prefer a certain style of formatting code, while a second may prefer another. However, both programmers almost certainly agree that code that's consistently formatted to any standard—even one that's not their personal favorite—is superior to code that's not formatted at all.
While testing can consist merely of examining desired features to ensure that they work as designed, this will only guarantee that the resulting software is minimally functional. For it to rise above this level, testers also need to elevate their game. They need both the latitude and the ability to step back, consider the software as a whole, and critique its design. While software aesthetics and human factors tend to get short shift, nobody wants to use software that is stubborn, inflexible, tedious, or unintuitive, especially if there are better alternatives.
Testers can also improve both their testing and their job satisfaction by making aesthetics a first-order consideration when designing tests. Just as software that presents a more human-friendly face to users and developers is better software, tests designed with tester friendliness in mind are superior tests.
Though aesthetics is a quality often derided as superfluous, improving the aesthetic aspects of a software project can yield tangible and pragmatic results. Software that is more pleasant to use than competing products gains an edge in the marketplace. Code that is clearer and easier to modify sees better robustness as bugs are more easily fixed. Tests that are engaging help testers keep their mental focus, resulting in more defects being discovered. While form and function are often discussed as though they can be cleanly separated, excellence in one is important—and sometimes necessary—for excellence in the other.