Why is script testing not suitable for beginners?

Why scripted testing is not for novices

Why is script testing not suitable for beginners?

Note: This is a recent blog by James Bach. I have simply translated it. Link to the original article:

Why scripted testing is not for novices

... Unless you want bad testing.

Why is script-based testing not suitable for beginners... Unless you want a bad test

Clare Moss writes:

Clare Moss writes:

I am surprised that you say that scripted testing is harder for novice

Testers. I wowould have expected that having so much structure around

The tests wocould make getting into testing easier for someone with less

Experience and that the scripted instructions wocould make up for a lack

Of discipline on the part of the tester.

I was surprised when you said that script-based testing is more difficult for new users. I originally thought that a more structured test would be easier for a inexperienced person to get started, and the script-based instruction would compensate the tester for the lack of professional specifications.

Structure! = "Being told what to do"

Structure! = "Notified about what to do"

First, you are misusing the word "structure. "All testing is structured. if what you mean by structure is "externally imposed structure" then say that. but even if you are not aware of a structure in your testing, it is there. when I tell a novice Tester
To test, and don't tell him how to test, he will be dominated by certain structures he is largely unaware of-or if aware he cannot verbalize or control them much. for instance: the user interface look and feel is a guiding structure for novice testers. they
Test what they see.

First, your understanding of the "structure" is incorrect.All tests are structured.. If you say "structure" refers to "externally imposed structure", let's talk about it. However, even if you didn't notice any structure during the test, the structure exists in your test. When I ask a newbie to test without telling him how to perform the test, he will basically be dominated by specific structures that he is not aware of-or, even if he notices, nor can he express or control them. For example, the appearance and feeling of the interface is a guiding structure for beginners. They test what they see.

Cognitive Science offer plenty of ideas and insights about the structures that guide our thinking and behavior. See the bookpredictably
Irrational by Dan Ariely for more on this.

Scripted testing always has at least two distinct parts: test design and test execution. They must be considered independently.

Cognitive provides a lot of ideas and insights for guiding people's thinking and behavior structures. For more information, see Dan Ariely's book Predictably.
Irrational. Script-based tests always have two different parts: test design and test execution. The two parts must be considered separately.

Scripted test executionIs quite a bit more difficult than exploratory testing, unless you are assuming that the tester following the script has exactly the same knodge dge and skill as the test designer (even then it is a qualitatively different
Sort of cognitive process than designing ). an Exploratory tester is following (indeed forming as he goes) his own intentions and ideas. but, a scripted tester, to do well, must apprehend the intent of the one who wrote the script. moreover, the scripted Tester
Must go beyond the stated intent and honor the tacit intent, as well-otherwise it's just shallow, bad testing.

Try using a script to guide a 10 year-old to drive a car safely on a busy city street. I don't believe it can be done. you can't overcome lack of basic skills with written instructions.

And sure, yeah, there is also the discipline issue, but that's a minor thing, compared to the other things.

Script-based testing execution is much harder than exploratory testingUnless you assume that the tester executing the script has the same knowledge and skills as the tester designing the script (even so, test execution and test design are two different cognitive processes in nature ). The exploratory tester will follow his intentions and ideas to test (which is actually formed during the test. But to do well, the scripted Tester must understand the intention of the person who wrote the script. In addition, the scripted Tester must go beyond the explicit intent described by the script itself to figure out the implicit intent-otherwise, his test will be superficial and bad.

Try using a script to guide a 10-year-old child to drive safely on busy city roads. I cannot believe who can do this.You cannot use detailed instructions to make up for basic skills.. I am also confident that I cannot make up for the normative aspect. Standardization is only a small aspect compared with other things.

AsScripted Test Design, That also is a special skill. I can ask my son to put together a computer. he knows how to do that. but if I were to ask him for a comprehensive step-by-step set of instructions to allow me to do it, I doubt
The result wocould help me much. writing a script requires patience, judgment, and lots of empathy for the person who will execute it. He doesn't yet have those qualities.

Most people don't like to write. They aren't motivated. Now give them a task that requires excellent writing. Bad work generally results.

Script-based test design(It refers to the design of test cases-Attention note), it is also a special skill. I can have my son build a computer. He knows how to do this. However, if I asked him to write down the procedure in detail so that I could assemble the computer as instructed, I doubt how much help he could write. Writing a script requires patience, judgment, and empathy for those who will execute the script in the future. He does not have these qualities yet. Most people do not like writing. They don't have enough motivation. Now, they are given a task that requires superb writing skills. What they write is usually terrible (the results of the test design are usually not satisfactory-Attention note ).

Both on the design side and the execution side, scripted TestingDone adequatelyIs harder than exploratory testing done adequately. It's hard to separate an integrated cognitive activity into two pieces and still make it work.

From the perspective of test design or test execution, it is more difficult to perform a script-based test than to perform an Exploratory Test. It is difficult to divide a comprehensive cognitive activity into two parts and operate well independently.

The reason managers assume it's simpler and easier is that they have low standards for the quality of testing and yet a strong desire forAppearancesOf order and productiinstances.

Managers think that scripted testing is easier than exploratory testing because they do not have high requirements on the quality of testing.SeeminglyCheck whether the test is orderly and whether the test productivity is high, so pay more attention to it.

When I am training a new tester, I begin with highly exploratory testing. eventually, I will introduce elements of scripting. all skilled testers must feel comfortable with scripted testing, for those rare times when it's quite important.

When I train a beginner in testing, I start from highly exploratory testing. Finally, I will introduce some elements related to scripted testing. For a few scripting tests that are important, all highly skilled testers must be able to perform scripted tests easily and comfortably.

Examples

1. Start Browser

2. Go to cnn.com

3. Test cnn.com and report any problems you find.

Example

1. Open a browser

2. Go to cnn.com

3. Test the cnn.com website and report any detected problems.

This looks like a script, and it is sort of a script, but the interesting details of the testing are left unspecified. one of the elements of good test scripting is to match the instructions to the level of the tester as well as to the design goal of
Test. In this case, no design goal is apparent.

This script does not necessarily represent bad testing-because it doesn' t represent any testing whatsoever.

This looks like a script, which is indeed a script, but not all interesting details in the test. One of the elements of a good test script is that the operation guide matches the level of the tester and the purpose of the design test. In this example, there is no obvious purpose for testing.

This poor script does not necessarily represent a poor test-because it does not represent any testing activity.

1. Open notepad

2. Type "Hello"

3. Verify that "Hello" appears on the screen.

1. Open notepad

2. Input "hello"

3. Verify that "hello" appears on the screen

This script has the opposite problem. it specifies what is completely unnecessary to specify. if the tester follows this script, he is probably dumbing himself down. there may be some real good reason for these steps, but again, the design goal is not apparent.
The tester's mind is therefore not being has tively engaged. congratulations, designer, you 've managed to treat a sophisticated miracle of human procreation, gestation, mothering, socializing, educating, etc. as if he were the equivalent of an animated poking
Stick. That's like buying an iPad, then using it as a serving tray for a platter of cheese.

This script is stored in another problem. It describes things that are completely unnecessary to describe. If the tester tests based on the script, it may be confused. Maybe there are some good reasons to write the script like this, but the test targets are still unclear. The tester's brain thus does not play a very good role. Congratulations to the test designer, you have tried to treat an animation with an animation stamp stick as a complex miracle of life that has been produced through a series of processes such as childbirth, pregnancy, maternal love, social networking, and education. That's like buying an iPad, but using it as a cheese tray.