Context-Driven Testing Clarified
Cem Kaner has just posted a clarification of context-driven testing. I contributed to it, and it also represents my point of view.
One reason we’ve come up with this new description is that several people (we don’t really know who) have posted or copied descriptions of context-driven testing that bear little resemblance to the vision of the founders of the school. These descriptions typically claim that context-driven is a flavor of Agile. No, no, no, no, no, it isn’t. If context-driven testing is a flavor of anything, it’s a flavor of problem-solving.
January 4th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Bret Pettichord was involved in the initial publication of the definition.
I didn’t see Bret’s name under the clarification.
I just wonder if Bret has contributed to this effort or if this clarification does not represent Bret’s point of view (and if not, why?).
[James' Reply: Bret Pettichord and Brian Marick focus on test tools and Agile school test ideas, these days. I don't know if they would agree with us about context-driven things, but I suspect they aren't interested.]
January 4th, 2009 at 11:11 am
I consider the stakeholder to be a crucial role in the context-driven school.
Very often I have seen that the stakeholder is considered to be synonimous for the user.
This misconception results in testing that is not good enough.
The stakeholder group includes many more people/roles. The users are a small part of the stakeholder group.