…Unless you want bad testing.
Claire Moss writes:
I am surprised that you say that scripted testing is harder for novice
testers. I would have expected that having so much structure around
the tests would make getting into testing easier for someone with less
experience and that the scripted instructions would make up for a lack
of discipline on the part of the tester.
Structure != “being told 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.
Cognitive science offer plenty of ideas and insights about the structures that guide our thinking and behavior. See the book Predictably 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.
Scripted test execution is quite a bit more difficult than exploratory testing, unless you are assuming that the tester following the script has exactly the same knowledge 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.
As for scripted 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 would 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.
Both on the design side and the execution side, scripted testing done adequately is harder than exploratory testing done adequately. It’s hard to separate an integrated cognitive activity into two pieces and still make it work.
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 for the appearances of order and productivity.
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.
1. Start browser
2. Go to CNN.com
3. Test CNN.com and report any problems you find.
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 the 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.
1. Open Notepad
2. Type “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 effectively 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.