Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:47:21.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A case study of software testers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Robin Lampert ,
David Hamilton  and
Elliot Soloway
Robin Lampert
Affiliation:
Yale University, Department of Computer Science, Cognition and Programming Project, P. O. Box 2158, Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
David Hamilton
Affiliation:
IBM, Systems Integration Division, 3700 Bay Area Blvd., Houston, TX 77058, U.S.A.
Elliot Soloway
Affiliation:
Yale University, Department of Computer Science, Cognition and Programming Project, P. O. Box 2158, Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In an effort to learn more about how testers test code, we observed several testers while they designed tests to check a change which had been made to code. Using a case study methodology, we gathered empirical data from the ‘real world’—professional testers, and actual software products. We found that testers do share some common work patterns. These patterns can be seen in their information gathering, their use of heuristics and their construction of mental models. This work is extremely knowledge intensive, experience appears to have a useful effect. In this paper we will discuss how we collected and analysed our data. Then we will present some of our observations about how the testers gathered information, used heuristics, formed mental models and were affected by their previous experience in the course of designing their test scenarios. Based on these observations we comment on training and tools for testers.

Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , February 1989 , pp. 35 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelson, B. and Soloway, E. 1985. The role of domain experience in software design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. SE-11, 1351–1360.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Letovsky, S. and Soloway, E. 1986. Delocalized plans and program comprehension. IEEE Software, May.Google Scholar
Letovsky, S., Pinto, J., Lampert, R. and Soloway, E. 1987. A cognitive analysis of a design code inspection. In Olson, G., Sheppard, S. and Soloway, E. (eds ) Empirical Studies of Programmers, Vol. 2. New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Littman, D., Pinto, J., Letovsky, S. and Soloway, E. 1986. Mental models and software maintenance. In Soloway, E. and Iyengar, R. (eds). Empirical Studies of Programmers. Vol. 1. New Jersey: Ablex.Google Scholar
Pinto, J. and Soloway, E. 1988. Providing the requisite knowledge via software documentation. In Proceedings of CHI’88: Human Factors in Computer Systems. Washington D.C., May 15–19 New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S. B., Curtis, B., Milliman, P. and Love, T. 1979. Modern coding practices and programmer performance. Computer, 12(12), 41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, S. B., Bailey, J. W. and Bailey, E. K. 1984. An empirical evaluation of software documentation formats. In Thomas, J. and Scheider, R. (eds) Human Factors in Computer Systems. NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Soloway, E., Pinto, J., Letovsky, S., Littman, D. and Lampert, R. 1988. Designing documentation to compensate for delocalized plans. Communications of the CACM, November.CrossRefGoogle Scholar