Automation

Perhaps a more likely reason that exploratory testing is called unstructured is that outsiders may not perceive any commitment to a particular structure. But that’s really about trust, competence, and culture, all of which are manageable without forcing testers to stop using their minds and exercising their technical discretion. After all, we don’t ordinarily demand that a taxi driver show us his “plan” for driving, because our culture encourages us to trust in the intentions and competence of taxi drivers. When this trust is not present, as I have experienced in a couple of countries, then I actually will discuss the structures of an upcoming taxi ride before I get into the car.

Testing is not A science; testing IS science. Imagine a science teacher in grammar school who does a chemistry demonstration. First, the teacher describes the setup and the equipment. Then he explains the chemicals and describes the reaction that will occur. He mixes two transparent liquids together, and you see the resulting solution slowly turns dark blue. This is commonly called a “science experiment,” but only by non-scientists. The teacher knew exactly what would happen; therefore, it is more properly called a demonstration. But there is a major difference between a physicist and a software tester— the things we testers experiment upon are far less known and far less stable. No physicist worries about needing to “regression test” physical laws because they might have been changed the previous night. Yet, that sort of thing does happen to testers, so our learning curve never flattens out, and our test designs must be allowed to change.