Examples of Templates Software test plan Software test description Software test report Software change request Version description document Software requirement specification System design description Computer operator manual Interface design description ……
Source: ISTQB EXAM CERTIFICATION
Software testing is a process of executing a program or application with the intent of finding the software bugs.
- It can also be stated as the process of validating and verifying that a software program or application or product:
- Meets the business and technical requirements that guided it’s design and development
- Works as expected
- Can be implemented with the same characteristic.
Let’s break the definition of Software testing into the following parts:
1) Process: Testing is a process rather than a single activity.
2) All Life Cycle Activities: Testing is a process that’s take place throughout theSoftware Development Life Cycle (SDLC).
- The process of designing tests early in the life cycle can help to prevent defects from being introduced in the code. Sometimes it’s referred as “verifying the test basis via the test design”.
- The test basis includes documents such as the requirements and design specifications.
3) Static Testing: It can test and find defects without executing code. Static Testing is done during verification process. This testing includes reviewing of the documents (including source code) and static analysis. This is useful and cost effective way of testing. For example: reviewing, walkthrough, inspection, etc.
4) Dynamic Testing: In dynamic testing the software code is executed to demonstrate the result of running tests. It’s done during validation process. For example: unit testing, integration testing, system testing, etc.
5) Planning: We need to plan as what we want to do. We control the test activities, we report on testing progress and the status of the software under test.
6) Preparation: We need to choose what testing we will do, by selecting test conditions and designing test cases.
7) Evaluation: During evaluation we must check the results and evaluate the software under test and the completion criteria, which helps us to decide whether we have finished testing and whether the software product has passed the tests.
8) Software products and related work products: Along with the testing of code the testing of requirement and design specifications and also the related documents like operation, user and training material is equally important.
Manual testing is the basic type of testing in the web industry. It is easy and very effective to find the bugs/errors in the website/software/apps. It helps in tracking the projects whether development is going according to the software development life cycle (SDLC). To track SDLC, manual testing helps in creating the test case and helps in ensuring the bug fee products. Basically this manual testing is done by front-end users to find and verify the bug free projects.
– It helps in tracking the projects status with the help of test case.
– There is low chance of default because manual test execute more than twice until the beta release.
– No need to involvement of programmer.
– Even it consumes more time than automation, it is best for the first time of testing.
– Los cost testing
Future of Manual Testing
Even must of the big website industry is not following the manual testing, but the future of manual testing will not be going down because of modern environment. in current time there is the evolution of touch technology environment where every users use the touch technology. Where you can find manual testing will be more accountable and prominent in accessibility and usability testing. In the touch technology you can not test the products automation, at that time you have to adapt the manual testing for user accessibility.
It’s a good news for Windows lover. The new and Final version of Window ie. Window 10 coming next month July 29 2015 and this stats that the wait for window 1o is going to be over. As early announce by the source this will be the final version of window (Window 10). They have tried to fulfill all the shortfall issues in their earlier version of window 8 and 8.1. With the born of window 10 there will be the last day for Internet Explorer, Window Edge the new browser of window is going to replace.
Some of the source has said that this Window 10 will be the final fight back with the other OS if window can not compete, then the future of window will be shortfall in sneeking the peek in market.
Some of the good news on the lunch of Window 10 are:”
1. Windows 8.1 user will get free updates of window 10.
2. It has called back the window 7 features to attract the users.
3. You can work on mutli task as on smartophones.
4. The new web experience called window edge.
5. Cortana features that work for you to assesst in the whole device and around the globe.
6. and many others
By: Mike Elgan
What is email, actually?
Email was created to serve as a “dumb pipe.” In mobile network parlance, a “dumb pipe” is when a carrier exists to simply transfer bits to and from the user, without the ability to add services and applications or serve as a “smart” gatekeeper between what the user sees and doesn’t see.
Carriers resist becoming “dumb pipes” because there’s no money in it. A pipe is a faceless commodity, valued only by reliability and speed. In such a market, margins sink to zero or below zero, and it becomes a horrible business to be in.
“Dumb pipes” are exactly what users want. They want the carriers to provide fast, reliable, cheap mobile data connectivity. Then, they want to get their apps, services and social products from, you know, the Internet.
Email is the “dumb pipe” version of communication technology, which is why it remains popular. The idea behind email is that it’s an unmediated communications medium. You send a message to someone. They get the message.
When people send you messages, they stack up in your in-box in reverse-chronological order, with the most recent ones on top.
Compare this with, say, Facebook, where you post a status update to your friends, and some tiny minority of them get it. Or, you send a message to someone on Facebook and the social network drops it into their “Other” folder, which hardly anyone ever checks.
Of course, email isn’t entirely unmediated. Spammers ruined that. We rely on Google’s “mediation” in determining what’s spam and what isn’t.
But still, at its core, email is by its very nature an unmediated communications medium, a “dumb pipe.” And that’s why people like email.
Why email is a problem for Google
You’ll notice that Google has made repeated attempts to replace “dumb pipe” Gmail with something smarter. They tried Google Wave. That didn’t work out.
They hoped people would use Google+ as a replacement for email. That didn’t work, either.
They added prioritization. Then they added tabs, separating important messages from less important ones via separate containers labeled by default “Primary,” “Promotions,” “Social Messages,” “Updates” and “Forums.” That was vaguely popular with some users and ignored by others. Plus, it was a weak form of mediation — merely reshuffling what’s already there, but not inviting a fundamentally different way to use email.
This week, Google introduced an invitation-only service called Inbox. Another attempt by the company to mediate your dumb email pipe, Inbox is an alternative interface to your Gmail account, rather than something that requires starting over with a new account.
Instead of tabs, Inbox groups together and labels and color-codes messages according to categories.
One key feature of Inbox is that it performs searches based on the content of your messages and augments your inbox with that additional information. One way to look at this is that, instead of grabbing extraneous relevant data based on the contents of your Gmail messages and slotting it into Google Now, it shows you those Google Now cards immediately, right there in your in-box.
Inbox identifies addresses, phone numbers and items (such as purchases and flights) that have additional information on the other side of a link, then makes those links live so you can take quick action on them.
You can also do mailbox-like “snoozing” to have messages go away and return at some future time.
You can also “pin” messages so they stick around, rather than being buried in the in-box avalanche.
Inbox has many other features.
The bottom line is that it’s a more radical mediation between the communication you have with other people and with the companies that provide goods, services and content to you.
The positive spin on this is that it brings way more power and intelligence to your email in-box.
The negative spin is that it takes something user-controlled, predictable, clear and linear and takes control away from the user, making email unpredictable, unclear and nonlinear.
That users will judge this and future mediated alternatives to email and label them either good or bad is irrelevant.
The fact is that Google, and companies like Google, hate unmediated anything.
The reason is that Google is in the algorithm business, using user-activity “signals” to customize and personalize the online experience and the ads that are served up as a result of those signals.
Google exists to mediate the unmediated. That’s what it does.
That’s what the company’s search tool does: It mediates our relationship with the Internet.
That’s why Google killed Google Reader, for example. Subscribing to an RSS feed and having an RSS reader deliver 100% of what the user signed up for in an orderly, linear and predictable and reliable fashion is a pointless business for Google.
Source: Tutorials Point
Myth 1 : Testing is Too Expensive
Reality : There is a saying, pay less for testing during software development or pay more for maintenance or correction later. Early testing saves both time and cost in many aspects, however reducing the cost without testing may result in improper design of a software application rendering the product useless.
Myth 2 : Testing is Time-Consuming
Reality : During the SDLC phases, testing is never a time-consuming process. However diagnosing and fixing the errors identified during proper testing is a time-consuming but productive activity.
Myth 3 : Only Fully Developed Products are Tested
Reality : No doubt, testing depends on the source code but reviewing requirements and developing test cases is independent from the developed code. However iterative or incremental approach as a development life cycle model may reduce the dependency of testing on the fully developed software.
Myth 4 : Complete Testing is Possible
Reality : It becomes an issue when a client or tester thinks that complete testing is possible. It is possible that all paths have been tested by the team but occurrence of complete testing is never possible. There might be some scenarios that are never executed by the test team or the client during the software development life cycle and may be executed once the project has been deployed.
Myth 5 : A Tested Software is Bug-Free
Reality : This is a very common myth that the clients, project managers, and the management team believes in. No one can claim with absolute certainty that a software application is 100% bug-free even if a tester with superb testing skills has tested the application.
Myth 6 : Missed Defects are due to Testers
Reality : It is not a correct approach to blame testers for bugs that remain in the application even after testing has been performed. This myth relates to Time, Cost, and Requirements changing Constraints. However the test strategy may also result in bugs being missed by the testing team.
Myth 7 : Testers are Responsible for Quality of Product
Reality : It is a very common misinterpretation that only testers or the testing team should be responsible for product quality. Testers’ responsibilities include the identification of bugs to the stakeholders and then it is their decision whether they will fix the bug or release the software. Releasing the software at the time puts more pressure on the testers, as they will be blamed for any error.
Myth 8 : Test Automation should be used wherever possible to Reduce Time
Reality : Yes, it is true that Test Automation reduces the testing time, but it is not possible to start test automation at any time during software development. Test automaton should be started when the software has been manually tested and is stable to some extent. Moreover, test automation can never be used if requirements keep changing.
Myth 9 : Anyone can Test a Software Application
Reality : People outside the IT industry think and even believe that anyone can test a software and testing is not a creative job. However testers know very well that this is a myth. Thinking alternative scenarios, try to crash a software with the intent to explore potential bugs is not possible for the person who developed it.
Myth 10 : A Tester’s only Task is to Find Bugs
Reality : Finding bugs in a software is the task of the testers, but at the same time, they are domain experts of the particular software. Developers are only responsible for the specific component or area that is assigned to them but testers understand the overall workings of the software, what the dependencies are, and the impacts of one module on another module.
Google (NASDAQ: GOOG ) (NASDAQ: GOOGL ) Android remains the most popular mobile OS worldwide, claiming 81.5% of the smartphone market in 2014, according to IDC. Apple‘s (NASDAQ: AAPL ) iOS came in a distant second with a 14.8% share.
But when it comes to profitability, Apple claimed a whopping 89% of all smartphone profits worldwide in the fourth quarter, up from 70.5% a year ago, according to Strategy Analytics. Android’s percentage of profits plunged from 29.5% to 11%.
The message is clear: Android devices are now sold at such low margins that market share domination means little to hardware manufacturers’ bottom lines. So what does this shift mean for Apple, Google, and Android phone makers?
Great news for Apple
Apple is arguably the only smartphone maker in the world that gets away with selling mid-range hardware at top-tier prices. The iPhone 6 had a weaker processor, smaller battery, less RAM, a lower-resolution screen, and weaker cameras than Samsung‘s (NASDAQOTH: SSNLF ) Galaxy S5.
Yet Apple was able to sell more phones at comparable or higher prices. An IHS teardown last year revealed that the 16GB iPhone 6, which costs $649 unlocked, cost just $200 to manufacture. By comparison, IHS stated that the 32GB Galaxy S5, which originally launched at $650 unlocked, cost $256 to manufacture.
The IHS teardown implies that Apple earns a gross margin of 69% per entry level iPhone sold, but actual gross margins are lower due to major expenses like development, marketing, and shipping costs. Credit Suisse estimates that after those costs are factored in, the 16GB iPhone 6 costs $350.60 to produce while Apple receives $599 on its retail price of $649, giving it a gross profit margin of 41.5%.
That’s a notable decrease from previous years, but record unit sales — fueled by pent up demand for larger screen iPhones — are now leading to record profits. (More expensive iPhone models also carry higher profit margins.)
Bad news for the Android Army
Apple’s stunning profitability is bad news for Android handset makers, which have been struggling to stand out in an increasingly crowded market.
Over the past year, Samsung, the largest Android manufacturer in the world, has ceded market share to Chinese rivals such as Xiaomi, Lenovo, and Huawei, which are willing to sell smartphones at much lower margins. Between the fourth quarters of 2013 and 2014, Samsung’s global market share fell from 30% to 20%. That means Samsung is losing control of a market that’s also declining in overall profitability. Samsung hopes that its homegrown OS Tizen will provide a way out, but it’s only been installed on one smartphone model so far. Last quarter, profit at Samsung’s mobile division plunged 64% year over year.
Meanwhile, smaller Android rivals such as Sony and HTC are faring even worse. Instead of slashing prices, Sony decided to sell fewer phones at higher prices to preserve margins, but that’s a risky strategy that could just cause a slow death for its ailing mobile division. HTC is trying to diversify its product line with tablets and action cameras, but those products probably won’t save it from being crushed between Chinese brands, Samsung, and Apple.
Both Samsung and HTC consider Windows Phone to be a possible way out, but profitability is reportedly even worse at Microsoft‘s (NASDAQ: MSFT ) underdog OS. Strategy Analytics’ report claims that Windows Phone, BlackBerry, and other platforms made no profit at all in 2014.
Indirect consequences for Google
If Google hadn’t sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo, it would still be racing other Android device makers to the bottom of the market. Android’s lack of profitability doesn’t seem like a big deal for Google, which monetizes Android through search advertising and app sales, but there are indirect consequences to consider.
First, the Android manufacturers that are crushing Samsung, Sony, and HTC sell most of their handsets in mainland China, where both Google Search and Google Play are banned. These companies use local search engines such as Baidu and their own app stores instead. As these companies spread across Asia, they might promote the use of their own app stores over Google Play, causing Google to lose ground.
As Android hardware becomes less profitable, companies like Samsung, Sony, and HTC will look for new ways to monetize the OS and cut Google out of the loop. Samsung, for example, already launched its own app store to counter Google Play. Samsung also bought mobile payments company LoopPay in February, in a clear bid to compete against Google Wallet and Apple Pay. Therefore, Google’s hardware allies could start pulling away from Google’s ecosystem to better monetize their own devices.
Apple currently has a magic mix of high margins and high sales that its rivals can’t touch. Google originally thought that handing out free software to tether handsets to its ecosystem would marginalize Apple, but the Android market is now saturated with low-margin devices. If Android handset makers can’t make a profit, they’ll look for new ways to make money — and some of those strategies could leave Google out in the cold.
This $19 trillion industry could destroy the Internet
One bleeding-edge technology is about to put the World Wide Web to bed. It could make early investors wildly rich. Experts are calling it the single largest business opportunity in the history of capitalism… The Economist is calling it “transformative”… But you’ll probably just call it “how I made my millions.” Don’t be too late to the party — click here for one stock to own when the Web goes dark.
Validating our assumptions
Our usability testing process centers on identifying problems with human-application interactions, and proposing solutions that fix identified issues. Usability testing provides a qualitative analysis aimed at understanding users’ motivations, perceptions, and actions, and providing evidence and validation that will lead to a successful and efficient end product.
The usability testing process is led by one of our expert User Experience Design Leads. Using a combination of questions that require direct feedback along with specific actions, we are able to engage with the user and receive honest verbatim feedback. The best method of gaining insight on the usability of a product is by witnessing user attempts at performing specific tasks, and analyzing the success or failure of these requests. The steps for conducting a usability test are as follows:
- Qualify Test Users
- Conduct Test
- Record Results
- Analyze Results & Propose Solutions
- Implement Changes
- Repeat Process
Ultimately, the unique value that the usability testing brings, is understanding with certainty how your users will engage with your product. Constant analysis, improvement, and iteration is critical to helping ensure your product’s future success.
The market for software development, and the subsequent need for Quality Assurance (QA) testing, grew at an almost exponential rate during the Internet boom of the 1990s. Testing companies flourished, new tools developed, and processes were refined. There was a high demand for skilled QA engineers. Things changed when the market declined sharply in the early 2000s. The demand for quality software was still there, for the most part, but budgets shrank. Companies had to rethink the development process.
Some companies, Microsoft for example, have adopted a sort of ‘hot fix’ model where apparently very little QA testing is done on software before its release. By releasing a never ending stream of updates and patches Microsoft essentially uses their customers as beta testers. Microsoft’s unique place in the market makes this model possible for them, but it might prove catastrophic for smaller developers. A study done by the National Institute of Standards and Technology shows that the cost of fixing bugs after production increases 5 to 32 times when compared with fixing the same bug during QA. It’s obvious that the real value in quality assurance comes during development.
The widespread adoption of Agile development shows a more realistic alternative. Unit testing, incorporated into each Scrum, speeds the QA process and makes it more adaptive to design changes. This fits perfectly with Agile’s philosophy of producing working software quickly and incrementally. Unit testing at every step also allows for quicker and more comprehensive integration testing at the end of the development cycle. Last year’s release of Xamarin’s Test Cloud is a prime example of the ongoing advances in tools and testing frameworks.
A recent study by Capgemini and Hewlett-Packard projects that, as a percentage of IT budgets, QA spending will increase to 28% this year. This number seems very high, making quality assurance look like a good target for budget cuts. On the other hand, what are the costs of poor quality assurance practices? Honestly, it’s hard to quantify. It’s difficult to find hard numbers, for several reasons. Primarily, the data needed to calculate COPQ are often subjective when dealing with software. For those interested, here is a great paper on calculating Cost of Poor Quality from the International Journal of Soft Computing and Software Engineering.
It is much simpler to answer that question qualitatively, though. Customer Experience. In an increasingly competitive software market, bad software is a bad idea. In the retail market a single bad app has the potential to ruin your brand. In the corporate world liability issues arise if software doesn’t meet agreed upon standards and SLAs, “Consumer expectations regarding apps are really high, so when people’s experience is not satisfying, they are going to go elsewhere and look for an alternative. It’s therefore very important for app developers and service providers to test and optimize.”
Jonathan Freeman, Professor of Psychology, University of London, Managing Director of i2 media research at Goldsmiths Maybe it’s time to rethink your quality assurance practices. The cost of quality QA represents a significant portion of a projects overall budget. The costs of not doing it well can be even higher. Better practices and tools can help you save money while maintaining, or perhaps even improving, quality.
Quality Assurance is a necessary step in delivering a great product. At Seamgen we take proud in our QA process, let our tester find errors in your product. They won’t judge you, but your customers might. Contact us today for a consulation.
President at Seamgen
Readers weighed in on my recent post, “Six Signs Your Boss is a Coward,” with more signs that your boss is a coward. Here is a sampling of firsthand experiences with bosses.
Remember, these are from you, not me.
1. He lies
Everybody lies at times to spare feelings or embellish a story.
But as readers pointed out, a cowardly boss lies over and over for personal gain or to discredit others. And innocent workers like you may be hurt by his lies.
Working for a boss who lies is nerve-wracking. You never know whether one of his lies is going to come back and bite you or inadvertently help you. A boss who lies is breaching a sacred employer-employee trust.
If you work for a boss who lies for personal gain, don’t lie to yourself. It’s time for you to find a new boss.
2. She is envious of subordinates, peers, and higher ups
One reader noted that an envious boss thwarts productivity by breeding fear and uncertainty that de-motivates a team. She only feels good when she can tear down the people she is envious of.
She might do this by turning people’s talents, knowledge, and hard work against them. If you’re the target, your best qualities go from “the keys to your success” to “areas for improvement.”
This type of cowardly boss is simply afraid she will be upstaged by excellence around her. As a result, you are punished for a job well done.
3. He delivers empty promises again and again
Everyone loves hearing praise for a “job well done” and the promise of a raise, promotion, or challenging new assignment. But when months go by and the promised reward doesn’t materialize, the boss’s promises are immaterial.
Several readers noted that a boss who makes promises he can’t keep is often motivated by the desire to be liked. Making promises is easier than giving you positive feedback, while at the same time being realistic about what the organization will or will not do for you.
Of course, what you really need from your boss is a reality check. You may not like the answer, but you’ll respect your boss for being straight with you.
Empty promises empty the soul of an entire workforce.
4. She blames others to mask her own shortcomings
One reader said this is a terrible type of boss to have.
This kind of boss is so afraid of looking bad that she can’t admit she does not know it all. Worse, she views asking for help as a weakness.
So, instead of turning to team members who are better equipped to handle certain tasks, she blunders on. Then when things don’t go well, she blames her team – loudly, to anyone within earshot.
5. He fails to manage conflict and bad behavior within the organization
This coward boss is afraid to set rules of engagement and reinforce and enforce them. The result is chaos – a workplace that is a “free for all.”
The truth is all teams need rules and a referee to step in from time to time, cry foul, and get the game back on track. As one reader said, “Imagine The World Cup with no referees.”
6. She doesn’t protect her team from impossible requests from upper-management
As one reader remarked, some bosses fall short when it comes to managing up – with disastrous consequences, Have you ever had a boss who accepts poor decisions from upper management and commits her team to deliver on unreasonable requests without pushing back?
This type of boss is like Lord Cardigan, who sent his light cavalry to their deaths in a frontal assault in the famous Charge of the Light Brigade – a task they were not trained nor well-suited for. It turns out he was acting on incorrect orders that were the result of a miscommunication in the chain of command.
A boss who sends her team into harm’s way over and over – without ever even asking questions — is a coward because she lacks the courage to speak up.
Some final notes
Thanks: To readers who have worked directly with coward bosses and shared their experiences.
Congratulations: To readers who persevered and found productive ways to deal with coward bosses. Many changed jobs within their companies, others got new jobs in new companies, and some started their own companies and became their own bosses (brave ones, I hope).
Plus: I appreciate the bosses who commented that this has been a good checklist of what not to do.
Finally: Thank you to the readers who hated my post and had the courage to say so.
For tips, read Six Tips To Handle Your Coward Boss
Note: Again in this post, I have alternated between the “he” and “she” pronouns when describing coward bosses. Frankly, I find “s/he” clunky, even in writing. And of course, all of these signs can apply to both men and women.
Photo: erwin cartoon/Shutterstock.com