Interpret AiT definition activity

Time: 15 minutes (approx.)

Introduction: The definition of ‘Automation in Testing’ has just been shared with you. But does it make sense and more importantly, do you agree with how it is framing the role of automation in testing? In this activity, you’ll work in groups to review the definition and feedback your thoughts.

Purpose: By taking the time to read through the definition with a critical eye, it will help you better understand and interpret the AiT definition.

Task:

  1. Open up the Google doc that contains the AiT definition and make a copy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vhhrnymuAUSV6tzrZjzZXydziUQebgwZC45174fst6k/edit?usp=sharing
  2. Take time to discuss the definition as a group, adding any comments or notes to the google doc as you go along.
  3. Once you’ve gathered some thoughts, questions, feedback or criticism. Share them in this thread below.

Automation in Testing (AiT) is a mindset and namespace that promotes human-centric automation within the context of testing. AiT focuses on the strategy, creation, usage and education of valuable automation that truly supports our testing activities.

Questions:

  • Why ‘human-centric’? Which humans are we talking about (customer/ developer)? Why this instead of ‘context-driven’ f.e.?
  • If we’re making valuable automation, are there some parts of the product that are not valuable to automate? Who can decide?

Teams 1:

How do we measure/metrics for whats valuable automation?
“test activity”: testing is more than execution of test scripts.
strategy for what?
“Strategy”:The project or the testing?
Do not need to know code?
“human centric”: Do this mean only functunal tests or UI/ux?

Group 3 feedback

Mike: I like that it says “supports our testing activities” rather than “replaces”.
Mercedes: I like the “human-centric” aspect of it, as it’s easy to forget that someone needs to create those automated tests
Mike: I agree with Mercedes. I’d go further and add that the “creation” part isn’t the writing of the code, but the deciding what needs testing, how to test it, how to set it up, and how to execute it. It’s not just writing code.
Mike: “education”… So we are advocates and teachers, not just passive consumers or active implementers, but saying WHY and HOW to do it.

Huib: I like the human-centric part as well and the fact that it contains strategy. I think that testing in general lacks good strategies. Many teams often do not do risk analysis to support their thinking…

Bernd: It is not only about automating test execution. It also helps with setup of tests, helping out with complicated stuff, boring stuff and so on.

Mike: I don’t understand the inclusion of “namespace” in the definition. Could you elaborate please?

RichardTan: the definition points to a more value other than just testing, but rather its like planting a seed into the teams system in doing testing.

Group 4:
Agree with the definition and what makes it interesting is talking about everything from ideation to sharing the knowledge on automation. Sometimes we are forcing on automation always without analyzing the cost to value. It is not 100% possible always and for some domains it is not 100% reliable where we would also like to see a good mix of exploratory and automation and preaching this mindset is hard.

Two things we would like to learn more would be:

  1. what does “human centric” mean
  2. when we say “valuable automation”- what makes it valuable and how do we measure that?