Breaking Tester Stereotypes: who is testing and why it matters

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

Header Abstract Content Author and article information REFERENCES Comments

Record: found
Abstract: found
Conference Proceedings: found

Is Open Access

Breaking Tester Stereotypes: who is testing and why it matters

Published

proceedings-article

Author(s): Isabel Evans , Chris Porter , Mark Micallef

Publication date (Print): July 2024

Conference name: 37th International BCS Human-Computer Interaction Conference (BCS HCI 24)

Conference theme: The International BCS Human-Computer Interaction Conference in 2024 was supported by the BCS Interactions Special Interest Group and hosted by the University of Central Lancashire in Preston. The BCS HCI Conference welcomed submissions on all aspects of human-computer interaction. Topics included: user experience (UX), usability testing, interaction design (IxD), human-centred AI (HCAI), education, health, sustainability, the Internet of Things (IoT), interaction technologies, and emerging interactive applications.

Conference date: 15–17 July 2024

Keywords: Software Testing, People in Testing, Human-Computer Interaction, Diversity

Bookmark

Abstract

Content

Author and article information

Contributors

Isabel Evans

Chris Porter

Mark Micallef

Conference

Publication date: July 2024

Publication date (Print): July 2024

Pages: 115-126

Affiliations

[0001]Dept. of Computer Information Systems

Faculty of ICT

University of Malta

Msida, Malta

[0002]Dept. of Computer Science

Faculty of ICT

University of Malta

Msida, Malta

Article

DOI: 10.14236/ewic/BCSHCI2024.11

SO-VID: 637a4f81-e71b-4230-954b-ff17c8302692

License:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Conference name: 37th International BCS Human-Computer Interaction Conference

Conference acronym: BCS HCI 24

Conference number: 37

Conference location: University of Central Lancashire (UCLan)

Conference date: 15–17 July 2024

Conference sponsor: Electronic Workshops in Computing (eWiC)

History

Product

1477-9358 BCS Learning & Development

Self URI (article page): https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14236/ewic/BCSHCI2024.11

Self URI (journal page): https://ewic.bcs.org/

REFERENCES

AustinR. D. and PisanoG.P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage: Why you should embrace it in your workforce. urlhttps://hbr.org/2017/05/neurodiversity-as-acompetitive-advantage. Accessed: (9 January 2024).
BachJ. and BoltonM. (2016). A context driven approach to automation in testing. urlhttps://www.satisfice.com/download/a-contextdriven-approach-to-automation-in-testing. Accessed: (6 October 2022).
BaltesS. and RalphP. (2022). Sampling in software engineering research: A critical review and guidelines. Empirical Software Engineering 27(4), 94.
BeizerB. (1984). Software system testing and quality assurance. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
Capgemini (2022). World Quality Report 2021-22. urlhttps://www.sogeti.com/explore/reports/worldquality-report-2021-22/. Accessed: (3 October 2022).
CapretzL. F., VaronaD., and RazaA. (2015). Influence of personality types in software tasks choices. Computers in Human behavior 52, 373–378.
CavinJ. D. (2015). The role of human factors in veteran sqa training. Procedia Manufacturing 3, 1535–1542.
DamR. F. and SiangT.Y. (2022, 03). Personas: A simple introduction. urlhttps://www.interactiondesign. org/literature/article/personas-why-andhow-you-should-use-them. Accessed: (19 September 2024).
EuroSTAR (2022). Eurostar Media Kit 2022. urlhttps:/conference.eurostarsoftwaretesting.com/expo/. Accessed: (3 October 2022).
EvansI., PorterC., and MicallefM. (2021). Scared, frustrated and quietly proud: Testers’ lived experience of tools and automation. In European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2021, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–7. ACM.
EvansI., PorterC., MicallefM., and HartyJ. (2020). Test tools: an illusion of usability? In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 392–397. IEEE: IEEE Computer Society.
HermansF. (2021). The Programmer’s Brain: What Every Programmer Needs to Know about Cognition. Simon and Schuster.
Hern´andezT.P.R. and MarsdenN. (2014). Understanding software testers in the automotive industry a mixed-method case study. In 2014 9th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications (ICSOFT-EA), pp. 305–314. IEEE.
HimmelsbachJ., SchwarzS., GerdenitschC., WaisB.-Zechmann, BobethJ., and TscheligiM. (2019). Do we care about diversity in human computer interaction: a comprehensive content analysis on diversity dimensions in research. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–16. ACM.
HoeksmaJ. (2013). Turning doctors into coders. BMJ 347.
ISO (2013). ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-1: 2013 Software and systems engineering -Software testing -part 1: Concepts and definitions. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH.
ISTQB (2023). International software testing qualifications board. urlhttps://www.istqb.org/. Accessed: (26 March 2023).
MABL (2021). State of Testing in DevOps 2021. urlhttps://www.mabl.com/resources/2021-testing-in-devops-survey-report. Accessed: (3 October 2022).
McChesneyJ. E., BehrendT.S., and GlosenbergA. (2022). Stereotypical descriptions of computer science career interests are not representative of many computer scientists. Scientific reports 12(1), 1–9.
MeyerA. N., BarrE.T., BirdC., and ZimmermannT. (2019). Today was a good day: The daily life of software developers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47(5), 863–880.
MicallefM., PorterC., and BorgA. (2016). Do exploratory testers need formal training? an investigation using hci techniques. In 2016 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW), pp. 305–314.
NielsenJ. (2006). Corporate UX Maturity: Stages 1-4. urlhttps://www.nngroup.com/articles/uxmaturity-stages-1-4. Accessed: (4 January 2021).
NormanD. and NielsenJ. (2019). The definition of user experience (ux). urlhttps://www.nngroup.com/articles/definitionuser-experience/. Accessed: (Feb. 8, 2021).
PetreM. and vanA. der Hoek (2016). Software Design Decoded: 66 Ways Experts Think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Practitest (2022). State of testing report. urlhttps://www.practitest.com/state-of-testing/. Accessed: (3 October 2022).
ShneidermanB. (2022). Artificial intelligence needs both pragmatists and blue-sky visionaries. urlhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificialintelligence-needs-both-pragmatists-and-bluesky-visionaries/. Accessed: (7 October 2022).
StrayV., FloreaR., and ParuchL. (2022). Exploring human factors of the agile software tester. Software Quality Journal 30(2), 455–481. Techwell (2022). Techwell Media Kit 2022. urlhttps://www.techwell.com/advertise-withtechwell/media-kit-form. Accessed: (3 October 2022).
TulonenA. (2013). Project Mercury and the Death of Testing. urlhttps://flowoftesting.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/projectmercury-and-death-of-testing. (Accessed: (Oct. 26, 2022).
van TilburgW.A.P., IgouE.R., and PanjwaniM. (2022). Boring people: Stereotype characteristics, interpersonal attributions, and social reactions. Personality & social psychology bulletin 25, 1461672221079104–1461672221079104.
WaychalP., CapretzL.F., JiaJ., VaronaD., and LizamaY. (2021). Practitioners’ testimonials about software testing. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 582–589. IEEE: IEEE Computer Society.
WeilemannE. (2019). A winning team-what personality has to do with software engineering. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion), pp. 252–253. IEEE.
W¨ocklB., YildizogluU., BuberI., AparicioB. Diaz, KruijffE., and TscheligiM. (2012). Basic Senior Personas: A Representative Design Tool Covering the Spectrum of European Older Adults. In Proceedings of the 14th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, New York, NY, USA, pp. 25–32. Association for Computing Machinery.

Comments

Comment on this article

[1] AustinR. D. and PisanoG.P. (2017). Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage: Why you should embrace it in your workforce. urlhttps://hbr.org/2017/05/neurodiversity-as-acompetitive-advantage. Accessed: (9 January 2024).

[2] BachJ. and BoltonM. (2016). A context driven approach to automation in testing. urlhttps://www.satisfice.com/download/a-contextdriven-approach-to-automation-in-testing. Accessed: (6 October 2022).

[3] BaltesS. and RalphP. (2022). Sampling in software engineering research: A critical review and guidelines. Empirical Software Engineering 27(4), 94.

[4] BeizerB. (1984). Software system testing and quality assurance. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

[5] Capgemini (2022). World Quality Report 2021-22. urlhttps://www.sogeti.com/explore/reports/worldquality-report-2021-22/. Accessed: (3 October 2022).

[6] CapretzL. F., VaronaD., and RazaA. (2015). Influence of personality types in software tasks choices. Computers in Human behavior 52, 373–378.

[7] CavinJ. D. (2015). The role of human factors in veteran sqa training. Procedia Manufacturing 3, 1535–1542.

[8] DamR. F. and SiangT.Y. (2022, 03). Personas: A simple introduction. urlhttps://www.interactiondesign. org/literature/article/personas-why-andhow-you-should-use-them. Accessed: (19 September 2024).

[9] EuroSTAR (2022). Eurostar Media Kit 2022. urlhttps:/conference.eurostarsoftwaretesting.com/expo/. Accessed: (3 October 2022).

[10] EvansI., PorterC., and MicallefM. (2021). Scared, frustrated and quietly proud: Testers’ lived experience of tools and automation. In European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics 2021, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–7. ACM.

[11] EvansI., PorterC., MicallefM., and HartyJ. (2020). Test tools: an illusion of usability? In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 392–397. IEEE: IEEE Computer Society.

[12] HermansF. (2021). The Programmer’s Brain: What Every Programmer Needs to Know about Cognition. Simon and Schuster.

[13] Hern´andezT.P.R. and MarsdenN. (2014). Understanding software testers in the automotive industry a mixed-method case study. In 2014 9th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications (ICSOFT-EA), pp. 305–314. IEEE.

[14] HimmelsbachJ., SchwarzS., GerdenitschC., WaisB.-Zechmann, BobethJ., and TscheligiM. (2019). Do we care about diversity in human computer interaction: a comprehensive content analysis on diversity dimensions in research. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–16. ACM.

[15] HoeksmaJ. (2013). Turning doctors into coders. BMJ 347.

[16] ISO (2013). ISO/IEC/IEEE 29119-1: 2013 Software and systems engineering -Software testing -part 1: Concepts and definitions. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH.

[17] ISTQB (2023). International software testing qualifications board. urlhttps://www.istqb.org/. Accessed: (26 March 2023).

[18] MABL (2021). State of Testing in DevOps 2021. urlhttps://www.mabl.com/resources/2021-testing-in-devops-survey-report. Accessed: (3 October 2022).

[19] McChesneyJ. E., BehrendT.S., and GlosenbergA. (2022). Stereotypical descriptions of computer science career interests are not representative of many computer scientists. Scientific reports 12(1), 1–9.

[20] MeyerA. N., BarrE.T., BirdC., and ZimmermannT. (2019). Today was a good day: The daily life of software developers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47(5), 863–880.

[21] MicallefM., PorterC., and BorgA. (2016). Do exploratory testers need formal training? an investigation using hci techniques. In 2016 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops (ICSTW), pp. 305–314.

[22] NielsenJ. (2006). Corporate UX Maturity: Stages 1-4. urlhttps://www.nngroup.com/articles/uxmaturity-stages-1-4. Accessed: (4 January 2021).

[23] NormanD. and NielsenJ. (2019). The definition of user experience (ux). urlhttps://www.nngroup.com/articles/definitionuser-experience/. Accessed: (Feb. 8, 2021).

[24] PetreM. and vanA. der Hoek (2016). Software Design Decoded: 66 Ways Experts Think. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[25] Practitest (2022). State of testing report. urlhttps://www.practitest.com/state-of-testing/. Accessed: (3 October 2022).

[26] ShneidermanB. (2022). Artificial intelligence needs both pragmatists and blue-sky visionaries. urlhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificialintelligence-needs-both-pragmatists-and-bluesky-visionaries/. Accessed: (7 October 2022).

[27] StrayV., FloreaR., and ParuchL. (2022). Exploring human factors of the agile software tester. Software Quality Journal 30(2), 455–481. Techwell (2022). Techwell Media Kit 2022. urlhttps://www.techwell.com/advertise-withtechwell/media-kit-form. Accessed: (3 October 2022).

[28] TulonenA. (2013). Project Mercury and the Death of Testing. urlhttps://flowoftesting.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/projectmercury-and-death-of-testing. (Accessed: (Oct. 26, 2022).

[29] van TilburgW.A.P., IgouE.R., and PanjwaniM. (2022). Boring people: Stereotype characteristics, interpersonal attributions, and social reactions. Personality & social psychology bulletin 25, 1461672221079104–1461672221079104.

[30] WaychalP., CapretzL.F., JiaJ., VaronaD., and LizamaY. (2021). Practitioners’ testimonials about software testing. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), Washington, DC, USA, pp. 582–589. IEEE: IEEE Computer Society.

[31] WeilemannE. (2019). A winning team-what personality has to do with software engineering. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion), pp. 252–253. IEEE.

[32] W¨ocklB., YildizogluU., BuberI., AparicioB. Diaz, KruijffE., and TscheligiM. (2012). Basic Senior Personas: A Representative Design Tool Covering the Spectrum of European Older Adults. In Proceedings of the 14th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, New York, NY, USA, pp. 25–32. Association for Computing Machinery.

UK Computing Summit 2025: Navigating change (surviving and beyond) - 29-30 April @ Sheffield Hallam University - Register here.

Breaking Tester Stereotypes: who is testing and why it matters

Contributors

Conference

Affiliations

Article

History

Product

Categories

Comment on this article