Return to Answer

and we don't really want testers writing too much code

We took the opposite approach. We wanted the testers writing code.

Here's the workflow we started to adopt. It's not easy to do this because management doesn't absolutely depend on automated testing of the front-end. They're willing to settle for "close-enough".

1. User stories.

2. Operational concept. How the story would likely work. Design review.

3. Screen sketch: UI design. How it would look.

4. Selenium Scripts. If the scripts all work, we're done with the release.

5. Coding and testing until the script works.

Automated testing is the only way to demonstrate that the functionality exists.

"Any program feature without an automated test simply doesn't exist."

Visual presentation is another story. Manual testing of a visual layout is an exceptional case because it may involve either esthetic judgement or looking at specific (small) issues on a very large and complex screenful of pixels.

and we don't really want testers writing too much code

We took the opposite approach. We wanted the testers writing code.

Here's the workflow we started to adopt. It's not easy to do this because management doesn't absolutely depend on automated testing of the front-end. They're willing to settle for "close-enough".

1. User stories.

2. Operational concept. How the story would likely work. Design review.

3. Screen sketch: UI design. How it would look.

4. Selenium Scripts. If the scripts all work, we're done with the release.

5. Coding and testing until the script works.

Automated testing is the only way to demonstrate that the functionality exists.

Manual testing is error-prone and subject to management override: "it's good enough, those failing tests don't really matter as much as releasing this on time."

"Any program feature without an automated test simply doesn't exist."

Visual presentation is another story. Manual testing of a visual layout is an exceptional case because it may involve either esthetic judgement or looking at specific (small) issues on a very large and complex screenful of pixels.

and we don't really want testers writing too much code

We took the opposite approach. We wanted the testers writing code.

Here's the workflow we started to adopt. It's not easy to do this because management doesn't absolutely depend on automated testing of the front-end. They're willing to settle for "close-enough".

1. User stories.

2. Operational concept. How the story would likely work. Design review.

3. Screen sketch: UI design. How it would look.

4. Selenium Scripts. If the scripts all work, we're done with the release.

5. Coding and testing until the script works.

Automated testing is the only way to demonstrate that the functionality exists.

"Any program feature without an automated test simply doesn't exist."

Manual testing of a visual layout is -- to some -- an exceptional case because it may involve either esthetic judgement or looking at specific (small) issues on a very large and complex screenful of pixels.

and we don't really want testers writing too much code

We took the opposite approach. We wanted the testers writing code.

Here's the workflow we started to adopt. It's not easy to do this because management doesn't absolutely depend on automated testing of the front-end. They're willing to settle for "close-enough".

1. User stories.

2. Operational concept. How the story would likely work. Design review.

3. Screen sketch: UI design. How it would look.

4. Selenium Scripts. If the scripts all work, we're done with the release.

5. Coding and testing until the script works.

Automated testing is the only way to demonstrate that the functionality exists.

"Any program feature without an automated test simply doesn't exist."

Visual presentation is another story. Manual testing of a visual layout is an exceptional case because it may involve either esthetic judgement or looking at specific (small) issues on a very large and complex screenful of pixels.

and we don't really want testers writing too much code

We took the opposite approach. We wanted the testers writing code.

Here's the workflow we started to adopt. It's not easy to do this because management doesn't absolutely depend on automated testing of the front-end. They're willing to settle for "close-enough".

1. User stories.

2. Operational concept. How the story would likely work. Design review.

3. Screen sketch: UI design. How it would look.

4. Selenium Scripts. If the scripts all work, we're done with the release.

5. Coding and testing until the script works.

Automated testing is the only way to demonstrate that the functionality exists.

"Any program feature without an automated test simply doesn't exist."

and we don't really want testers writing too much code

We took the opposite approach. We wanted the testers writing code.

Here's the workflow we started to adopt. It's not easy to do this because management doesn't absolutely depend on automated testing of the front-end. They're willing to settle for "close-enough".

1. User stories.

2. Operational concept. How the story would likely work. Design review.

3. Screen sketch: UI design. How it would look.

4. Selenium Scripts. If the scripts all work, we're done with the release.

5. Coding and testing until the script works.

Automated testing is the only way to demonstrate that the functionality exists.

"Any program feature without an automated test simply doesn't exist."

Manual testing of a visual layout is -- to some -- an exceptional case because it may involve either esthetic judgement or looking at specific (small) issues on a very large and complex screenful of pixels.