Internal QA can be expensive and time consuming. Here is how crowdtesting can help.
In a recent blog post from Bas Dijkstra, he metaphorically equates test automation to bubble wrap in “an attempt to help people see test automation in a slightly different light than the ‘be all end all’ solution to all testing problems that it’s still perceived as too often.” While I suggest you check out his article, here’s a quick summary:
The above analogizes bubble wrap to test automation, ultimately making a case for the appropriate - and not superfluous or unnecessary - use of test automation.
Bas also uses an excellent example shared by Alex Schladebeck regarding the importance of exploratory testing alongside automated testing:
Say you’re going for a run in the park. You may make a list of everything to watch out for (i.e. weather, other people, the potential for injury), but it happens that there is a dangerous animal in the park that you didn’t account for in your list. This is a clear example of when exploratory testing can be incredibly useful.
Both forms of testing are important in forming a comprehensive testing suite. But where does one end and the other begin?
How do you balance the two forms of testing?
Internal QA can be expensive and time consuming. Here is how crowdtesting can help.
I asked our CSMs what it takes to get the most from a crowdtest.
