When I hear debates about scripted vs. exploratory testing... or even debates such as "automate all tests" vs. "you can't automate all tests"... I don't think I'm hearing the real debate.

I think the debate that I'm hearing is "testing is about confirmation" vs. "testing is about discovery".

This distinction in the underlying intent of a given approach seems to not be emphasised in these discussions.

In simple terms, I think of the intent behind testing as having two facets:

• Confirmation - Does the system do what we anticipated it should do?
• Discovery - Does the system do (or not do) anything we did not anticipate it would (or should do)?

Software testing company BugHuntress QA Lab offers expert-level testing of software products, independent verification and validation (IV&V), as well as dedicated testing team services. BugHuntress core expertise is testing of embedded hardware-software systems, wireless / mobile applications, mobile internet, Web 2.0, e-Business systems. BugHuntress performs automated and manual testing of functionality, usability, load, performance, compatibility, and other types of testing. High level of services is confirmed by long-term cooperation with a number of the clients from the USA and the EU.

High-quality usability of mobile applications can be a winning competitive advantage in the today's software market.

Nonetheless, BugHuntress QA Lab experience in independent software testing showed that high-quality user interfaces occurred in about 70% of desktop applications, while a similar number for mobile applications is about 40%.

This article covers the following topics:

“I’m just doing WHATEVER it takes.”