Me: Detailed testing procedures (“scripts” or “cases”) work well for automation scripting but could be an overkill for human “testers”.
Friend: But, what if the test cases are NOT too detailed? Would other testers be able to understand them?
Me: The answer is “Yes”, provided they have a basic acquaintance of the software intent and working.
Friend: How? Can you explain more?
Me: Testers being “humans” have the resilience to adjust their steps based on the context, scope, judgment, risks, blocking areas, dependencies, available options, resources, time, etc. So, something that could be more meaningful than having detailed test cases is having “testers” (humans) who understand the “documented procedures” (steps) as well as their practical applicability in the “contexts”.
It’s the combination of “documented knowledge” and “practical knowledge” that makes testing powerful.
Rahul Parwal
