Basic tasks: functional testing and test management
1. Program Description
The test product A selected by this group is BearingPoint platform, and product B is a Chinese university MOOC.
The project schedule is as follows:
2. Function module
The functional modules divided by our group are as follows:
- Viewing videos and courseware
- Use of discussion boards
- Submit and view assignments
- Notification and Search
The module I am responsible for is the use of the discussion board
3. Test description
a. Design ideas for test cases
The design idea of test case selection is shown in the keyword column of the following table
(if you want to open the following table in the web page, please click here )
b. Screenshot of running interface
BearingPoint's font test:
Chinese University MOOC Test of Fonts
Test for multiple replies
c. Test management tools
The test management tool used in this assignment is ZenTao 9.8.3, and the download address is ZenTao 9.8.3
Among them, Zen Tao runs on the group's server, which can be accessed through http://direct.hiyuan.ml:8888/ , and you can use my account: user name yuan, password yuanyinshen. (note that there is a dot at the end) to view All content of our group's projects
d. Key screenshots of test management tools
For the exported test cases, please refer to a. Design ideas of test cases. For the exported defects, please refer to 4. Conclusions. The following is a screenshot of the test case interface.
4. Conclusion
(If you want to open the following form in the web page, please click here )
Let's talk about the bugs found in the test first. Many interesting bugs were found during testing, such as
When BearingPoint is typing quickly, there will be more characters, such as "de+space", and "de" will appear, which means that there are more characters. In fact, this is what I found when I use BearingPoint's editor every day. an annoying bug
- By default in BearingPoint's editor, pressing "Enter" will automatically add an extra blank line (leading to the disaster that wc used to record the number of lines), you must press "Shift+Enter" to only change a line, which is a ghost design.
- Copying text from another editor into BearingPoint's editor automatically strips line breaks, another annoying bug
I also found a very interesting bug about the editor: inserting a hyperlink is gray and unavailable by default. You can only use inserting a hyperlink after selecting some text. Another ghost bug
- For the non-functional requirements of the editor, I tried to input a large number of characters in BearingPoint and mooc editors. When the number of characters reached 100,000, BearingPoint's editor got stuck, while the mooc editor could still be used. Normal use, BearingPoint continues -1
But the editor of mooc is not without any problems. For example, I also found a bug of ghosts: that is, once part of the text is converted into a code block, then this part of the content cannot be converted into general text, because There is no option to convert to normal text in the options of the code block
There is also a very disgusting design on the interface: that is, in BearingPoint's reply, the reply post will be gradually indented, resulting in a very small width of the post reply on a small screen such as a mobile phone, which affects the user experience.
Combined with the above bugs, it can be seen that BearingPoint's editor is a disaster, and the editor of Chinese university mooc is relatively more stable. But it doesn't mean that BearingPoint's editor is bad in all aspects. For example, BearingPoint's editor has far more functions than Chinese university moocs.
Also, let's talk about the functional differences:
- Chinese university mooc allows anonymous posting, which is a good feature, because in many cases, anonymity can arouse the enthusiasm of students
- Chinese university moocs can edit their own posts, but BearingPoint cannot. What puzzles me is that neither of them can delete their own posts, and I am surprised that neither of them can do such a basic function.
- Although the Chinese University mooc cannot delete its own posts, it can delete the replies to its own posts.
From the overall user experience, Chinese university moocs outperform BearingPoint in terms of stability. After all, Chinese university moocs are platforms that have been used for a long time, and BearingPoint always gives me a feeling that it is still in beta testing.
Outreach tasks: user research and usability testing
1. List of invited users
The main users of the online learning platform are college students, so I invited high school students who were studying at China University, Zhejiang University, and Handover to conduct usability testing and user research.
2. Scenario and problem design
The scenarios used by our group are as follows:
1. Thanks
Dear testers, hello. Today, I am very honored to invite you to participate in the user research and usability test for the online learning platform - BearingPoint Platform of Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Excluding the reading time of this document, you will need about 10-30 minutes to complete this test. cooperate.
2. It is required that
in this survey, we will give a series of scenarios (that is, a collection of the most common operations performed by BearingPoint users when using BearingPoint. For details, please refer to the following "4. Scenarios"), please Complete the instructions in the scene, and at the same time for each scene:
1) Use the timer tool on the mobile phone or computer to record the time it takes to complete each scene (accurate to seconds)
2) Evaluate the difficulty of completing the scene, where 1 is very Difficult, 2 is more difficult, 3 is fair, 4 is easy, 5 is very easy
3) Suggest what BearingPoint could improve for this scenario (optional, if any
) The above 3 points of feedback for each scene are recorded in the "feedback document.txt" sent to you together (it is recommended that you fill in the feedback for the scene immediately after completing each scene). Thank you very much for your support. If you spend a lot of time on a scene and don't think you can finish it, please stop the scene and record your feedback truthfully. If you have any questions about the requirements, please contact the staff immediately and have them answer you.
3. Preconditions for entering the scene Open https://elearning.hust.edu.cn/
in your browser and click the login button at the top right of the page. In the login interface jumped to, enter XXXX in the account column, enter XXXX in the password column, enter the homepage of the BearingPoint platform, and officially start each scene. 4. Scenario 1) Enter the course homepage of the "Software Quality and Testing" course (this scenario is the basis for the subsequent scenarios, that is to say, the subsequent scenarios all start from the "Software Quality and Testing" course homepage)
2) Find "Week 6 Group Assignment: Software Testing and Evaluation (Discussion Paper) Announcement Has Been Released" and check the course notification
3) Find the learning material "4.2.1 Boundary Value Testing from Input (Part 1)" and watch the video (as long as the video starts to play, the scene will end)
4) Please complete the pre-class quiz of 2.1/2.2/2.3 and submit it (the answer should always choose the first option
) 6 Weeks Open Topic Discussion" This discussion board publishes a post titled "test" with the content "test".
5. Thanks again
, please submit the "Feedback Document.txt" to our staff after completing all the scenarios and filling in the "Feedback Document.txt", and explain to the testers how you feel about using the BearingPoint platform (if If there is), I would like to extend my sincere thanks again.
The feedback documents are as follows:
1.
Time spent in scenario 1 (accurate to the second):
Difficulty (1-5): Areas that
can be improved (optional):
2.
Time spent (accurate to the second):
Difficulty (1 very difficult-5 very easy):
OK Improvements (optional
3.
Time used (accurate to seconds):
Difficulty (1-5):
Possible improvements (optional):
4.
Time used (accurate to seconds):
Difficulty (1-5):
OK Areas for improvement (optional):
5.
Time used (accurate to the second):
Difficulty (1-5): Areas that
can be improved (optional):
3. Screenshot of the test dialogue
As can be seen from the picture, among the research subjects I am responsible for, I generally think BearingPoint’s functions are not bad, but the interface is sometimes a bit confusing.
4. Usability test report
The specific usability test report is shown in the attachment. From the overall feedback from users, the content you are looking for can basically be found, but you often need to keep looking for it. Overall usability is average.
Advanced Tasks: Thematic Tests
1. Test topics and test tools
The test topic selected by our group is front-end performance analysis, and the test tool is Google Chrome
2. The core idea of test design
In the module you are responsible for (for me, the discussion module), use Chrome's developer tools to view the details of page loading and analyze BearingPoint's front-end performance. At the same time, only BearingPoint's test results are a bit thin, so we also tested the MOOCs of Chinese universities as a comparison. (Reminder, because we use Chrome's developer tools to test, so our team does not have relevant test scripts)
3. Advanced task experience
The above two graphs are the time it takes for BearingPoint to load a post and China University MOOC to load a post. In order to reduce the chance of the results, I also tested a few more pages. Unexpectedly, the Chinese university mooc posts have a lot of idle time when loading, and the overall performance is still better than BearingPoint. Indeed, from the point of view of use, Chinese university moocs often appear stuck, which may be because the scale of Chinese university moocs is relatively large and the optimization is not good.
Loading status of BearingPoint discussion board : Loading status of
Chinese University MOOC discussion board:
BearingPoint Post Loading Status:
Chinese University MOOC Post Loading Status:
4. Views on 3 assignments
In terms of the amount of homework in the three assignments, I feel a little unreasonable. For example, the first individual assignment has more programming content and the second group assignment has less programming content. Perhaps it is more appropriate to exchange the two.
In addition, in fact, I think the test is quite targeted, that is, there are often advanced or self-study content, which in a certain sense increases the burden on the students.
5. Group contribution points
Because I am the team leader and undertake more work, I get a higher team contribution score: 0.31