TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
>>>
Can anyone recommend a good software testing program? We want
to find a program that can automatically perform our more
repetitive software testing that we now have to do manually.
The program has to be Win 95/NT compatible. And it can't
choke on Java. (We found that Vermont High Test, for
instance, doesn't handle Java well.)
>>>
I received three reponses:
- David Castro (techwrtr -at- crl -dot- com) said his company uses QA Partner and that
they develop some Java stuff (though he said I can't quote him on the fact
that QA Partner would actually work with Java :-) ).
- Renée L. LaPlume <rlaplume -at- rorke -dot- com> said her company is also looking
into a software testing program and that we might want to look at Segue's
JavaTest software (made by Sun originally).
- Hall, David L" <David -dot- Hall3 -at- PSS -dot- Boeing -dot- com> said he's currently using
Visual Test by Rational (purchased from Microsoft).
Our QA team found that none of the testing programs that we tried really
fit our needs. First of all, the program we are testing is a full-fledged
Java program (that is, we aren't testing applets or javascript) and many of
the programs just weren't capable of handling Java, or at least an actual
Java-based program. One program came close, JavaStar, but one of its
prerequisites is a minimum of 6 months of experience with Java. And one of
testers quickly found out why. The program is extremely technical and, he
felt, more geared towards engineers/product development than what we had
hoped to use it for--quality assurance.
The QA team did find a Web site, which may be of interest: