<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Exploratory Testing vs. Scripted Testing &#8211; rich terminology</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thetesteye.com/blog/2009/11/exploratory-testing-vs-scripted-testing-rich-terminology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thetesteye.com/blog/2009/11/exploratory-testing-vs-scripted-testing-rich-terminology/</link>
	<description>by rikard edgren, henrik emilsson and martin jansson - with torbjörn ryber and henrik andersson</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 11:36:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rikard Edgren</title>
		<link>http://thetesteye.com/blog/2009/11/exploratory-testing-vs-scripted-testing-rich-terminology/comment-page-1/#comment-814</link>
		<dc:creator>Rikard Edgren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 05:50:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetesteye.com/blog/?p=643#comment-814</guid>
		<description>It took me a year and a half to make up my mind about which of these two to use (activity or approach)
I think it is both. It&#039;s like the light, which is both a wave and a particle.
This of course also goes for scripted testing, it is both an activity, and an approach.

I think this is good; you get a broader terminology, that isn&#039;t wrong to use in any of the ways (although misunderstandings can happen), and there will be more powerful follow-up concepts, e.g. exploratory test design, that can be both on-the-fly-testdesign, and investigation of multiple information sources.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It took me a year and a half to make up my mind about which of these two to use (activity or approach)<br />
I think it is both. It&#8217;s like the light, which is both a wave and a particle.<br />
This of course also goes for scripted testing, it is both an activity, and an approach.</p>
<p>I think this is good; you get a broader terminology, that isn&#8217;t wrong to use in any of the ways (although misunderstandings can happen), and there will be more powerful follow-up concepts, e.g. exploratory test design, that can be both on-the-fly-testdesign, and investigation of multiple information sources.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Hunter</title>
		<link>http://thetesteye.com/blog/2009/11/exploratory-testing-vs-scripted-testing-rich-terminology/comment-page-1/#comment-214</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Hunter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:35:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thetesteye.com/blog/?p=643#comment-214</guid>
		<description>Rikard,

Nice post.  It is a topic I&#039;ve been thinking about a lot lately.

FYI - There&#039;s a discussion about the general topic here.  I just added a link to your post to it:

http://testing.stackexchange.com/questions/237/lessons-learned-from-combining-exploratory-testing-and-scripted-testing</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rikard,</p>
<p>Nice post.  It is a topic I&#8217;ve been thinking about a lot lately.</p>
<p>FYI &#8211; There&#8217;s a discussion about the general topic here.  I just added a link to your post to it:</p>
<p><a href="http://testing.stackexchange.com/questions/237/lessons-learned-from-combining-exploratory-testing-and-scripted-testing" rel="nofollow">http://testing.stackexchange.com/questions/237/lessons-learned-from-combining-exploratory-testing-and-scripted-testing</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

