This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human–Computer Interaction (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human–Computer InteractionWikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionTemplate:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionHuman–Computer Interaction

The entire section 'Testing GUI Applications' is a direct copy from the abstract of the 'Testing GUI Applications' paper. Which is then described as a seminal paper. Hardly neutral... Isolater (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If the content is not neutral, any involved person can add its ideas as another point of view. As long as this does not happen, it seems to be the only argument to this issue. So, as long as there is no proof that there are other ideas, I do not see any reason for an objection to the contents of the Planning & AI, and Running the test cases sections.

SAE1962 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

We used to have a separate chapter on testing the GUI of an application, not just testing software that uses a GUI. There is a difference. For example, validating the value of the display (ensuring that the presentation of the application is accurate and complete as perceived by a human user) is not addressed by most "GUI" testing tools (they cannot tell if the screen is "right", only if the code or functionality is "right"). I'd like to see more effort put into this important difference and the testing approaches that seem to work well.

jruuska —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC).Reply

Calling the subject of this section a "breakthrough" is unnecessarily subjective. I'm going to change to the term to something less dramatic. --67.198.16.28 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe "visual regression testing" in web browsers might add to the section of the article which mentions the issues of regression testing. With tools like PhantomCSS and WebDriverCSS there are methods to automate these visual regression tests. Of course, this only applies to supported web browsers and not to UIs that do not rely on web technologies. But it might be worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremygrajales (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply