Mobile application testing matrix

David C. Wyld et al. (Eds) : CCSIT, SIPP, AISC, NLP - 2015
pp. 27–40, 2015. © CS & IT-CSCP 2015 DOI : 10.5121/csit.2015.50403
MOBILE APPLICATION TESTING MATRIX
AND CHALLENGES
Bakhtiar M. Amen1
, Sardasht M. Mahmood2
and Joan Lu3
1,3
School of Computing and Engineering,
University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
2
Statistics and Computer, College of Commerce,
University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Iraq
ABSTRACT
The adoption of smart phones and the usages of mobile applications are increasing rapidly.
Consequently, within limited time-range, mobile Internet usages have managed to take over the
desktop usages particularly since the first smart phone-touched application released by iPhone
in 2007. This paper is proposed to provide solution and answer the most demandable questions
related to mobile application automated and manual testing limitations. Moreover, Mobile
application testing requires agility and physically testing. Agile testing is to detect bugs through
automated tools, whereas the compatibility testing is more to ensure that the apps operates on
mobile OS (Operation Systems) as well as on the different real devices. Moreover, we have
managed to answer automated or manual questions through two mobile application case studies
MES (Mobile Exam System) and MLM (Mobile Lab Mate) by creating test scripts for both case
studies and our experiment results have been discussed and evaluated on whether to adopt test
on real devices or on emulators? In addition to this, we have introduced new mobile application
testing matrix for the testers and some enterprises to obtain knowledge from.
KEYWORDS
Mobile App Testing, Testing Matrix, Automated and Manual Testing.
1. INTRODUCTION
The world of mobile application is emerging rapidly and it attracted extensive research interests
[12]. In fact, due to easiness of technology, every day millions of mobile users are depending on
their mobile apps to conduct and browse internet for social networking (e.g., Facebook, Twitter,
LinkedIn, Instagram), for online banking (transaction and balance sheet), for emailing (arrange
meeting and solving problems). According to [23] every year extraordinary numbers of
applications are flooding onto the market with forecast of 76.9 billion global downloads in 2014
worth of US$35 billion [34]. Therefore, the comprehensive mobile application testing is crucial to
direct high quality of applications and satisfies user needs, whereas studies indicated that
developers are more focusing on the application back end and functionality rather than use
experiences. In fact, a user feedback is one of the fundamental parts of application’s reputation to
ensure app’s owners with successful or failure of their application [20]. Commonly, users can
easily drop interesting in problematic mobile app, and will abandon it after only one or two failed
attempts.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate and provides solutions to firstly; whether agility testing
or physical testing is the most appropriate to adopt? Secondly; identify new testing matrix for
testers to obtaining knowledge from. Thirdly and finally; introduce new mobile application test

28 Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT)
strategy, testing state-of -art. More to this, we have analysed both case studies MLM and MES
results and critically evaluate individual findings for experiment results.
This paper is organised as it follow; Sec
definition, mobile test matrix including test environments, test techniques, test levels and test
scopes. Section three presents existing mobile app testing tools while section four introduces
testing strategy. Section five provides related work. Case studies experiment results illustrated in
section six and section seven provide conclusion and future of work.
2. BACKGROUND
This section is consist of three parts; definitions of mobile application, testi
mobile application testing matrix.
2.1 Mobile Application
Mobile application is a written source code in various programming languages (e.g. Java) and
designed for smartphones to operate on Mobile OS platforms (e.g. Android, iOS). The
mobile application is to enhance user’s daily life throughout (online banking transactions and
emails) or for entertainments like (social media and gaming). The novel of mobile app is designed
for the user to input data from touch screen and exp
regardless of the application’s development knowledge.
2.2 Testing Definitions
Testing defined by [2] [25] [35] is ‘the process of executing a program with the intent of finding
errors’. In fact, test is one of the fundamental requirements of mobile app development
methodology phases in the development life cycle to measure the quali
and to avoid vital bugs. Due to the rapid growth of mobile apps every year, developers and
enterprises are losing confidence in to relays on the best testing techniques and adopt economical
ways of delivering mobile apps in to
2.3 Mobile Application Testing Matrix
Mobile Apps testing is more complicated than the software or web apps testing due to the nature
of development specifications techniques like; OS platforms, devices and screen resolutions [14]
[33]. However, we have managed to impalement and organise mobil
from [40] to Test Techniques, Testing Environment, Test Level, and Test Scopes as depicted in
Figure 1.
Figure 1: Mobile Application Testing Matrix
Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT)
art. More to this, we have analysed both case studies MLM and MES
results and critically evaluate individual findings for experiment results.
This paper is organised as it follow; Section two is consists of mobile app definition, test
ategy. Section five provides related work. Case studies experiment results illustrated in
section six and section seven provide conclusion and future of work.
This section is consist of three parts; definitions of mobile application, testing definitions and
mobile application testing matrix.
designed for smartphones to operate on Mobile OS platforms (e.g. Android, iOS). The
for the user to input data from touch screen and expected output results efficiently and effectively
regardless of the application’s development knowledge.
methodology phases in the development life cycle to measure the quality of application’s standard
ways of delivering mobile apps in to the market [16] [19] [32].
Mobile Application Testing Matrix
[33]. However, we have managed to impalement and organise mobile application testing matrix
Figure 1: Mobile Application Testing Matrix
art. More to this, we have analysed both case studies MLM and MES
tion two is consists of mobile app definition, test
ategy. Section five provides related work. Case studies experiment results illustrated in
ng definitions and
designed for smartphones to operate on Mobile OS platforms (e.g. Android, iOS). The purpose of
ected output results efficiently and effectively
ty of application’s standard
e application testing matrix

Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT) 29
2.3.1. Test Techniques
According to Selvam in [40] the principal test challenge arise throughout mobile apps
development process “how to test the apps”. The authors of [6] [7] [40] emphasized that, it’s very
crucial to decide whether automated or manual testing are the most appropriate testing techniques
to adopt in mobile apps testing stage, Figure 2 depicted the techniques. Moreover, we have
conducted both techniques for our case studies of MES and MLM in order to obtain our paper’s
objective questions. The experiment results of both case studies were demonstrated in the result
section with emphasised issues in each technique. On the other hand, researchers are indicating
that automated testing is more relaying on programming development tool for instance Monkey
Talk, Test Plant and other top mobile apps testing tools depicted in Table 3. Whereas, according
to the researchers prospective, manual testing is more relaying on human interaction like usability
testing.
2.3.1.1 Automated Testing
Automated testing technique is highly desirable, for this reason automated testing is capable in
decrease of human errors, efficiency in finding bugs, with less time consuming [3]. In fact,
automated testing is permit tester to verify the main critical features of the application by testing
different data sets [42]. According to Quilter in [39] automated testing has capability to execute
large volumes of repeatable scenarios beyond human capabilities to undertake manually.
2.3.1.2 Manual Testing
Manual testing is very time-consuming compare to automated testing, and often it has limitation
in testing through the limited user-interface of the mobile device. Manual testing acknowledge
tester to create test case and follow the test case design, instruction design to achieve their
specific test goals [19] [40]. In addition to this, automated Vs manual results would be
demonstrate in the testing results section Seven.
Figure 2: illustrâtes mobile App tests techniques
2.3.2 Test Environments
The critical demands on test environments are widely remained within scientist and enterprises.
Kim in [28] argues that ‘developers establish mobile applications on a desktop computer using a
development toolkit and emulator’. Therefore, this is indicating that developer is enabling to test
on both real device and simulator. Whereas, Simulator has matching look and feel of real device
and it executes on desktop operating system. According to Quilter in [39] Simulator-based
approaches have various specific advantages like lower cost, scalability, time and easy of
implement, opposite to the real device. Figure 3 depicted mobile application environments.

2.3.3 Test Levels
Test level is one of the fundamental crucial parts of mobile application development. Mobile apps
test level consists of; Unit Testing [11] [24], Functionality Testing [24], Usability Testing [24]
[35], Compatibility Testing, Regressions Testing [24], Security Testing [18][22], Acceptance
Testing [18][22] and Network Testing [35].
Table 1 Different Testing Level in Mobile Application
Test
Levels
Who does
it?
Specification Why this type?
When is
Necessary?
Opacity
Unit
Testing
[11], [24]
Programmer
Complete the test
automatically through
run the test script to
ensure that the test has
turned from "red"
(failure) to "green"
(success) [11]
To check app
code structures to
find bugs and
errors
When the
Programmer wrote
a piece codes
White box
Testing
Functional
ity Testing
[24]
Programmer
Verifies app/site content
(images, text, controls,
and links) as it is
displayed on the actual
mobile devices. [11]
[22]
To check the
app’s
functionality and
compare the
user’s
requirement
During and after
the development
stage
Black box
and While
box Testing
Usability
Testing
[24][35]
Client,
Users
Refer to the app’s
effectiveness, efficient
and satisfaction
[24][35]
To check apps
link validation,
multiple
browsers’ support,
screen resolution.
[24]
After app’s
functionality
completed. Black box
Testing
Compatibi
lity
Testing
Programmer
Independent
Tester
Refers to validation of
the apps for different
operating system,
mobile devices [24]
To verify and
validate of app’s
compatibility
When the app
completed and
before deliverable
Black box
and While
box Testing
Regressio
ns Testing
[24]
Client and
Independent
tester [24]
Expect apps operating
as intends to [24][35]
To ensure the
correctness of
app’s operation
Before the
application
deployment
Black box
and While
box Testing
Security
Testing
[18][22]
Programmer
To ensure with app’s
encryption/decryption
techniques in used
sensitive data of users
(e.g. ID, Password,
Credit card details) [35]
To ensure with
information
protection
landscape [35]
At end of
development
process
Black box
and While
box Testing
Acceptanc
e Testing
[18][22]
Client
The objective of
acceptance testing is to
create confidence in the
application [18][22]
To Delivery and
evaluate the
application in
aspect of end user
point of view
When the user
acceptance criteria
met with the
requirements
[18][22]
Black box
and While
box Testing
Network
Testing
[35]
Network
expertise
and
Programmer
Compatibility app’s
with different Network
signal (Wi-Fi, 2G, 3G,
4G) Impact of
Connectivity Issues [35]
To check app’s
connection
strength and
weakness.
Before the app’s
deliverable phase
While box
Testing

Figure 3: Mobile Application Testing Environments
2.3.4 Test Scopes
Generally, test scopes have been categorised in two major
structural (white-box) [42] [14]. The
Table 2 Different Testing SCOPES
Test
Scopes
Black Box
Testing
[14]
[42][43]
Known as functional and non
testing is a widely used in testing environments. The
component under test has inputs, outputs, and a
specification, which states the relationship between inputs
and outputs. It ignores the internal mechanism of a system
or component and focuses
without prior knowledge of it source code [14][24][42][43]
White Box
Testing
[27][37]
Known as structural testing,
structures that exercised to ensure validity of test
conditions, with good knowledge of the source code
[27][31][35][42][43]
3. STATE OF ART
In this section, testing tools that are supporting the testing techniques have been proposed
specifically for mobile app testing environments. Each tool has been described in Table 3 in terms
of their licenses whether they are open source
instance Android, iPhone or multi platform as well as tool’s scripting and languages. Finally
provides the tool’s specification testing types support.
Logo License Support
Device
Android SDK
Open Source Android
iOS
Simulator
Open Source
Window or Mac
iOS
Figure 3: Mobile Application Testing Environments
Generally, test scopes have been categorised in two major parts, functional (black box) and
box) [42] [14]. The following table is depicted the classification of each parts.
Different Testing SCOPES in Mobile Application
What is it?
Who does
it?
Why this type?
Known as functional and non-functional testing. Black box
testing is a widely used in testing environments. The
component under test has inputs, outputs, and a
specification, which states the relationship between inputs
and outputs. It ignores the internal mechanism of a system
or component and focuses solely on the outputs generated
without prior knowledge of it source code [14][24][42][43]
Independen
t undertake
the test
To detect bugs,
errors in the app’s
codes. Test app’s
functionalities
[24]
Known as structural testing, cover the internal data
structures that exercised to ensure validity of test
conditions, with good knowledge of the source code
Developers
Execute
This test
To detecting
logical errors in
the program code
(Unit Test)
[27], [37]
of their licenses whether they are open source tools, the table consists of tool’s device support for
provides the tool’s specification testing types support.
Table 3: Mobile apps testing tools
Support
Device
Scripting/
Language
Testing Types
Android JAVA
Unit Testing,
GUI interface [9]
Window or Mac
iOS
Objective C
GUI interface
Unit Testing [10]
31
, functional (black box) and
following table is depicted the classification of each parts.
Why this type?
To detect bugs,
errors in the app’s
codes. Test app’s
functionalities
To detecting
logical errors in
the program code
(Unit Test)
[27], [37]
tools, the table consists of tool’s device support for

Open Source
iPhone &
Android etc.
Open Source Multi Platforms
Cost
iPhone &
Android etc.
Open Source
Variety of
platforms
Cost Multi Platforms
Cost
Android, iPhone
etc.
Cost
iPhone,
Android
etc.
4. TEST STRATEGY
Before decide to adopt any test techniques on the mobile apps, it is necessary to have testing
strategy in order to meet user’s requirements, specifications and to avoid negative feedbacks from
app’s users. Furthermore, testing progress is important in
predicted test strategy plans for the testers to beware of from test docu
application test acceptance/deliverable phase
Figure 4: Mobile apps Test strategy plan
5. LITREATURE REVIEW
Haller in [20] proposed agile and compatibility testing for one a case study from Swisscom IT
services to identify whether test on wild device and failure during the start
focused on regression testing process.
iPhone &
Android etc.
HTML5
& JAVA
Functional,
GUI Testing [17]
Multi Platforms Unit Test
GUI, Accepting
Testing [46]
iPhone &
Android etc.
Test across
mobile OS with
a single script
GUI Test [44]
Variety of
platforms
C# Google Test UI
Multi Platforms A single Script GUI Testing [38]
Android, iPhone
etc.
C#, Java, Perl &
Python
Functionality & Speed
Performance [13]
iPhone,
Android
etc.
JAVA &
Objective C
Functionality,
Usability,
Performance [26]
order to meet user’s requirements, specifications and to avoid negative feedbacks from
app’s users. Furthermore, testing progress is important in terms of quality assurance. Figure 4
for the testers to beware of from test document preparation to the
application test acceptance/deliverable phase
Figure 4: Mobile apps Test strategy plan
EVIEW
whether test on wild device and failure during the start-up application and
focused on regression testing process.
Speed
order to meet user’s requirements, specifications and to avoid negative feedbacks from
terms of quality assurance. Figure 4
ment preparation to the
up application and

Amalfitano et al. highlighted the results of automated testing experiment for Android mobile
application platform [1]. The author specifically presents a technique for rapid crash testing and
regression testing based on crawler that automatically builds models of application in GUI. Heo,
Jeongyun et al. in [21] introduced new framework for evaluation of usability in mobile
application that has been conducted based on a multi level, hierarchical model of usability factors,
the author proposed case study for new framework to test his frameworks on in order to identify
the characteristics of the framework.
UTest Inc. proposed usability testing mobile application for NHD Direct in 2011, whereas
according to uTest Inc. the application is more likely to focus on symptom checking for mental
health conditions, self-care and free advice [45]. Respectively, the objectives of NHS Direct
Mobile application usability testing were to enhance the user’s feedback and compotator app on
top number one in iTunes charts for the best free apps within the first week of released app [4].
Knott suggested that it is necessary to implement some of the specific features of the application
manually rather than conduct automated testing [29]. Functional testing consists of both input and
output data. However, from the input aspect, mobile application receives two types of actions,
whereas the first action is from GUI input by any keyboard keys and touch events, while the
second action is the result output.
6. CASE STUDIES
Mobile Lab Mate (MLM) is one of the particular applications developed by the University of
Huddersfield research team. The aim of this application is to support students in accessing into
their account at anytime in anywhere in order to view their class materials and results effectively
and efficiently. Furthermore, MLM application was a pilot case study and attempt to help
developer to identify issues within application before the acceptance-testing phase. Figure 5
depicted the applications screen prints. Therefore, both testing techniques such as automated and
manual have been conducted and the experiment result will be discussed in the result section.
On the other hand, Mobile Exam System (MES) was another pilot case study that has been
conducted. The aim of this application was to support students throughout answering their
questions online and save their exam time, to assist teachers to see the results efficiently and
avoiding any misconduct mechanism during exam taken. In fact, both techniques of automated
and manual testing have been carried out.
Figure 5: MLM & MES Mobile Application
Furthermore, both application case studies have been tested by open source automated tool
known Monkey Talk. According to Corbett and Bridgwater ‘Monkey Talk is the latest testing

platform from Gorilla Logic [5] [8]. Monkey Talk IDE (Integrated Developme
extends with Java Script API and it assist tester to creating, recording, and manage the test on
actual devices. However, Monkey Talk is free and open source automated tool operates on iPhone
and Android [5] [17]. The reason behind conducti
functionalities and have the test records while emphasis the demands of automated capabilities.
Figure 6 depicted the use case design that we have made in the testing process in order to have
better and clear of testing objectives
Figure
7. RESULTS (EVALUATION
Test automated solution consists of: test scripts, connection between automated tool (PC) and the
mobile device, remote control mechanism
mobile device GUI depicted in (Figure 7,8,9 and 11). The selected solution affects the test script
language. For example, Expertise, Keynote and Monkey Talk were only tools that capable of
testing functionality as well as GUI. When scalable test configuration coverage is the main aim,
the test scripts must run on multiple devices and potentially on various OS and OS versions. This
requirement affects the connection between a test PC and the mobile device.
connection can exist from the PC to the device. Second, an indirect connection can exist that acts
as a switch between various PCs and a large device pool.
The automated testing is a solution to improve the testing efficiency; it is the mo
latest techniques to improve functionality testing as multiple device handlers, and to ensure that
MES and MLM applications are resulting automated testing technique efficient and accurately.
The following test script was for the MLM app’s log
function has predicted in Figure 8.
platform from Gorilla Logic [5] [8]. Monkey Talk IDE (Integrated Development Environment)
and Android [5] [17]. The reason behind conducting Monkey Talk was to test the applications
depicted the use case design that we have made in the testing process in order to have
testing objectives
Figure 6: Case Study Use Case Test Process
VALUATION AND ANALYSIS)
mobile device, remote control mechanism for the device, and an interaction strategy for the
nality as well as GUI. When scalable test configuration coverage is the main aim,
requirement affects the connection between a test PC and the mobile device. First, a direct
as a switch between various PCs and a large device pool.
The automated testing is a solution to improve the testing efficiency; it is the mo
The following test script was for the MLM app’s login function and result of the app‘s login
function has predicted in Figure 8.
nt Environment)
ng Monkey Talk was to test the applications
depicted the use case design that we have made in the testing process in order to have
for the device, and an interaction strategy for the
nality as well as GUI. When scalable test configuration coverage is the main aim,
First, a direct
The automated testing is a solution to improve the testing efficiency; it is the most important
in function and result of the app‘s login

1) load("libs/MobileLabMate.js");
2) MobileLabMate.Login.prototype.run = function() {
3) this.app.login().run();
4) this.app.link("sign").click();
5) this.app.link("st").click();
6) this.app.input("studentname").enterText("Tester");
7) this.app.input("studentpassword").enterText("u0772370");
8) this.app.button("login").click();
9) this.app.link("Logout").click();
10)};
Figure 7: Login Test Script
Figure 8 depicted the test script for MLM new student who has not been registered before.
1) load("libs/MES.js");
2) MESapp.CreateAccount.prototype.run = function() {
3) this.app.createAccount().run();
5) this.app.link("i").click();
6) this.app.input("name").enterText("Tester2");
7) this.app.input("pass").enterText("1234567");
8) this.app.button("callAjax").click();
11) this.app.input("studentname").enterText("tester2");
12) this.app.input("studentpassword").enterText("1234567");
14) this.app.link("Logout").click();};
Figure 8: Create Account Test Script
2) MobileWebApp.ChangePassword.prototype.run = function() {
3) this.app.changePassword().run();
5) this.app.link("change").click();
6) this.app.input("usernamepass").enterText("Tester2");
7) this.app.input("oldpass").enterText("1234567");
8) this.app.input("newpass").enterText("12345678");
9) this.app.input("newpass2").enterText("12345678");
10) this.app.button("changepass").click();
11)};
Figure 9: chanhe password test script

Figure 10: change password test result
Figure 10 depicted the new class for the students and teachers screen print results and test scripts
2) MobileWebApp.CreateClass.prototype.run = function() {
3) this.app.createClass().run();
6) this.app.input("studentname").enterText("Tester2");
7) this.app.input("studentpassword").enterText("12345678");
9) this.app.textArea("textarea").enterText("OK OK");
11) this.app.textArea("textarea").enterText("2");
12)this.app.button("callAjax").click();
13) this.app.input("q1").enterText("2");
15)this.app.link("Result").click();
16)this.app.link("Help").click();
17)this.app.link("Logout ").click();
18) };
Figure 11: Test script for new class
Figure 12: Test result for new class

Security Functionality Usability
MES Application 0 2 5
MLM Web
Application
4 4 10
0
2
54 4
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Bugs in MES and MLM
Application
On the other hand, one of the most important aspects was to consider and carry out functionality,
usability and security testing. MLM application was operated normal, but still there were some
bugs existed in the application during the functionality of “forgot password” link. However,
change password functionality was not crucial and secure Figure 14 depicts the result of MLM
functionality, usability as well as security.
In fact, due to the limited space, we have only illustrated a few initial test scripts while for each
application of MLM and MES have had several test scripts. In fact, MES app was very secure in
the aspects of authorisation, encryption and data store, but MLM apps has had some bugs within
the application when the user have access to make more than 16 characters for username and
password while in MLM user only unable to enter different characters accept numbers and letters
between 8-20 length spaces. MLM apps do not have the limitation input. Therefore, these are
some of weak points in MLM for the hacker to inject the database by random characters.
Figure 13: Bugs in both MES and MLM applications
Furthermore, testing functionality and usability activities were performed by real device as well
as automated tool for each applications. Figure 13 indicates that MES apps have more bugs
compare to MLM apps from manual testing results. Finally, the test scrip results are demonstrates
that some functionality of MLM is not working as intends to do by automated limitation while
they were working effectively on the real devices. On the other hand, the source code of the test
scrip’s in Figure (7,8,9 and11) illustrated that some of functional of the MLM application is not
structured accurately when two users were enable to create new account within the same email
address and type in long characters or digits in the password field. However, from both case
studies we have managed to highlight the limitation of each automated and manual testing in
Table 4.
Table 4 DISTINCTIONS between Automated Testing and Manual Testing
Automated Testing Manual Testing
- Testers require to conducting specific tool to
execute the test.
- Cost effectiveness
- Programming knowledge is required.
- Less staff’s required but tools are expensive.
- Difficult to depend on automated, some app’s
area still has to test manually.
- Tester has to write a test case and executes on
the application manually.
- More likely to cost.
- Not programming knowledge is required.
- Skilled testers and staffs required.
- Testing apps on real device is time-consuming
[41]

- Automated avoid overloaded work and save
more times.
- Requirements does not changing frequently.
- Staffs Training expensive.
- Manual testing is more time considered to
perform a test case.
- Requirements more likely to changing
frequently.
8. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
This paper is managed to answer the most demandable questions related to each mobile app’s
testing techniques, whether to conduct automated or manual testing. Tests were executed for both
case study applications by Monkey Talk open source in order to identify bugs and errors in both
case studies. Moreover, it is difficult decision for the testers to decide whether adopt automated or
manual testing environments, for this reason, tester has to investigate in selected tool’s limitation
before the testing strategy had has planned. In fact, it is necessary for the testers to keep in mind
testing objectives, testing has to be performed on many combination of devices, browsers, and
operating systems rather than just depends on one test technique. Automated testing cannot to be
judged by manual testing, for the following reasons:
1. Automated testing has only functional capabilities.
2. Automated testing has benefits of reducing time and cost.
3. Usability testing difficult to be conducted by automated testing.
4. More tests can be run in a shorter time in automated.
Finally, In order to obtain higher standard and quality mobile applications feedback, testing
different activities throughout the application’s development process and effective models,
methods, techniques and tools are essential to be considered by the testers. Furthermore, we
highly recommend testers to conduct both test techniques of automated and manual in order to
cope with the fundamental necessity of the rapid delivery of these applications, for these reasons,
combined both testing techniques will assist testers to identify some of the bugs and errors within
the apps efficiently while it might be difficult to identifies them in automated testing on the real
devices as we have predicted in our case studies result. To conclude, Automated testing is one of
the efficient methods to guarantee of app’s quality and performance within the mobile testing
environments compare to manual testing. In the future, we implement our Mobile App’s Testing
Matrix and Testing Strategy in several real time applications within enterprises in order to
enhance one powerful test technique for the testers to relays on.
REFERENCES
[1] Amalfitano, D. Fasolino, A. Tramontana, P. and Federico, N. (2011). A GUI Crawling-based
technique for Android Mobile Application Testing.
[2] Bach, J.(1999). General Functionality and Stability Test Procedure. [online] Available at:
http://www.satisfice.com/tools/procedure.pdf [Accessed 15th August 2014].
[3] Bartley, M.(2008). “Improved time to market through au tomated software testing”. Automation
Testing, [Online] Available at: http://www.testingexperience.com [Accessed 23rd September 2014].
[4] Bastien, C.(2008). “Usability Testing : A Review of Some Methodological and Technical Aspects of
the Method.” In ternational Journal of Medical Informatics 79(4): e18–e23. [Online] Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.12.004. [Accessed 23rd November 2014]. Available at:
[5] Bridgwater, A.(2012). MonkeyTalk Tests iOS/Android Apps In The Mobile Jungle. [online]
http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/monkeytalk-tests-iosandroid-apps-in-the/232602236 [Accessed
13th October 2014].
[6] Brown, M.(2011). Mobile Developers Get Best Practices For App Testing. [online] Available at:
http://www.mobileapptesting.com/mobile-developers-get-best-practices-for-app-testing/2011/03/.
[Accessed 3rd September 2014].

[7] Brown, M.(2011). MFiobile Functional Testing: Manual or Automated?. [online] Available at:
http://www.mobileapptesting.com/mobile-functional-testing-manual-orautomated/2011/05/>.
[Accessed 8th Auguest 2014].
[8] Corbett, J.(2012). Quality Assurance testing in a mobile world. [online] Available at:
http://www.peteramayer.com/quality-assurance-testing-in-a-mobile-world>. [Accessed 26th October
2014].
[9] Developer.android.com (n. d). Testing. Retrieved from
https://developer.android.com/tools/testing/index.html [Accessed 6th November 2014].
[10] Developer.apple.com (2014). Testing and Debugging in iOS Simulator. Retrieved from
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/ides/conceptual/iOS_Simulator_Guide/Testing
ontheiOSSimulator/TestingontheiOSSimulator.html [Accessed 6thNovember 2014].
[11] Dimitrios, V. (2013). “Estimation for Unit Root Testing.”
[12] Dongsong, Z. and Adipat, B. (2005). “Challenges Metho dologies, and Issues in the Usability Testing
of Mobile Applications”, International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, Vol. 18, 3
[13] Experitest.com (n. d). SeeTestAutomation. Retrieved from http://experitest.com/support/getting-
started/download-2-2/ [Accessed 6th November 2014].
[14] Freeman, H. (2002). “Softawre Testing”. IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, P.48-50.
[online] Available at:
https://confluence.xpeqt.com/confluence/download/attachments/10322031/01028373.pdf [Accessed
23rd June 2014].
[15] Galorath, D. (2012). Software Project Failure Costs Billions. Better Estimation & Planning Can Help.
[online] Available at: http://www.galorath.com/wp/software-project-failure-costs-billions- better-
estimation-planning-can-help.php [Accessed 16 September 2014]
[16] Gao Z. and Long, X. (2010). Adaptive Random Testing of Mobile Application. P.297, Vol 2.
[Online] Available at:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5485442 [Accessed
26rd September 2013].
[17] Gorillalogic.com (n.d). MonkyTalk Open source Automation Testing Tool. [online] Available at:
https://www.gorillalogic.com/monkeytalk [Accessed 18 August 2014].
[18] Graham, D., Veenendaal, E., Evans, I. and Black, R. (2008). Foundations of Software Testing: ISTQB
Certification. UK: Cangage Learning EMEA.
[19] Harty, J.(2009). “A Practical Guide to Testing Wireless Smartphone Applications”. Synthesis
Lectures on Mobile and Pervasive Computing. 4(1), pp. 1 – 99. [online] Available at:
www.morganclaypool.com [Accessed 11th October 2014].
[20] Haller, K.(2013). “Mobile Testing”. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 38, 6, 1-8.
[Online] Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2532780.2532813 (November 3rd, 2014).
[21] Heo,J., Ham, D., Park, S., Song, C. and Yoon, W. (2009). "A Framework for Evaluating the Usability
of Mobile Phones Based on Multi-level, Hierarchical Model of Usability Factors," Interacting with
Computers, Vol. 21(4), pp. 263-275
[22] Hetzel, B.(1998). The complete guide to software testing. (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons,
[23] Jacob, J.and Tharakan, M. (2012). “Roadblocks and their workaround, while testing Mobile
Applications”.The Magazine for Professional Testers. P8-16, Vol 19. [Online] Available at:
http://www.testingexperience.com/ [Accessed 23rd September 2014].
[24] Jorgensen, P. (2002). “Software testing: acraftman’s approach,” CRCPress, p.359.
[25] Kaner, C. (2002). Black Box Software Testing (Professional Seminar), Risk Based Testing And Risk-
Based Test Management, [online] Available at: www.testing-education.org.> [Accessed 12 August
2014]
[26] Keynote.com (n. d). Mobile Testing. Retrieved from
http://www.keynote.com/solutions/testing/mobile-testing [Accessed 6th November 2014].
[27] Khan, M.and Sadiq, M. (2011). “Analysis of Black Box Software Testing Techniques: A Case
Study”. IEEE. pp. 1-5. [online] Available at:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6107931 [Accessed 2nd May 2014].
[28] Kim, H., Choi, B. and Wong, W (2009). Performance Testing based on Test-Driven Development for
Mobile Applications.P612-617. [online] Available at:
http://dl.acm.org.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/citation.cfm?id=15163 49 [Accessed 24rd July 2014].
[29] Knott, D. (2012).” The Enterprise Mobile Applications Development Framework”, Best Practices in
Mobile App Testing.P26, [online] Available at: http://www.testingexperience.com/ [Accessed 23rd
June 2014].

[30] Kumiega, A. and Vliet, B. (2008). Quality Money Management: Process Engineering and Best
Practices for Systematic Trading and Investment. USA: Academic Press.
[31] Lewis, W. (2008). Software Testing and Continuous Quality Improvement. (3rd ed.). United States:
Auerbach.
[32] Liu, Z. Gao, X. Long, X. (2010). “Adaptive Random Testing of Mobile”, Computer Engineering and
Technology (ICCET), 2010 2nd International Conference on , vol.2, no., pp.V2-297,V2-301, 16-18.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5485442&tag=1
[Accessed 24rd June 2014].
[33] Milano, D. (2001). Android Application Testing Guide. USA: Packt Publishing Ltd.
[34] Muccini, H., Di Francesco, A. and Esposito, P. (2012), "Software testing of mobile applications:
Challenges and future research directions," Automation of Software Test (AST), 2012 7th
International Workshop on , vol., no., pp.29,35 [online] Available at:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6228987&isnumber=6228973 [Accessed
23rd September 2012].
[35] Myers, G., Badgett, T. and Sandler, C. (2012) The Art of Software Testing. (3rd ed.). Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[36] Naik, S. and Tripathy, P. (2008) Software Testing and Quality Assurance: Theory and Practice.
Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[37] Nidhra, S. and Dondeti, J. (2012). “Black Box and White Box Testing Techniques- A Ltreature
Review”. International Journal of Embedded Systems and Applications (IJESA) Vol.2, No.2 [online]
Available at: http://airccse.org/journal/ijesa/papers/2212ijesa04.pdf (Accessed November 12, 2014).
[38] Perfectomobile.com (n.d). Test Automation. Retrieved from
http://www.perfectomobile.com/solution/test-automation [Accessed 6th November 2014].
[39] Quilter, P. (2011). “Automated Software Testing with Traditional Tools & Beyond”. Automated
Software Testing with Traditional Tools & Beyond. P20, Vol 3 (5). [Online] Available at:
www.automatedtestinginstitute.com[Accessed 23rd July 2014].
[40] Selvam, R. (2011). ‘Mobile Software Testing – Automated Test Case Design Strategies. International
Journal on Computer Science and Engineering’ (IJCSE) Vol.3.
[41] She, S., Sivapalan, S. and Warren, I., (2009). Hermes: A Tool for Testing Mobile Device
Applications. Software Engineering Conference, 2009. ASWEC '09. Australian , vol., no.,
pp.121,130, 14-17 [Online] Available at:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5076634 [Accessed 12th October 2014].
[42] Sofokleous, A. and Andreou, A. (2008). “Automatic, evolutionary test data generation for dynamic
software testing”. Journal of Systems and Software.P 1883–1898, Vol 81 (11). [online] Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S0164121208000101 [Accessed
24rd July 2014].
[43] Stottlemyer, D. (2001). Automated Web Testing Toolkit: Expert Methods for Testing and Managing
Web Applications. Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
[44] Testplant.com (n. d). eggplant. Retrieved from http://docs.testplant.com/?q=content/using-eggplant
[Accessed 6th November 2014].
[45] uTest.com (2011). Software Security Testing. The Keys to Launching a Safe, Secure Application
http://c0954852.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/uTest_eBook_Mobile_Testing.pdf [Accessed 20
Septemeber 2014].
[46] Wynne, M. and Hellosoy, A. (2012). The Cucumber Book: Behaviour-Driven Development for
Testers and Developer. (1st ed.) North Carolina: Pragmatic Programmers, LLC.
AUTHOR
Bakhtiar M. Amen is a PhD research candidate in School of Computer Science at the
University of Huddersfield. Bakhtiar holds BSc in Software Engineering and MSc in
advanced computer science at the University of Huddersfield. Bakhtiar’s research
interests are in the areas of mobile application testing, mobile data age, cloud
computing, big data and big data analytics, distributed computing, and Internet
services. He has published over 4 international journal and conference papers. He is a
recipient of 2013 VC Scholarship from the University of Huddersfield. He is a
member of British Computer Society BCS.

Mobile application testing matrix

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to Mobile application testing matrix (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Mobile application testing matrix