
The advent of mobile apps has opened the
world of development to an unprecedented number of people. People
without a formal software development or software testing background are creating apps
because they have an idea and mobile app creation is fairly accessible. This is
awesome and injects a wealth of outside ideas into the field. But it is
also the reason mobile app quality is so hit and miss. Bob Binder,
President of System Verification Associates, pointed out in a uTest Testing the Limits interview
that many mobile apps are created by individuals, rather than companies
or development houses. Binder calls these people “App Artisans.”
“App artisans often have a good intuitive
sense of ‘coolness,’” he said in the interview. “But they don’t as
often have an appreciation of how easily dependencies and oversights can
lead to both annoying and catastrophic bugs. And, they don’t know how
to be systematic in searching for these bugs.”
Even professionally produced mobile apps
are lacking in quality when compared to other software. The iPhone was
released five years ago, but many companies still regard mobile apps as a
lesser medium.
“The mentality around mobile testing is,
‘Most of the app should work. What’s the big deal if there are
defects?’” Steve Woodward told TechTarget.
Because these companies are already
behind when it comes to mobile apps, they are sacrificing application
testing in their rush to market. The 2012-2013 World Quality Report
produced by HP, Capgemini and Sogeti found that only 31% of the 1,500
enterprise-level businesses surveyed currently formally test their
mobile apps.
“Enterprises seem to have been caught by
surprise at the speed by which mobile application adoption has taken
place,” said Murat Aksu, vice president and global head of HP Alliance
for Capgemini, in a Network Computing
article. “We’re finding enterprise quality assurance teams are falling
behind. They’re not carrying out an end-to-end process that includes
testing for functionality, usability, performance and security
concerns.”
The numbers don’t get much better when broken down by testing type.