Experience-based testing
Experience-based testing is the ISTQB category of test techniques that rely on the tester's skill, intuition and knowledge of similar systems instead of a formal model of the requirements or the code. The Foundation syllabus names error guessing, exploratory testing and checklist-based testing, and presents them as a complement to black-box and white-box techniques.
The longer version
Black-box techniques such as equivalence partitioning derive tests from the specification, and white-box techniques derive them from code structure. Experience-based techniques start from the person. The tester draws on what they know of this application, of similar ones, of the mistakes developers typically make and of how real users behave, and designs tests from that knowledge.
Three techniques sit in the category. Error guessing anticipates likely defects and aims tests at them. Exploratory testing designs and runs tests together in a session, learning the product as it goes, and is often organised with a test charter. Checklist-based testing works from a list of conditions to verify, which the tester builds from experience or from earlier defects and which fixes the scope without scripting every step.
Teams reach for these techniques when specifications are thin or late, when time is short, and when the formal techniques have run out of ideas. ISTQB positions them alongside the others, not in place of them. Results depend on who does the work, so teams record charters, notes and the checklists used; with that record a session is repeatable enough to review, and a second tester can build on it.
Common questions
What is experience-based testing?
Experience-based testing is a group of techniques where tests come from the tester's knowledge, skill and intuition and not from a formal analysis of the specification or code.
Which techniques are experience-based?
The ISTQB Foundation syllabus names error guessing, exploratory testing and checklist-based testing as the experience-based techniques.
When should a team use experience-based testing?
A team should use experience-based testing when requirements are incomplete, when there is little time to design formal tests, or after the formal techniques have been applied and a tester wants to probe the cases they miss. It also suits new features that nobody has specified in detail.
Is experience-based testing the same as ad hoc testing?
Experience-based techniques can be run with a charter, a checklist or a written list of guesses, so a second tester can read what was covered. Ad hoc testing is the same knowledge used with none of that around it: no plan, no notes and no record of what was tried. Without those, a session is hard to repeat or review.
How can experience-based testing be made repeatable?
A team makes the work repeatable by writing a charter for each session, keeping notes on what was explored and found, and maintaining checklists of the checks that have paid off. A second tester can then continue from the record instead of starting over.
Bug reports that arrive ready to triage.
Collect replay, console, network and browser context with the Free plan.