{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,6,8]],"date-time":"2026-06-08T02:52:46Z","timestamp":1780887166346,"version":"3.54.1"},"publisher-location":"Cham","reference-count":16,"publisher":"Springer International Publishing","isbn-type":[{"value":"9783319916019","type":"print"},{"value":"9783319916026","type":"electronic"}],"license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2018,1,1]],"date-time":"2018-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1514764800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:p>It is estimated that 85% of the defects in the developed software are originated from ambiguous, incomplete and wishful thinking software requirements. Natural language is often used to write software requirements specifications as well as user requirements. However, natural language specifications can be confusing and hard to understand. Some agile methodologists consider that acceptance tests are more precise and accurate sources of information about the customer\u2019s needs than descriptions in natural language. Several studies have addressed the use of acceptance tests as software requirements specification. Therefore, none of the previous studies has performed experiments to compare the applicability of different acceptance testing techniques in order to support an organization in the selection of one technique over another. This paper addresses this problem reporting an experiment conducted with undergraduate students in Computer Science. This experiment compares the applicability of two acceptance testing techniques (Fit tables and Gherkin language) as software requirements specification. This research tries to answer three questions: (a) Which technique is the easiest to learn in order to specify acceptance test scenarios? (b) Which technique requires less effort to specify acceptance tests? (c) Which technique is the best one to communicate software requirements? The results show that there is no sufficient evidence to affirm that one technique is easier to specify test scenarios or better to communicate software requirements. Whereas, the comparison of effort in terms of time to specify acceptance testing shows that the mean time to specify test scenarios using Gherkin language is lower than Fit tables.\n<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-91602-6_7","type":"book-chapter","created":{"date-parts":[[2018,5,16]],"date-time":"2018-05-16T13:13:43Z","timestamp":1526476423000},"page":"104-119","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":9,"title":["Automated Acceptance Tests as Software Requirements: An Experiment to Compare the Applicability of Fit Tables and Gherkin Language"],"prefix":"10.1007","author":[{"given":"Ernani C\u00e9sar","family":"dos Santos","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Patr\u00edcia","family":"Vilain","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2018,5,17]]},"reference":[{"key":"7_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Sarmiento, E., Leite, J.C.S.P., Almentero, E.: C&L: Generating model-based test cases from natural language requirements descriptions. In: 2014 IEEE 1st International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Testing (RET), pp. 32\u201338 (2014)","DOI":"10.1109\/RET.2014.6908677"},{"key":"7_CR2","unstructured":"Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering. 9th edn. Pearson Education, Boston (2015)"},{"key":"7_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Torchiano, M., Ricca, F., Penta, M.D.: \u201cTalking tests\u201d: a preliminary experimental study on fit user acceptance tests. In: First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007), pp. 464\u2013466 (2007)","DOI":"10.1109\/ESEM.2007.76"},{"key":"7_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"270","DOI":"10.1016\/j.infsof.2008.01.007","volume":"51","author":"F Ricca","year":"2009","unstructured":"Ricca, F., Torchiano, M., Penta, M.D., Ceccato, M., Tonella, P.: Using acceptance tests as a support for clarifying requirements: A series of experiments. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51, 270\u2013283 (2009)","journal-title":"Inf. Softw. Technol."},{"key":"7_CR5","unstructured":"Ricca, F., Torchiano, M., Penta, M.D., Ceccato, M., Tonella, P.: On the use of executable fit tables to support maintenance and evolution tasks. In: Third International ERCIM Symposium on Software Evolution, pp. 83\u201392 (2007)"},{"key":"7_CR6","series-title":"Lecture Notes in Computer Science","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"593","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-319-38791-8_55","volume-title":"Web Engineering","author":"D Clerissi","year":"2016","unstructured":"Clerissi, D., Leotta, M., Reggio, G., Ricca, F.: A lightweight semi-automated acceptance test-driven development approach for web applications. In: Bozzon, A., Cudre-Maroux, P., Pautasso, C. (eds.) ICWE 2016. LNCS, vol. 9671, pp. 593\u2013597. Springer, Cham (2016). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-38791-8_55"},{"key":"7_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Melnik, G., Maurer, F.: The practice of specifying requirements using executable acceptance tests in computer science courses. In: Companion to the 20th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, pp. 365\u2013370. ACM, San Diego (2005)","DOI":"10.1145\/1094855.1094974"},{"key":"7_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Wanderley, F., Silva, A., Ara\u00fajo, J.: Evaluation of BehaviorMap: a user-centered behavior language. In: 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 309\u2013320 (2015)","DOI":"10.1109\/RCIS.2015.7128891"},{"key":"7_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"Longo, D.H., Vilain P.: Creating user scenarios through user interaction diagrams by non-technical customers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, SEKE, pp. 330\u2013335 (2015)","DOI":"10.18293\/SEKE2015-179"},{"key":"7_CR10","unstructured":"IEEE: IEEE Standard for Software Verification and Validation Plans. IEEE Std 1012-1986. IEEE (1986)"},{"key":"7_CR11","volume-title":"Fit for Developing Software: Framework for Integrated Tests","author":"R Mugridge","year":"2005","unstructured":"Mugridge, R., Cunningham, W.: Fit for Developing Software: Framework for Integrated Tests. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River (2005)"},{"key":"7_CR12","unstructured":"Rose, S., Wynne, M., Helles\u00f8y, A.: The Cucumber for Java Book: Behaviour-Driven Development for Testers and Developers. 1st edn. Pragmatic Bookshelf (2015)"},{"key":"7_CR13","volume-title":"Test-Driven Development: By Example","author":"K Beck","year":"2003","unstructured":"Beck, K.: Test-Driven Development: By Example. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2003)"},{"key":"7_CR14","series-title":"Lecture Notes in Computer Science","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"93","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-540-73101-6_13","volume-title":"Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming","author":"C Deng","year":"2007","unstructured":"Deng, C., Wilson, P., Maurer, F.: FitClipse: a fit-based eclipse plug-in for executable acceptance test driven development. In: Concas, G., Damiani, E., Scotto, M., Succi, G. (eds.) XP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4536, pp. 93\u2013100. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-540-73101-6_13"},{"key":"7_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/978-3-642-29044-2","volume-title":"Experimentation in Software Engineering \u2013 An Introduction","author":"C Wohlin","year":"2012","unstructured":"Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., H\u00f6st, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wessl\u00e9n, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering \u2013 An Introduction. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)"},{"key":"7_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/978-1-4757-3304-4","volume-title":"Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation","author":"N Juristo","year":"2001","unstructured":"Juristo, N., Moreno, A.: Basics of Software Engineering Experimentation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2001)"}],"container-title":["Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing","Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/978-3-319-91602-6_7","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,3,13]],"date-time":"2024-03-13T18:46:45Z","timestamp":1710355605000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/978-3-319-91602-6_7"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2018]]},"ISBN":["9783319916019","9783319916026"],"references-count":16,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-319-91602-6_7","relation":{},"ISSN":["1865-1348","1865-1356"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1865-1348","type":"print"},{"value":"1865-1356","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2018]]},"assertion":[{"value":"17 May 2018","order":1,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ChapterHistory","label":"Chapter History"}},{"value":"XP","order":1,"name":"conference_acronym","label":"Conference Acronym","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"International Conference on Agile Software Development","order":2,"name":"conference_name","label":"Conference Name","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"Porto","order":3,"name":"conference_city","label":"Conference City","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"Portugal","order":4,"name":"conference_country","label":"Conference Country","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"2018","order":5,"name":"conference_year","label":"Conference Year","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"21 May 2018","order":7,"name":"conference_start_date","label":"Conference Start Date","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"25 May 2018","order":8,"name":"conference_end_date","label":"Conference End Date","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"19","order":9,"name":"conference_number","label":"Conference Number","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"xpu2018","order":10,"name":"conference_id","label":"Conference ID","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}},{"value":"https:\/\/www.agilealliance.org\/xp2018\/","order":11,"name":"conference_url","label":"Conference URL","group":{"name":"ConferenceInfo","label":"Conference Information"}}]}}