Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 229

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Coverage criteria for GUI testing

Memon, Atif M., Soffa, Mary Lou, Pollack, Martha E.·2001·Proceedings of the 8th European software engineering conference held jointly with 9th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering

Abstract

A widespread recognition of the usefulness of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) has established their importance as critical components of today's software. GUIs have characteristics different from traditional software, and conventional testing techniques do not directly apply to GUIs. This paper's focus is on coverage critieria for GUIs, important rules that provide an objective measure of test quality. We present new coverage criteria to help determine whether a GUI has been adequately tested. These coverage criteria use events and event sequences to specify a measure of test adequacy. Since the total number of permutations of event sequences in any non-trivial GUI is extremely large, the GUI's hierarchical structure is exploited to identify the important event sequences to be tested. A GUI is decomposed into GUI components, each of which is used as a basic unit of testing. A representation of a GUI component, called an event-flow graph, identifies the interaction of events within a component and intra-component criteria are used to evaluate the adequacy of tests on these events. The hierarchical relationship among components is represented by an integration tree, and inter-component coverage criteria are used to evaluate the adequacy of test sequences that cross components. Algorithms are given to construct event-flow graphs and an integration tree for a given GUI, and to evaluate the coverage of a given test suite with respect to the new coverage criteria. A case study illustrates the usefulness of the coverage report to guide further testing and an important correlation between event-based coverage of a GUI and statement coverage of its software's underlying code.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/503209.503244

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 229

Metadata

Authors
Memon, A. M., Soffa, M. L., & Pollack, M. E.
Venue
Proceedings of the 8th European software engineering conference held jointly with 9th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2001-09
Pages
256-267
OpenAlex
W2023027674
Cited by
229
References
0
FWCI
2.91
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Coverage criteria for GUI testing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/503209.503244
The paper
Memon, A. M., Soffa, M. L., & Pollack, M. E. (2001). Coverage criteria for GUI testing. Proceedings of the 8th European software engineering conference held jointly with 9th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1145/503209.503244

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.