Mistakes To Be Avoided While Performing UAT
Tags: user, acceptance, testing
Published: 2024-02-21 05:31:40

![Image description](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/490ix9g49h0g9jo35tzo.jpg)
User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is a critical final step before launching software applications into production. UAT allows actual users to validate that delivered solutions meet functional and usability expectations in realistic scenarios. When performed correctly, UAT reduces defects, improves user satisfaction, and ensures stakeholders’ sign-off.

However, even seasoned software teams often commit avoidable UAT mistakes which undermine objectives. These pitfalls lead to delayed launches, costly rework, and dissatisfied users stuck with subpar solutions. Being cognizant of common UAT slip-ups and proactively mitigating risks through good planning and execution is key for success.

**Incomplete Test Coverage**

A major UAT mistake is inadequately scoping test coverage of critical workflows and use cases. Teams anxious for fast user feedback fail to invest sufficient time mapping out key scenarios, user types, and requirements. They then make knee-jerk reactions compiling bare minimum scripts rather than methodical assessments of integration touchpoints, computational logic, and end-to-end processes. Such narrow coverage avenues lead to undiscovered defects and unhappy users down the road.

A best practice is collaboratively building out comprehensive test checklists spanning various workflow conditions, error paths, and data sets. Checklist validation from multiple user personas prevents uneven perspectives. Overlooking important test coverage areas can totally undermine UAT despite users technically validating whatever limited scenarios did execute. The right coverage focus ensures nothing major gets missed.

**Unstructured Execution**

Without structured UAT administration and metrics gathering, it becomes nearly impossible to determine required fixes, verify resolution, or approve readiness. When test cases lack documented expected steps, inputs and outcomes, test runs amount to unmanaged freestyle poking around applications. Such unguided exploration leaves too many questions unanswered regarding what specifically failed, which users uncovered which issues, and what pass/fail thresholds should be.

Establishing test scripts outlining a precise expected sequence of steps with predefined test data and expected results are mandatory. Script consistency, branching logic visibility, and clear pass/fail recording prepares the required evidence trail for fix verification as well as structured user feedback. Unstructured UAT delays all downstream processes awaiting fuzzy confirmation of problems and solutions.

**Unqualified Test Users**

Carefully selecting appropriately skilled test users across the actual user demographic pools is imperative for credible UAT findings. Novice users bring different perspectives than experienced super users. Technical managers have unique needs versus frontline operational staff. Unfortunately, teams often gravitate towards easily accessible users like themselves rather than investing efforts accessing representative target populations.

Recruiting balanced user coverage across junior, senior, functional areas, roles and usage modes prevents skewed feedback and myopic issues. The cost of unqualified user input is wasted UAT cycles playing down or completely missing true user impacting defects. Those gaps lead to costly post-launch rework and dissatisfied users struggling with hard to use production solutions.

**Insufficient Environment Setup**

While UAT happens in later phases, systems supporting user testing require the same meticulous configuration as production level infrastructure. When supporting environments lack sufficient test data, processing capacity, security or workflows mirroring true operational conditions, UAT loses credibility and introduces uncertainties regarding the validity of user experiences.

Technical teams own ensuring user testing happens on platforms mirroring the performance, interfaces, integrations and data schemes matching final production specifications. Anything short of correctly modeled environments guides users towards raising false positives or false negatives while missing defects Omitting essential pre-UAT environment provisions severely degrades UAT effectiveness.

**Inadequate Issue Tracking**

As users execute tests, documenting every single issue they encounter is critical for responsive issue resolution as well as release readiness reporting. Without clear logging and assignment of user-reported defects, fixes end up delayed, issues reoccur, and there is no evidential trail of closure. At times user feedback gets communicated through informal channels and fails to reach developers promptly or development teams lack disciplined issue tracking practices.

Implementing robust issue tracking with unique identifiers assigned to each user reported bug along with corresponding logs of technical fixes and re-validations streamlines UAT. Maintaining centralized issue logs lets leads assess progress, verify resolutions, and gain sign-off with clarity. Such formality prevents things falling through the cracks amid fluid UAT communications.

**Conclusion**

With Opkey’s no-code test automation, test discovery, and comprehensive reporting capabilities, teams can significantly accelerate their User Acceptance Testing cycles. By empowering all employees to create automated tests and focusing testing efforts on high-priority processes, Opkey helps organizations achieve optimal test coverage without compromising on scope or quality assurance. The easy-to-understand reports generated by Opkey allow issues to be quickly identified and addressed, leading to earlier bug detection and resolution. Overall, Opkey’s automation testing without coding streamlines UAT to help businesses deliver higher-quality applications on time and meet their goals.