Automated Acceptance Testing: A Literature Review and an Industrial Case Study <s> Learning Fit <s> This report describes experiences of introducing executable acceptance testing in senior software engineering courses. Students in an agile environment completed a five iteration project with significant portion of requirements specified as executable acceptance tests. Furthermore, students were required to write their test suites for an additional component. Ability to learn and utilize the FIT acceptance testing framework is evaluated to find out if FIT tests can be used to replace requirement documents. The results of a survey of students' perceptions and experiences were encouraging. <s> BIB001 </s> Automated Acceptance Testing: A Literature Review and an Industrial Case Study <s> Learning Fit <s> This descriptive case study is about the dynamics of a software engineering team using executable acceptance test-driven development in a real world project. The experiences of a customer, a developer, and a tester were discussed. The observed consensus among multiple stakeholders speaks of the effectiveness of the practice in the given context. <s> BIB002
Judging from the reviewed articles, Fit seems an easy tool to learn. The average introduction is a 3-4 hour crash course supplemented with relevant readings. Training usually only covers the basics of the tool, so any advanced use of Fit is bound to be gained by continuous use. Melnik et al. reports on a university course where 90% of the students managed to deliver their Fit test assignments after a brief introduction, indicating that the students found it easy to learn  . These students were however computer graduates. How easy is it for less technology-savvy people, like most customers are, to learn Fit? Unfortunately there isn't much clear evidence. In another study by Melnik et al. they found that while business graduates (playing the role as customers) initially had some more problems learning the tool (50% found it hard to learn), they eventually produced good specifications with ease [11] . The study reports that customers in partnership with IT professionals (both roles played by students) can effectively specify acceptance tests. An interesting finding in this article is that teams mixed of business and computer graduates were no better at describing a good quality specification than pure computer graduate teams, even if the mixed teams should have more knowledge of the domain. The authors speculate that using Fit somehow bootstraps the business grads to the same level as the computer grads. These students were already taking an elected course in software engineering, and may so have been more interested and knowledgeable in this area. Related to this, Melnik and Maurer report that a company successfully adopted and used Fit tests. However, this specific customer had an information systems background BIB002 . One way of judging the ease of use is to check if people will continue to use it later or recommend it. Students that were asked if they would recommend using executable acceptance tests to colleagues, were on average positive to this (5 very likely, 6 somewhat likely out of 17) [11] . 52% of students in another study reported that they would chose Fit to define requirements, while more than two thirds would consider it BIB001 . Findings show that there was no correlation between the students' own perception of the value of the tool and the quality of the requirements specification they produced [11] . It seems, in those authors' opinion, that the subjects are not aware of the quality of the approach used. This does not necessarily mean that Fit is hard to master for non-technical persons; there is however not much empirical evidence for it being so.