This article lists common software problems that may exist in the software under test during black-box testing. It will not discuss basic software testing concepts and common techniques in detail, but only describes several problems encountered during black-box testing and provides personal reference testing opinions and preventative measures, hoping to offer some help to beginners. As the saying goes, "clothes make the man," and a good appearance can often attract attention, stimulate customers' (users') desire to buy, and ultimately achieve commercial benefits. The same applies to software design. A large part of the huge commercial success of Windows XP came from its departure from the previous rigid, gray interface that emphasized "applications," designing the interface from a "user experience" perspective, making it more user-friendly. In the current trend of software design, good human-computer interface design is increasingly valued by system analysts and designers. However, how to test the designed human-computer interface (including help, etc.) and give an objective and fair evaluation is rarely seen in the media. This article attempts to provide some testing opinions and principles from the perspectives of commonality and individuality analysis, which are simple and easy to implement. It aims to stimulate discussion and provide insights for readers. We know that "without rules, there can be no order." While emphasizing individuality in software interface design, we must not forget that software interface design must first adhere to rules—simplicity, consistency, and ease of use. This is the fundamental principle of all software interface design and testing, and it defines the overall positioning of a software's human-computer interface when it stands out. A visually appealing and well-organized human-computer interface eliminates the unfamiliarity new users feel with the software, making it easier for experienced users to get started, fully utilize their existing experience, and minimize errors. Therefore, when testing the software's human-computer interface (combined with the design review and system testing phases), we can test it from the following perspectives: Consistency Testing Consistency is a fundamental requirement for software human-computer interfaces. The goal is to enable users to quickly become familiar with the software's operating environment while avoiding ambiguity in understanding related software operations. This requires us to determine whether the software's human-computer interface can exist as a whole during testing. Here are some reference points for conducting consistency testing: --Consistent prompt format --Consistent menu format --Consistent help format --Consistent terminology in prompts, menus, and help --Consistent alignment of controls --Consistent appearance, layout, and interaction between input and output interfaces --Consistent command language syntax --Consistent appearance, layout, and interaction between related interfaces with similar functions (e.g., product code search and product name search) --Consistent appearance, layout, and interaction with other products within the same product family (e.g., the Office product family) --Consistent text size, font, color, and alignment at the same level in the same prompt context (general, highlight, warning, etc.) --Consistent appearance and operation of multiple consecutive interfaces (exceptions may exist, such as the end-of-operation interface) Information feedback testing Assuming the system user is a complete novice, can you expect them to operate without making mistakes? But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that we all make mistakes, and we all have things we don't understand. How to avoid this requires our human-computer interfaces to have sufficient input checking and error message functions. Through feedback, users should receive error messages or words of praise for task completion. Unfortunately, many of our systems fall short in this regard. Here are some reference points for this type of testing: --Does the system accept correct user input and provide prompts (e.g., mouse focus jump)? -Does the system reject incorrect user input and provide prompts (e.g., pop-up warning box, sound)? -Are the prompts for incorrect user input correct and easy to understand (e.g., prompts like "ERR004" are incomprehensible)? -Does the system provide prompts for the specific input method before the user inputs (e.g., website registration process)? -Are the icons or graphics used in system prompts representative and warning-oriented? -Are the system prompts graded according to warning level and completion status (unless it involves destructive operations, please be gentle with users)? -Does the system provide highlighting functions on the interface (mainly menus and toolbars) (e.g., when the mouse moves over a control, the control icon enlarges or changes color to a high contrast with the background, returning to its original state when the mouse moves away)? -Does the system provide a success message when the user completes the operation (many systems lack this step, leaving users with no sense of accomplishment)? Interface Simplicity Test Is your human-computer interface as symmetrical and clean as your face? We often see systems with human-computer interface designs that resemble a patient with smallpox. Therefore, we must conduct pre-beautification checks. Below are some suggested items for checking: —Does the user interface have blank space? (An interface without blank space is cluttered and extremely difficult to use); —Are the spacing between controls consistent? —Are the controls aligned vertically and horizontally? —Is the menu depth within three levels? (It is recommended not to exceed three levels; you can refer to Microsoft's example); —Are the interface controls grouped according to function (menus, toolbars, radio button groups, checkbox groups, frames, etc.); —Do the interface controls themselves require sliders to display data? (It is recommended to use pagination and provide data sorting functionality); In fact, a fundamental principle for handling this type of test is: eliminate unnecessary elements and group as much as possible. Interface Aesthetics Test Is your interface aesthetically pleasing? Imagine a fashion model wearing inappropriate clothing; how would that look? I still remember a quote from my aesthetics teacher: "Beauty is a product of contrast." When testing the aesthetics of software interfaces, we must pay attention to the following suggestions: —Is the contrast between foreground and background colors too great? —Are the foreground and background colors lighter rather than darker shades (e.g., sky blue instead of dark blue or dark green)? —Does the system interface use more than three basic colors (generally, no more than three)? —Is the font size proportionate to the interface size (generally, use SimSun 9-12 for Chinese, Arial or Times New Roman for English, and SimSun or Mingchao for Japanese)? —Are interfaces with many buttons restricted to a zoom function (generally, zooming should be discouraged, and it's best to disable the maximize and minimize buttons)? —Does the system provide a user interface style customization function to meet individual user preferences? User behavior testing: "Science is the philosophy of laziness," a viewpoint from my university professor. Our computer systems are no exception. Does our system allow users to be as lazy as possible (less hand movements, less memorization of commands, etc.)? From this perspective, I believe you will gain a deeper understanding of the essence of user behavior testing. I believe no tester wants to do a lot and get little reward. Furthermore, users are, in a sense, unpredictable provocateurs and troublemakers. They rarely have much patience for systems on which they have high expectations. Below are some testing suggestions for judging whether users can "slack off" and "prevent venting." --Does the system have frequently used keyboard shortcuts? -Does it allow for reversible actions (Undo, Redo)? -Does the interface require users to remember it? -Does the system's response speed meet user expectations? -Is there a more convenient and intuitive way to replace the current interface display (e.g., using a menu interface instead of a command-line interface)? -Can users access help documentation (F1) at any time during use? -Does the system provide fuzzy search and keyword suggestion mechanisms to reduce the user's memory burden (e.g., the fuzzy sound setting in Tsinghua Ziguang Input Method)? -Does it provide an operation cancellation function for operations that may cause long waiting times? -Does it support reversible processing of erroneous operations, returning to the original state? -Does it use relevant controls (e.g., calendar, calculator, etc.) to replace manual keyboard input? -Does it use drop-down lists or keyword search for users to choose from when there are too many options? -Does the system have a recovery mechanism to return the user to the state before the error (e.g., Office XP file recovery) when an error occurs? -Are operations that can only be performed before or after user input prohibited (e.g., certain buttons are grayed out)? --Does the system provide WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) or "Next Steps" functionality (e.g., preview)? Industry Standard Testing Each industry has its own set of identifiers. Please avoid overlap with them as much as possible. This requires our human-computer interface testers to understand the symbolic systems of the software industry; otherwise, they will find it difficult to fulfill this important task. --Do the icons and sounds used in the interface conform to the symbolic system standards of the industry the software targets? --Do the terminology used in the interface conform to the naming standards of the industry the software targets? --Are the colors of the interface similar to the representative colors of the industry? --Does the background of the interface reflect the relevant industry themes (e.g., a background reflecting environmental protection generally uses natural scenery as a background)? --Does the design of the interface reflect the latest industry concepts and popular trends? Of course, every software should also have its own unique characteristics, reflecting the specific needs of the software developer and the target user group. For example, Microsoft's startup screen and Apple's startup screen are completely different. A software that retains its individuality is itself an "advertising spokesperson" for the software developer. It should highlight the developer without overshadowing the software itself. Below are some common software customization testing principles: --Does the software installation interface include an introduction to the organization or product, and its own icon? -Does the software installation interface differ from those generated by general installation tools (e.g., Kingsoft Translate's installation interface is quite distinctive)? -Does the main interface icon display the developer's icon? -Does the system startup process involve a long wait, and does it include or reflect the developer's information? -Does the software have a version checking mechanism, and does the version description include the developer's or user's identification? -Does the software interface's color scheme, background, and layout differ from similar products? If so, is it more concise and aesthetically pleasing? - Does the software interface reduce the frequency of user input compared to similar products? - Does the software interface offer more intuitive and prominent error prevention mechanisms and prompts compared to similar products? -Does the software interface provide corresponding operating mechanisms for specific groups or applications (e.g., Windows' magnifier)? [Summary] In conclusion, testing software human-computer interfaces requires a testing approach that is grounded in commonalities while also emphasizing individuality. Unlike other types of testing, software human-computer interface testing places greater emphasis on viewing the software from the user's perspective and aesthetic sensibilities. It cannot be too "common" nor too "refined." Often, a balance must be struck between emphasizing conformity and individuality. This urgently requires our interface testers to think critically and empathize deeply. This also presents a significant challenge to the aesthetic sensibilities of human-computer interface testers.