170 likes | 286 Vues
This paper presents a novel approach to cross-browser visual layout testing through machine learning. By focusing on image features, we aim to automate the visual testing process, reducing the reliance on human labor. Our methodology employs web page segmentation into regions of interest (ROIs) and analyzes positional and size correlations across different browsers. With a detection recall rate of 98% and a precision of 66%, our results show promise for identifying visual discrepancies effectively. Future work will explore integrating image processing with traditional DOM methods for enhanced testing.
E N D
Browserbite: Accurate Cross-Browser Testing via Machine Learning Over Image Features Nataliia Semenenko*, Tõnis Saar** and Marlon Dumas* *{nataliia,marlon.dumas}@ut.ee, Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Estonia **tonis.saar@stacc.ee, Browsrbite and STACC, Tallinn, Estonia
Outline • Introduction • Visual cross-browser testing • Machine learning model • Results and future work
Cross-browser visual testing Where’sthatbutton? Internet Explorer 9 Internet Explorer 8
Goal • Develop method for cross-browser visual layout testing • Replace human labor in visual testing • Evaluate detected errors
Web page Static image Methods • DOM (Document Object Model) based: Mogotest (www.mogotest.com), Browsera (www.browsera.com) • Image processing – non-invasive black box testing – Our current approach
Web page visual segmentation • Image segmentation into regions of interest (ROI) • ROI comparison www.htcomp.ee
ROI comparison • Position • Size • Geometry • Correlation VS ROI from WIN7 Chrome ROI from WIN7 IE8
Visual testing results • Test set of 140 web pages from alexa.com • 98% recall • 66% precision Example of true positive Example of false positive
Image ROI Web page Static image segmentation comparison ( into ROIs ) ROI comparison + ML Classification
Machine learning • 140 most popular websites of Estonia according to www.alexa.com • 1200 potential incompatibilities • 40 subjects from 6 countries • Two classes :False positive vs True postive • Each ROI pair had 8 judgments • Inter-rater reliability 0,94
ROI features • 10 histogram bins • Correlation index • Horizontal and vertical position • Horizontal and vertical size • Configuration index • Mismatch Density
Machine learning • Neural network • Three layers • 11 neurons in hidden layer • Five-fold cross-validation • Classification tree
Results and conclusions • Choudhary, S.R., Prasad, M.R., and Orso, A. (2012). CrossCheck: Combining Crawling and Differencing to Better Detect Cross-browser Incompatibilities in Web Applications. (ICST), 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference On, pp. 171–180. • Choudhary, S.R., Versee, H., and Orso, A. (2010). WEBDIFF: Automated identification of cross-browser issues in web applications. (ICSM), pp. 1–10.
Future work • Combination of image processing and DOM methods • Dynamic content suppression