The last few years have seen a massive shift toward automated testing, wiping out the manual handling of various tasks. But the adoption of this change has been so quick that many industry players haven’t been able to contextualize it properly yet.
There isn’t a day when there are people making claims that automation will replace manual testing services or that user acceptability testing, unit testing, and integration testing are no longer important in today’s digital world.
This is not necessarily true!
We may anticipate that in the future, machine learning, AI, and robotic process automation will increasingly augment manual knowledge. Automation, however, will never act as a proxy for manual tasks because no robot can be a substitute for human inspection at present.
In this blog, we will aim to highlight nine of the most significant reasons that make manual testing an essential task for every software development lifecycle. Before we jump on to learn all the reasons that make manual testing an important task to pursue, let us quickly get some insights into manual testing as a process, and what tools and techniques are followed to keep the task streamlined.
Manual Testing: Definition, Types, & More
Manual testing is one of the most basic forms of software testing. Under this, the test cases are produced and executed manually by the testers without any help from automation. Manual testing allows testers to identify bugs or defects in the applications in the most primitive manner. Therefore, it helps in locating issues and critical bugs that automation tools might not be able to find. Besides, manual testing brings a human perspective to testing things allowing testers to define and reach more realistic goals in terms of functionality and output.
Coming to the types, there are a total 6 types of manual testing:
- Black Box Testing
- White Box Testing
- Unit Testing
- System Testing
- Integration Testing
- Acceptance Testing
However, the process to perform manual testing works by reading and understanding the software project documentation and having a thorough idea of Application Under Test (AUT). Based on all the information, the test cases are drafted including all the requirements.
Furthermore, all these test cases are reviewed for baseline and executed on AUT for bug reporting. It is done to foster quick fixing and re-execute the failing tests for product validation.
With all that briefing on manual testing, let us quickly explore the reasons that make manual testing a requisite for future development projects.
Nine reasons that will help you understand why manual testing is essential:
-
For small projects, manual testing is less expensive than automation testing
Smaller projects typically have fewer functionalities and less volume regression. Even while automation testing has a higher ROI, it still makes more sense in the long run to wait to invest in an expensive automated installation until you have a significant project underway.
-
Compared to machines, humans are infinitely better at understanding other people
When it comes to identifying user motivations, manual testers outperform algorithms. This is especially true for bite-sized behavioral insights that show why some functions work and others don’t.
From a business standpoint, people can immediately highlight the operations that matter to customers and the processes they need. They can discern the courses they gravitate toward or avoid, the points when they become trapped or overwhelmed, and the moments when they quit up.
-
Automated tools are unable to assess an application’s aesthetic elements
Cosmetic elements like text size, color, contrast, and button length cannot be accurately determined by an algorithm. Only a person can decide whether the red color—crimson, scarlet, ruby, or a particular gradation of burgundy—matches the client’s specifications.
Additionally, it won’t be possible to test whether element positioning on a page is consistent across mobile devices, browsers, and operating systems by using automated test suites. Some automated scripts call for tests based on items’ x and y coordinates, and those vary depending on the size of the screen.
-
Pass-fail testing carried out by automated tools may become erratic
When automated scripts are functioning smoothly, many managers begin to relax. They falsely believe that the pass-fail results are sufficient, and they doze off when it comes to thorough evaluations of test execution. The strategy starts to crumble from within when managers indulge in a snooze fest in the belief that pressing a button will fix everything.
However, the truth is wherever you least expect them, bugs can be found. It is still possible for testers to uncover bugs even when testing for specific use cases. For some projects, testers who were specifically looking for other things ended up finding the majority of the bugs. In such circumstances, automation testing cannot be used as it can only detect errors for which the test is programmed.
-
There are too many components in activity-tracking applications for them to be automatically tested
Activity tracking applications are designed with numerous interconnected systems having a wide range of components. The components communicate with one another in real time (printers, monitors, software, APIs, cloud services, etc.). Even the most powerful automated scripts can’t test all the different components simultaneously. Additionally, automated tools cannot accurately mimic human movements, regardless of what these applications track—exercise movements or space use.
-
Random testing is not possible with automated testing
In the end, customers don’t care about what goes on behind the scenes. To emphasize the argument, it should be noted that the convenience of turning on the light is more important than how electricity functions.
For this reason, random testing is extremely important. It enables manual testers to evaluate the program’s usability without having any prior knowledge of its internal workings. Also, it enables testers to see if end users can easily find their way around it or not.
-
Manual testing makes it simpler to implement minor changes
An occasional adjustment, such as changing an ID or a button’s class, has no adverse effects on a manual tester’s performance. Such tasks can be completed in the field or even between jobs. On the other hand, automated test scripts demand code changes even for tweaking the smallest elements of the user interface. Making program modifications while the application is in test mode simply takes too long.
-
Programming knowledge is not necessary for manual testing
The truth is that many competent testers lack coding skills. They wouldn’t be testing programs if they could code. But given the current DevOps and Agile frameworks’ need for cooperation, their expertise in other areas is in high demand. In other words, analytical and critical thinking abilities are necessary for good manual testers.
Like skilled detectives, they possess the investigation skills and years of expertise to find flaws and make educated guesses about where bugs like to hide. They have a talent for listening and diplomacy, and they are also strong communicators. Additionally, all diligent manual testers have a certain level of technical understanding. It includes including information about domain, system administration, networks, and databases. Additionally, they have the ability to prioritize risk in order to avoid disastrous outcomes.
-
Tests cannot all be automated
Even while complete automation sounds nice, it is not practical over the long term. It’s unlikely that automation will always be able to deliver outcomes that are error-free. Also, there will always be chances that some parts of the system would require human review. This can result in unmanaged faults and the waste of resources if humans don’t fix the robots’ mistakes.
Wrapping Up!!
In the end, manual testers examine software intended for and utilized by people. As a result, as they transition between features, they are constructed with consideration for people’s emotions and mental processes. Due to the enjoyment factor, these details are much more crucial in every software. And therefore, manual testing becomes an essential for checking the human factor associated with any technology or solution.
All the best!
Also Read: Cybersecurity management
