Hundreds of new apps and items are released every day on the market. Before they’re released to the general public, they go through a lot of testing. Automated testing can save time and is frequently used to replace manual testing. Manual testing, on the other hand, continues to play an important part in the quality assurance process.
Automated methods are gaining momentum in a variety of industries, and the software development process has been irrevocably changed as a result of these initiatives. Many teams are looking towards automating the great majority of their tests in order to ensure that repeatable tests are run while allowing quality assurance personnel to focus on other responsibilities. Many people have questioned whether manual testing is still essential, given all of these advantages. The answer is a resounding yes. While automation is beneficial, we should not yet submit it to our computer overlords. There are still a number of jobs that require manual testing.
This blog will go over eight reasons why manual testing is still important and why it should be utilized instead of automation.
1. Human Contact
Human senses are absent from automated tests. After all, it is the computer that performs the tests and verifies the results. The visual aesthetics of an app are just as important to end-users as the performance of its features. In most circumstances, automated tests would simply examine if the value of a text label, for example, appears on the screen, but not the label’s location on the screen.
Manual testing is useful in these situations since the element’s visual appearance can be easily checked. If the user interface is complicated (e.g., many animations or interactive elements), it is faster and less expensive to test the user interface manually and automate only the SDK or API part to guarantee that the business logic is not affected. There are visual automated testing systems that examine software’s visual aspects, but they are effort and time-intensive to configure and use.
2. Security
For more complicated applications, you should carefully consider the permissions required for test execution. In some projects, test automation designers may not have full access to the system and may limit the systems and environments to which the tester has authority. In such circumstances, it’s critical to consider if automated testing is really necessary. You can’t automate testing on systems where you don’t have the appropriate permissions. Thus, in this case, manual testing is necessary.
3. Exploratory Testing can Only be Performed Manually
Automated tests only do what you tell them to do. They necessitate planning and preparation to write, which limits the scope of the examination. These limitations mean there’s no room to deviate from the written examination in order to fully “explore” the application. Exploratory testing is a sort of testing in which testers check the system on the fly rather than creating test cases in advance. It can assist the tester in quickly identifying key problems, so assisting in the development of a product that is genuinely required. Exploratory testing cannot be done with automated testing since automated tests are composed of test scenarios created by a test designer.
4. Test Scripts Have to be Rewritten in Agile
In an agile environment, working with continual input means making rapid changes to the product flow, UI, and even features. Almost every update necessitates rewriting your automated routines for the next cycle. New changes also affect regression testing scripts, thus even the basic automation example in agile takes a lot of upgrading. When a development team is deciding where to invest resources, that quantity of work should be taken into account.
5. Time
Even while automated tests run faster and require less input from the tester, setting up the automation framework can be time-consuming. In some circumstances, manual testing would be preferable to automated testing. Setting up the automated environment and automated tests is easier in the early stages of the project when it is less likely to take as long. However, if the project is very complex and has a large number of interconnected components, the automation environment, and test setup will take more time and resources. In some cases, if the project is too complex, creating an automatization environment and automated tests for the project may be impossible or incredibly expensive.
6. Experience is Required
If automated tests are written incorrectly and without complying with best practices, the results may be deceptive, rendering these tasks useless. Based on our own experience working on numerous test automation projects, we recommend that you delegate test automation planning and implementation to experienced engineers. These engineers will generate test environments, write tests, and establish the code in accordance with best practices. Automated tests must be sustained and tested on a daily basis.
7. Continuity
Assume you’re working on an application that hasn’t yet reached a stable version. In that instance, wasting money and effort building an automatization environment and automated testing is pointless because the tests will need to be updated frequently with each program version upgrade. Test cases and scenarios must be evaluated to ensure desired results, but when an application is unstable, automated tests are more likely to produce misleading results. The automated testing will be stable and objective if the application is stable. Prior to that, it is preferable to begin manually testing the application in order to obtain useful results. However, once a product is on the market and you need to assure that there are no regressions between incremental updates, test automation can come in handy.
8. Usability of an Application
If you need clear numerical data, a computer is unrivaled at completing these types of tasks. For this purpose, load testing is frequently automated, as automation can quickly generate thousands of users to assess the program’s capacity to maintain traffic. Manual testing, on the other hand, is more useful when it comes to other elements of an application’s usability. Because automated testing is entirely made up of predetermined circumstances, it cannot accurately understand an app from a user’s viewpoint. Human testers can evaluate if a user will have a favorable experience with the app by looking at the big picture. This encompasses the app’s attractive look, navigational convenience, and feature functionality.
While automation may not detect defects in the code, this does not guarantee that everything will function as expected. If a function lacks the tools the users require to fulfill their tasks, they are probably to leave the app in search of something which can. Manual testers can see things through the eyes of an employee and quickly spot these kinds of errors, allowing them to be fixed before the app is released.
9. Impossible to Automate Everything
As already stated, automating everything is neither advised nor practicable. It’s not realistic to automate how a mobile product functions on a variety of devices/screen sizes/OS versions/manufacturers if you have a mobile product, and many older phones don’t allow automation. There may be times when there are no automation tools available for a certain system or device type. One other example is a phone application that allows you to test calling emergency services. In this instance, it’s critical to plan ahead and consider the risks associated with automating these types of functionality tests. The essential functionality to test in this situation is the launch of the call page, not the actual calling. As a result, it’s critical to understand whether tests are reliable enough for automated testing, since this scenario may fail at some time, and in that event, such tests might cause problems not only for test engineers as well as for the business.
There are occasions when the data that needs to be verified is only visible for a brief period of time or is difficult to notice, and manual testing would be preferable because an automated test would require time and/or access to notice a component, whereas a human would see it immediately. There may also be limitations in reading and locating, for example, an element in a push notification, according to the limits of the test framework or tools. Again, this can be tested manually with ease.
10. Some Scenarios are Either Too Difficult or Too Expensive to Automate.
Consider, for example, an iPad app that mainly relies on tap gestures. Automating the “tap” is not only expensive, but it is also not always the most accurate test when contrasted to a human’s finger contacting the user interface. Manually testing specific aspects is often preferable. A human test could be finished with bugs already addressed by the time you think of a tool to create an automated test. It is often more practical to follow the “manual” method.
11. Manual Testing Assists us in Recognizing the Entire Problem.
Automated testing can save time over time. On a general level, it’s fantastic for providing quick findings, but manual testing allows us to realize the problem on a more intellectual and emotional level. It establishes a connection with the end-user and brings us to a degree of compassion that automated testing lacks.
12. Evaluation of User Requirements
It’s hard to evaluate user stories without manually doing the tests. The functioning must be evaluated and verified in this scenario according to the documentation provided. Only a test engineer may do this, as he or she must first do a manual test and verify the functionality of the newly introduced functionalities or changes. If the automated test is created too soon, it may result in errors. Test scenarios are prepared once manual testing of the documented functionality has been completed. To objectively verify functioning, flaws must first be rectified. Only then, automated tests can be developed.
To Sum Up
Today, testing is a critical component of software development. No software can stay the same forever. The developer and the end-user both benefit from performing proper tests on software updates. Licensed testing labs and quality assurance teams are the keys to ensuring the stability of your products. There are advantages to both human and automated testing. When developing your QA plan, it’s critical to think about both testing methodologies. There will always be a need for manual testing in software, no matter how advanced automated testing becomes.
While more companies are adopting agile environments, this does not mean that traditional procedures are being abandoned entirely. Although manual testing may not be the best option in every situation, there are times when a human reviewer is required to ensure the program’s quality. Understanding the strengths of manual testing allows QA teams to use it more efficiently and earn advantages with respect to their automation attempts.
As a pure-play software testing company, TestDel supplies an exhaustive set of QA services including manual testing