In this fast-changing digital world, we have all been in a situation where we have come across bugs in our day to day used applications. Even as more and more automation testing tools are being applied, it is important to recall that manual testing is actually a critical component. There is a common idea that manual testing is unbeneficial due to the existence of automation tools, yet this article will answer the question of why it is still useful and under which circumstances, it is better than automated testing.
Let’s understand manual testing first.
What is manual Testing?
Manual testing involves checking software by hand. Manual testing is that testers perform testing on the software in the same manner as a user would do and not by using a script as in automated testing. This approach benefits as the bugs which may not be detected by the automated tests come to the surface. The manual testing is used to judge the usability and look and feel of the application which cannot be tested effectively by the automated tests.
Why Manual Testing Is Still Matters in the Age of Automation:
Manual testing is still alive even in the age of automation testing because of following reasons:
1. Time
If this is so then developing the structural tests can also at times prove to be time consuming. While such tests run fast, the setup of the environment and writing of the tests can actually be time consuming. The creation and subsequent maintenance of an environment conducive to testing is completely unfeasible in complicated projects. Still, there are cases when manual testing is more effective or simply more convenient, for instance during preliminary development.
2. Human Touch
The use of mechanized tests means that directions cannot sense what goes on in the examination room. They confirm if aspects are included but they may seldom observe some aesthetics such as the placement of a label. This enables the tester to check on the look and feel of the software which is very important as seen in the interface. Therefore, for complicated user interfaces, This is more efficient and more effective most of the time.
3. Experience Required
There is no doubt that, when it comes to automated tests, it is necessary to draw up good tests. Besides, tests can be poorly written, which means that in this case, we can obtain quite misleading outcomes. Some amount of experience is required in the implementation as well as in the maintenance phase of automation. Automated testing often needs considerable preparation and can be superseded by manual testing when the bugs are easy to find.
4. Security
In some projects test automation engineers might be technically restricted to some level of access to all needed systems or environments. There are situations, where this might not be possible – for instance, in these situations. Use of manual testing can be effective for proper coverage and it does not require much permission.
5. Exploratory Testing
Exploratory testing involves exploring the software without predefined test cases. This approach helps uncover major flaws and areas for improvement. Automated tests follow specific scenarios and cannot adapt on the fly, making exploratory testing a valuable manual approach for discovering unexpected issues.
6. Not Everything Can Be Automated
Automation tools have limitations. For instance, testing across various devices and screen sizes, or validating specific functionalities like emergency calls, can be impractical with automation. Manual testing is often better suited for scenarios where automation tools fall short or where immediate visibility is required.
7. Stability
If an application is still unstable or undergoing frequent changes, investing in automated tests can be inefficient. Automated tests require constant updates and may yield false results if the software is not stable. This provides valuable feedback during these phases and is more adaptable to changes.
8. Validation of User Stories
Validating user stories requires checking new functionalities against documentation. This ensures that the software meets the specified requirements before automating tests. This approach helps identify and fix defects early, leading to more reliable automated tests later.
Manual vs Automation Testing:
Here’s a comparison table highlighting the differences between manual testing and automation testing:
| Aspect | Manual Testing | Automation Testing |
| Execution | Performed by human testers, requiring hands-on effort. | Executed by automated scripts or tools without human intervention. |
| Speed | Slower, as it involves human effort and observation. | Faster, as tests can run unattended and in parallel. |
| Accuracy | Prone to human error and inconsistencies. | Highly accurate, with consistent results. |
| Test Coverage | Limited by time and resources. | Broader coverage, especially for repetitive tasks. |
| Initial Cost | Lower initial cost, no special tools required. | Higher initial investment in tools and scripting. |
| Maintenance | Easier to modify test cases on the fly. | Requires regular updates to maintain scripts. |
| Best Use Cases | Exploratory, usability, and ad-hoc testing. | Regression, load, and performance testing. |
| Flexibility | Highly flexible, can adapt to changing requirements. | Less flexible, needs reprogramming for changes. |
| Human Touch | Can assess look, feel, and user experience. | Lacks the ability to judge user experience nuances. |
| Scalability | Difficult to scale for large projects. | Easily scalable with automated tools and parallel execution. |
This table provides a clear and concise comparison between manual and automation testing, highlighting their respective strengths and limitations. The selection of testing is completely based on the needs of your project. But it doesn’t mean manual testing lost its importance.
Conclusion
This is crucial alongside automation because it addresses areas that automated tools can’t fully cover, such as user experience and complex scenarios. While automation handles repetitive tasks efficiently, manual testing ensures flexibility and a human touch.
