Automation is most advantageous for regular and repeated testing, which may be very time-consuming and tiresome when done manually. However, automation cannot match a human’s intuitiveness, broad knowledge, and iterative assessment skills.
Additionally, some testing has to be done manually, and both the setup of automated testing need human involvement.
So today, we are going to talk about why manual testing remains a must for software development.
Importance of Manual Testing
Manual testing is of continuing relevance for software developments, some of which are enumerated below:
1. Usability and User Experience Testing
Usability/UX testing is the process by which testers determine if a website/software performs as anticipated by the designer when used by a real-world user. An observer watches invited user test participants while they complete a set of pre-designed activities.
The tester keeps track of how well they do and encounter any difficulties with the assigned activities. Additionally, they may collect valuable data, such as if the route to a destination has more steps than the user desires and whether navigational signposts are easily identified and successfully chosen.
However, technologies such as eye-tracking software that measures visual attention across a page may be beneficial. In contrast to the test experts who conduct the sessions, it is recommended that no one associated with the build does usability/UX testing. This is because the most valuable test data comes from users with no previous knowledge of the product, who are more likely to identify unanticipated problems and are not influenced by unconscious bias.
2. Issues Occur in the Most Inconspicuous Places
The success of manual testing may be measured by how a human being is involved in a project. Simultaneously, automation’s most significant contribution is a robotic adherence to specified sequences that would be tedious and time-consuming for testers. It is precisely this consistently non-thinking feature of automated testing, which makes it entirely inappropriate for use in ad hoc or exploratory testing.
Testers are urged to use their curiosity and initiative to pursue spontaneous lines of inquiry and investigate areas that are not routinely examined. When an issue does arise, human testers can rapidly alter their lines of inquiry.
This is not feasible in automated testing since the script would have to be paused to rewrite sections before testing could continue. Occasionally, common sense is needed, such as when something seems to be correct during the authoring process but requires modification throughout the coding process.
Humans have an innate sense of when something is wrong, highlighting another reason for the continuing necessity of manual testing.
3. Appreciating the Bigger Picture
Nothing beats a tester’s ability to synthesize a comprehensive overview of a product or project simply by drawing on their training, on-the-job expertise, and life experience. No automated system can duplicate this kind of manual testing, which does not need test plans and relies on a gut sense that something is wrong. Further, structured testing will be conducted to isolate the issue before notifying the developers, but the initial impetus comes from the tester’s unique and unquantifiable skills.
4. Automated Tests Might Include Errors and Gaps
Regardless of the benefits of automated testing, automated scripts can only test what they were designed to test. This means that there is always a chance that the person writing the script will overlook an important detail. Without human intervention at this stage, the likelihood is that the potential problem remains untested.
Because omission errors are common, scheduling a manual testing sweep as part of the setup procedure is critical before testing can be approved and then begun. Even then, inaccuracies in a script may not be discovered until testing is well underway.
When automated testing is running, it cannot deviate from the script, which means any errors or holes in the writing will eventually result in an inaccurate test report. Such circumstances necessitate exploratory testing performed exclusively by humans.
5. Device & Browser Testing
Cross-browser testing is critical to the overall testing process for bug identification. A cross-browser testing tool is used to repeatedly run the same script on a potentially infinite number of browser, device, and version combinations.
However, manual testing is the ideal choice for testing the more physical, visual, and tactile aspects since human testers possess the characteristics that enable them to take the initiative and explore utilizing their senses of sight and touch. Occasionally, a choice requiring compromise will have to be taken. Because a site may not appear flawless on every browser, a judgment decision about what is acceptable must be made.
Manual Testing Variations
In most cases, automated testing will not stray from the test script’s route, which may be good or bad depending on the circumstances. The way a person physically tests anything, even if they adhere to test cases, may differ slightly because of human impulses and the fact that they may have to process various inputs, and so on.
This human ability to be non-robotic may sometimes result in mistakes, but if any human-caused testing problems arise, manual testing is responsible for rectifying them.
1. Troubleshooting Connection Issues
As there is the availability of diverse options in terms of technology, manual testing becomes the best testing method.
All connectable devices make use of web browsers, which sometimes experience connection speed dips and connectivity problems. When dropouts occur, a site or application must already have a fallback mechanism to prevent the system from total failure. Due to the variety of fallback plans’ kinds and applications, manual testing is the only viable alternative.
2. End-User Support
End-user support goes beyond lab testing. It also includes the stage of product finishing and delivery. This stage in the market and is a closely connected and essential element of testing. Unfortunately, consumers may find stray bugs if their purchase fails somehow, detracting from their user experience. Because the client is satisfied
When is manual testing more cost-effective?
When it comes to low regression or low testing cases, manual testing can be highly cost effective. This is especially true for cases where some defect is visible to the user, or in cases where tests have to be run only one or twice.
Consider this- there is a learning module that contains several chapters. However, the logo of the application is different in some of the chapters. Manual testing can spot such issues easily, and hence, the issue can be resolved fast and leading to better ROI.
For even small bugs or issues like differences in name, id or class of a button- the script for automation testing has to undergo significant changes, which drives up costs. In case of manual testing, no change is required which helps keep costs under control.
Manual testing is also preferred by small companies who have limited IT staff and budget. It also does not require any programming knowledge- which is a must for automation testing. Last but not the least- you can go for random testing when doing it manually. The same cannot be done with automation testing.
And finally, when it comes to human experience of the product- pre-scripted automation tests may not be the best gauge. Observations from manual testing can be applied to other applications that aim to be user-friendly.
Conclusion
It is now clear that manual testing is how value judgments are made about technical errors. At the same time, automated testing can free up the tester from the repetitively boring aspects of software testing.
Like other businesses, if you too are looking for testing solutions, Mindfire Solutions can be your partner of choice. We have deep expertise in manual testing. We have a team of highly skilled and certified software professionals that has developed many custom solutions for our global clients over the years.
No comments:
Post a Comment