Why Manual Testing is Still Important?

In a scenario where automation is leading the way across different industries, especially in software development, manual testing still continues to have an edge. While many teams are already exploring the potential of automated processes to perform repeatable tests and guaranteeing quality assurance, it is still not the best time to bow down to computer overload yet. There are many tasks where manual testing is still considered most important. Additionally, it also helps minimize costs dramatically.

Manual testing is the critical process of running software tests manually, comparing various program expectations as against actual outcome to diagnose software errors. In manual tests, software developers perform the task as unlike automated processes where computer programming is used for testing.In manual tests, the developer uses the program as an end user and subsequently determines whether or not the program has defects or acts appropriately. The testing process is a good solution for smaller projects and for enterprises without major financial resources.

Areas of Manual Testing

So, what are the applications or areas where manual testing is still prevalent and vital?

Innovation and new fields of exploration: Mobile apps are the buzzword today. In today’s Smartphone driven market, where consumers spend more time on their mobile devices than any other platform, applications are an area of modern innovation and exploration. Besides applications, there are other instances of cutting-edge mobile hardware, driving the Smartphone industry. For example, Wearables. However, these are still unexplored areas and therefore, it may be complex to establish automated testing on diverse applications. In such a scenario, manual tests can be the best approach and will also cost much less in the long run than automated processes.

 In this case, field testing is often required to ensure that the application is tested on all platforms that users would leverage. Therefore, manually testing the software is often considered much faster. Additionally, with manual tests, QA team can determine what sort of test management tools would be best, and if there is any scope for automation.

Usability and functionality: For an app or software, if you require data that is based on pure numbers, automated testing can be the best solution. For instance, in load testing, an automated computer program can generate thousands of shadow users to determine a program’s capability to manage traffic. On the flip side, it is unable to accurately decipher a software or application from the point of view of a user, since it is purely based on pre-programmed conditions.

With eyeball testing, an app or software developer can have a look of the overall picture, understanding end-user experience with the program. This includes program usability, aesthetic look, feature functionality, and ease of navigation. With automation, you may not identify the defects in coding, and hence, program performance and usability may be compromised. Manualtesterscan view things from the perspective of a user, and identify different kinds of discrepancies, eliminating the same before releasing the app.  

Manual testing is free for analysis and changes: In automated processes, scripts are pre-designed and coded to ensure that the program meets all requisite conditions. However, it is crucial to constantly review the same to ensure it remains up-to-date on latest trends and is taking into consideration any recent changes. This leaves little rooms for making adjustments quickly and efficiently.

On the other side, with manual testing, the QA team can act on their instinct and work on different elements immediately. In this case, manual test is not only less costly but could also provide better feedback. For automated processes, you have to first set up test cases, program it into automated tool, and then run the test. With manual testing, right when an idea strikes, you can quickly test it and analyze the results.

Conclusion:

Manual testing may not be an optimal solution for all instances, but there are certain cases when human insight and knowledge is vital to maintain and improve the quality of a program.