Some of the development team jumped into automated testing as the holy grail. And it was a-kind. Automated testing is a great safety net for regression testing and to check in on redundant components.
But we believe strongly in the manual, exploratory testing. The test results came from the QA professional best. Even as a suite automatically become more sophisticated, they require a human driver. Actually, automated tests are often converted from manual effort initially.
This is why developers need manual testers, whether external assistance or in-house.
1. There are a number of tests that should only guide
The user experience is probably the biggest reason why manual testing is important. We can all use a valuable criticism from time to time (even developers!). When it comes not only to function but also for a first impression, there is no substitute for the human eye.
While the smoke tests can be automated, they are also better left for manual testing. It’s much quicker for the tester to look at your application and see if it is ready for testing hardcore than for the tester to write a script that would do the same thing. And early script phase will not last, anyway.
Plus, only humans can use check language and localization another key factor in product targeting multiple regions.
2. Automated testing empowers human testers
Such as car break for you in an emergency, automated testing busy while you’re looking away.
automated software testing saves time with repetitive work, so that efforts can be focused manual testing came with a creative use case.
The most successful use of automated testing is not about trying to get it to behave like a human, but in improving the overall product coverage by creating a new, unique script.
3. The bugs were found where you least expect them
Even when testing for specific use cases, testers can still find bugs that they do not need to look for.
That’s a big problem. For some projects, the majority of actual bugs found by testers who are looking for something else entirely. Automated testing can not see the mistake was not programmed to find.
4. Man is a creative and analytical
While we all like to lament the downfalls of being human (why can not we fly?!), We have our good quality.
The skills and experience that testing brings to the table to help them develop strategies each time they start a new session. At this point in time, there is no substitute for our speed fast mental processes and analysis of our drug!
5. The test script has been rewritten in fielding
Working with constant feedback in an agile environment means changing the fluid into the flow of products, UI, or even features. And almost every time, changes will require re-writing automated scripts for the next sprint.
new change also affects the script for regression testing, so even that automation needs a lot of updating a classic example in fielding. The number of warrants consideration work when the development team is trying to figure out where to invest resources.
6. Automation is too expensive for smaller projects
Not only automation software you have to pay, but you also have maintenance and associated higher management costs, because the script writing and rewriting, as well as organizing and processing times.
For a long-term project and a great product, the higher costs may be eligible. But for shorter, smaller projects were a monumental waste of time and money.
When calculating the potential ROI on automation, you have to factor in the added man-hours, as well.
7. Unless tightly managed, automation has a tendency to fall behind sprint
There is a difference between what we expect the technology can do for us, and the reality of what we can do with it.
With the constant-update script, very difficult to keep the automated testing on track with sprint. This is useful for the improvement of tests that are no longer current. Successful automation starts early and never fell more than one running behind.
If the development team did not have the resources to make it happen, it may be better to not try (except the team that makes long-term investments with a plan to improve the process).
8. The manual testers to learn more about the user perspective
Humans learn throughout the day, even faster than the AI. You do not want to waste the knowledge right?
Because human testers often act as users, they provide more value than just the knowledge of how a product is currently performing. Testers can also help steer the product in a new direction with their delivery of problems and suggestions.
9. Automation can not catch the issues that people do not realize
This goes back to point # 3, which bugs are often found where we were not looking. But beyond that, there are also cases of use and the great risk that we may not be immediately aware of.
natural ignorance can be overcome by testing exploration or exploratory testing that results in the development of new scripts.
No matter the form of testing depends on the team, strategize upfront is always necessary. But we can not expect to come up with everything on the first go around. For most of what was missed, manual testing is much faster to catch all.
10. The well test is repeated but also variable
The most successful testing has a mix of two factors: repetition and variation. Automated testing is great for checking a continuous process, but it was not enough. You also want variety, and in some cases the use of wild cards.
Combined, these two factors gives the highest chance of achieving a complete product coverage.
11. Mobile devices have complicated use cases
Device compatibility and interactions can’t be covered with automated scripts. Things like leaving and reentering wi-fi, simultaneously running other apps, device permissions, and receiving calls and texts can all potentially wreak havoc on the performance of an app.
Changing swipe directions and the number of fingers used for tapping can also affect mobile apps. Clearly you need a manual tester to get a little touchy-feely if you want your app to have the minimum number of defects.
12. Manual testing goes beyond pass/fail
Pass/fail testing is super cool. We ask our network testers to conduct use cases with set outcomes all the time. But for most projects, more complicated (and yes variable) scenarios are desirable.
Web forms are a prime example of this. While an automated script could easily input values into a web page, it can’t double-check that the values will be saved if the user navigates away and then comes back.
And what about the speed of submission? A human will definitely notice if a web form submits abnormally slow while other websites are loading at top speed.
But speed isn’t something that fits into pass/fail.
13. Manual testers can quickly reproduce customer-caught errors
While you hope you catch all bugs before deploying, you also hope that your customers will kindly let you know of any errors.
Hotfixes are a must for cloud-based products. A manual tester can use the information submitted by the customer to submit a bug report that will be helpful to the engineer.
The time between a customer issue and a fix is way faster with manual testing. Like way.
Yup, automation is awesome. But manual testing is above all a service — one that can’t be automated.