Quality is never an accident, it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives, rightly stated by William A. Foster.
Most of the companies today use modern automated testing tools and latest technology for testing their solution, however the testing cycle does not get complete without manual testing. If we go through the actual stats, 70-75% of the solution is being tested manually and only 25% of it is tested using automated testing scripts.
The 25% of software solution covers a business process which deals with huge chunks of data and verified from multiple sources.
Why Manual Testing is More Important than the Automation Testing?
Manual testing is the hidden crunch without which a solution cannot be successfully launched in the market. Here are some points why we say so:
- There are so many limitations while the automated testing will detect most bugs in the software system. For example, the automated tools can’t test for visual considerations like gestures, image color or font size. It is not possible to test the User Experience and User Interface through the automation testing. Changes in these can only be detected and done by manual testing, which means that not all testing can be done with automatic tools. Manual testing is preferable for products with engineered user experience and GUIs with constant updates.
- As the name “Automation Testing” which means just refers to “Automatic”. They are just robotic and can’t act as a real user prospective. Manual testing, on the other end, allows the developing program to be used as it would be upon launch. Any bugs that may pop up when a user handles the program in a certain way are more likely to be caught with manual testing.
- Many times situations arise when there are runtime changes in the functionality of some modules either as an enhancement or behavior change of the module. In this case the time and precision of functionality play a major role. Now before starting the automated testing, the tester has to set up test cases, program it into the automated tool, and then run the tests. But with manual testing, the QA can quickly test and see the results. Automatic tests take more time to set up, which doesn’t allow testing ideas quickly and easily.
- By using the Automation tool, it is impossible to run again the test case of any application which had already executed before.
- Ad-hoc testing can’t be performed using Automation.
- Manual testing is the only one option during the initial stage of the application. When the application is in regression phase and stable then the user can automate the basic functions within the application. In an unstable build if the user automate something in the next changed builds that will surely break. Moreover, it has been observed most of good defects are found by doing some exploratory kind of testing instead of just going through the test steps written as a test case. So test automation cannot substitute the experience and underlying knowledge of the tester to find good bugs in the application.
- Negative testing can be done more rigorously via manual testing.
- If a test fails the automation test will only result the failure and could not perform a workaround to test other areas even if one thing fails. In this manual test can only work that out.
The QA, who tests the software, drafts all the test cases and executes those test cases manually. One major advantage of manual testing includes ease of testing for customized modules as per the requirements which are defined and input output deliverable as discussed. Also, it can be executed with ultimate ease and perfection without fancy coding and special programs.
Let’s check out the mastermind using which the manual testing is executed: