Manual or Automated Testing? — The Million Dollar question !
“I am a manual tester and many people I talk to think I am not good enough or would not survive in the industry”. A tester told me recently.
Well, I wish to disagree. Manual testing can never be understated. I know that there are a few raised eyebrows on that thought. Keep reminding yourself that tools do not think.
Will Automation help improve business efficiency? Yes.
Is Automation the only way of improving business efficiency? No!
There are many other ways of going around it. Consider automation as one of the tools available in your QA garage.
Over the last decade manual testers count has reduced in a team because of industry demand which shifted to automate process rather keep head counts to keep doing same things repetitive.
Now rather calling manual tester, we are called Quality Assurance Engineers, the quality ambassadors of software product in terms of testing, delivery excellence and regulatory compliances.
Manual Testing and Automation Testing are going to complement each other for a very long time.
Our mindset needs to shift from automating everything to having good test coverage.
The question is of the balance, when to use What??
When to Automate?
For optimized Speed and Efficiency of Repetitive Steps
If testing approach demands to run the test cases a lot number of times in a test cycle, automation testing is what we should be looking at. It can provide a great return on the investment. Repeatability is not a time-consuming activity when you consider automation. A computer never gets bored 😊
A safe bet for Regression/Sanity Test Suites
Regression/sanity/smoke test suites consists of selected number of test cases, which need to be tested after every iteration of code change.
Regression test suite ensure that no new defects have been introduced into the functionalities that were previously working. Sanity testing is executed at the start of every cycle ensuring that the basic functionalities of a system work as expected.
If it is a regression/sanity suite that you are looking to test, then automation testing is your safe bet. Here are the reasons:
Test cases never/rarely change.
Repeated execution of test-cases required
For validating Complicated Priority Features
Well, some features have higher chances of failing than the others considering their complexity. Such highly complex, priority features are better to be validated using automation testing tools since with manual testing; there are chances that the test case or the feature might be missed during the testing. The tests will be run every time in the same fashion with automated testing, thus eliminating any chances of human errors.
For Performance /Load Testing
If testing is performed to test performance or load of the application, there is really no manual alternative.
Automated tests can simulate thousands, of simultaneous users.
When Quick Decision Making is Required
Testing logs are automatically generated during automation testing once the testing cycle completes. This facilitates defects identification and decision making . Since the test log is readily available, go-live decision can be taken promptly and efficiently.
When Manual?
100% automation is like saying we want 100% defect free software which is impossible.
Automation is only for stable parts of application. In today’s real-world scenarios, applications undergo frequent changes based on user feedback
So to stay in the race, there is a need to enhance our service offerings which makes it difficult to automate each and everything.
Testing from a human perspective
There are features or logics that need verification /validation from a human perspective. We can never automate the look and feel or the entire UI of the application. This needs human eyes and experience.
We cannot automate the User experience, how the user feels when he is using the system. That needs a human touch.
Testing from User’s shoes Helps understand the real problem
Over a time, automated testing can save effort and cost. Manual testing allows us to understand the problem on a conceptual and emotional level as it is connected us with the end-user perspective and introduces us to a an empathy which automated scripts doesn’t provide.
Customized Approaches
Not all software need to be tested in the same manner or through the same technique. Every organization requires customized testing techniques according to the type and size of software. Expertise of manual software testers is mandatory where there are regular changes in software requirements.
When Organization/Project is small
The initial implementation cost automated testing system is considerably high as compared to traditional methods of manual testing. So incurring huge installation costs for small organizations/projects is a waste of money, hence manual testing stands more useful in that case. Automation may fall out of the budget of some of the small organization
Attention to minute details
Automation works on fixed predetermined standardized procedures of testing which has limitations when it comes to customizations. Hence minute defects may get ignored. Manual testing is mandatory to wipe off tiny worms that may be neglected during automation.
Exploratory Testing doesn’t have an alternative
Adhoc testing gives us the opportunity to answer questions like, “what happens if I do this?” It enables us to carve our own path throughout the test with little to no boundaries. We do not have a automation alterative for exploratory testing.
Manual testing always goes beyond pass or fail. It will never be practically or financially sound to go for full automated testing for all expected outcomes
Quality assurance teams are a gateway to products stability. Both manual testing and automated testing have their own benefits in their account . It’s critical to consider both testing approaches while designing a QA strategy.
