13 Reasons Why You Still Need Manual Testing

New applications and products come to the market every day, and none of them can afford to get into the market without thorough testing. Since automation is forging ahead in almost each and every field, including software development, most QA teams lean on automation for performing a major part of tests with efficiency. Thus, repeatable tests can be executed quickly, freeing up QA professionals for other tasks.

With all these developments, does it not become important to question whether manual testing still plays an important role? The answer is yes! Even with developments in automation, there are several instances where the job cannot be replaced by anything other than manual testing, such as exploratory tests. As a matter of fact, at times, manual testing may be cheaper compared to automation.

But does this mean that manual testing will have a future, or will it eventually lose its relevance? Let’s explore the reasons why manual testing remains crucial.

Does Manual Testing Have a Future?

Absolutely! Manual testing will continue to play a key role in the testing process. While automation excels at repetitive tasks, it cannot fully replace the human element in testing. Automation can also be impractical or too costly in some situations.

For example, manual testing is often more efficient when features and designs are frequently changing, especially during the early stages of product development. Testers can adapt to these modifications without needing to constantly update automated scripts.

Moreover, manual testing shines in areas requiring human intuition and creativity, like exploratory and usability testing. These are essential in ensuring high-quality user experience. With maturity of the product, however, the balance between manual and automated testing shifts; skilled manual testers will always be in demand.

Here's why developers still trust manual testers, whether in-house or outsourced, for superior testing results:

1. Some Tests Are Best Performed Manually

User experience (UX) is one of the main reasons manual testing remains important. When evaluating functionality and first impressions, human testers provide valuable insights. Exploratory testing, which aims to find bugs that automated tests might miss, also requires human judgment. Additionally, when dealing with languages and local dialects, hands-on testing is far more effective, ensuring your app resonates with users from different regions.

2. Automated Testing Complements, Not Replaces, Humans

Automated testing is like an assistant handling repetitive tasks, allowing manual testers to focus on more creative and complex scenarios. It doesn’t aim to replicate human behavior but rather enhances testing efficiency by executing routine tests, leaving manual testers to develop creative test cases and ensure comprehensive product coverage.

3. Some Bugs Are Unpredictable, and Automation Can’t Catch Them

Bugs can appear unexpectedly, even in areas covered by automated tests. Manual testers often discover these issues while exploring different components of the app. Automation checks only what it’s programmed for, but manual testing serves as a safety net, catching what automation might miss.

4. Human Insight and Creativity Are Irreplaceable

Human testers bring empathy and flexible thinking that AI can’t replicate. Manual testers understand the user perspective, offering insights beyond simple functionality. Their creativity and analytical skills allow them to identify problems and propose improvements that help shape product development.

5. Agile Workflows Complicate Automated Test Maintenance

In agile environments, constant updates to the product’s flow, user interface (UI), and features require frequent adjustments to automated scripts. This makes it challenging to keep automated tests aligned with sprint goals. Manual testing provides the flexibility needed to adapt to these changes, ensuring thorough testing in fast-paced agile development.

6. Manual Testing is More Cost-Effective for Smaller Projects

For smaller projects, manual testing is a cost-effective choice. It avoids the upfront costs associated with automation, such as software, maintenance, and script creation. For startups and small companies with limited resources, manual testing offers quick feedback without the financial burden of automation. In larger projects, automation may be more justified, but for smaller efforts, manual testing is often simpler and more efficient.

7. Good Testing Requires Both Automation and Manual Efforts

A successful testing strategy uses both automation and manual testing. Automated tests are great for routine checks, but human testers introduce variability, exploring unexpected scenarios. The combination of both approaches ensures a thorough and comprehensive product evaluation.

8. Mobile Devices Have Complicated Use Cases

Mobile apps present unique challenges, from device compatibility to handling incoming calls, multitasking, and permission management. These complex scenarios often fall outside the scope of automated testing. Manual testers are essential for exploring these behaviors and ensuring the app functions smoothly across a variety of devices.

9. Manual Testing Goes Beyond Simple Pass/Fail Metrics

While automated testing can validate specific responses, it can miss subtleties in user interaction, such as how a chatbot handles informal language. Manual testing goes beyond pass/fail criteria, allowing testers to assess user satisfaction and the overall quality of interactions.

10. Manual Testers Can Quickly Reproduce Customer-Reported Errors

Manual testers can swiftly recreate errors reported by customers, providing fast feedback to developers. In cloud-based products, quick fixes are crucial, and manual testers excel at turning customer-reported issues into actionable bug reports, speeding up the resolution process.

11. Automated Testing Faces Access Restrictions

In some projects, automated testing faces limitations due to access restrictions in systems or environments. Manual testers, on the other hand, can often work around these barriers, making real-time decisions and exploring other aspects of the system based on their observations.

12. Validating User Stories Requires Manual Testing

The importance of manual testing is to validate the user stories and ensure that the newly implemented feature does what a real user expects it to do. Automated tests keep the functionality working, but manual tests reveal defects or inconsistencies in the most unthought-of manners.

13. Manual Testing Allows Flexible Workarounds for Failures

When test cases fail, manual testers can adapt and explore related functionalities, something automated testing cannot easily do. Manual testing provides the flexibility to investigate deeper into potential issues, ensuring a more comprehensive evaluation.

How Manual Testing Can Stay Relevant

For manual testing to stay relevant, it must evolve alongside technological advancements. Here are a few strategies:

·         Focus on human-centered testing: Human judgment plays the main role in UX, Usability, and Accessibility testing. Hence, manual testing cannot be fully replaced in these aspects.

·         Continuous learning and upskilling: A manual tester should learn about new tools, techniques, and programming languages to be competitive in the field.

·         Collaborate with automation: Automation isn't something that threatens a manual tester. Quite the opposite-they collaborate with the automation test vehicles, making each testing methodology better.

Companies can deliver much quicker and cost-effective software with improved quality by combining manual and automated testing.

Final Words

While automation has revolutionized testing with its speed and efficiency, manual testing remains crucial. Its adaptability, insights, and ability to handle complex scenarios ensure comprehensive software testing. A balanced approach that combines manual and automated testing enhances both accuracy and efficiency, ultimately delivering superior software products.