Although it seems like automation is the norm these days, not all test management activities should be automated. To test some components of a project, it might even be more advantageous in some circumstances to switch back to manual testing. The only issue left is for firms to comprehend which approach will work greatest in each circumstance. It is completely based on the situation to choose manual vs automated testing. In the following situations, quality assurance teams should employ manual testing rather than automation:
Sometimes it is necessary to be flexible
Despite giving testers more operational flexibility, manual procedures are not always as accurate as automation. This frequently implies that the same code and scripts will be used every time because automated testing is intrinsically useful for repeated scenarios. However, using automation entails creating test cases, programming them with the automation tool, and then running the test, which takes a lot of time if testers have an idea they want to work on right immediately. It would be simpler and quicker to carry out manual tasks in this situation. You can easily test and observe the outcomes while using manual testing. Automatic tests need extra setup time, which prevents you from lacking time.
When short-term projects are active
Automation needs significant preparation and expense, both of which may be superfluous. Automated testing is not appropriate in this situation due to the associated costs. This project’s automation could cost too much upfront compared to the value and return on investment it would provide. In this case, manual testing would be less expensive and more profitable overall. In short-term initiatives, where the cost of putting up automation outweighs the benefits, automated testing is not justified. Little projects that only contributed a few minor features, shared little to no code with other parts of the project and were probably never going to be improved.
Whenever usability is evaluated
The usability of an application can make a big difference in whether it succeeds or fails. To ensure there are no problems, this goes much beyond simply performing automated tests. Computers cannot offer the same kind of feedback that a human user would when utilizing an app since they execute preprogrammed activities rather than thinking independently. Automated tests, for instance, can quickly identify coding flaws, but they cannot predict how users will interact with a particular feature or how well users will be able to use the application.
Users’ experiences with a tool’s functionality could be a key influence in influencing whether or not other users use the app. This is the kind of data that would come from manual testing. Exploratory and usability testing will require human perspectives. Robots are wonderful at perfect repetition, but less successful at exploring and following hunches. This might make it easier to identify and fix bugs as soon as they occur when users interact with the app in particular ways.
Conclusion
Although there are many benefits to automated testing, there are some situations where manual testing is preferable. QA teams may expedite processes, increase productivity, and enhance overall quality by knowing which approach is appropriate in each circumstance.
Jorden Smith is a passionate writer and researcher with a knack for exploring news and website reviews. With a keen eye for detail and a love for uncovering hidden gems, Jorden’s work is always thorough and informative. When not busy writing, Jorden enjoys traveling and discovering new places. Stay tuned for more insightful articles from this up-and-coming writer.