Automation testing has taken the software testing process to another level by speeding up the testing and quality assurance process. There are many amazing tools which help testers to speed up the software quality assurance process with automation. However, you can’t ignore the power of manual testing. The best QA Companies still use manual quality assurance along with automation to assure the best quality of the software. Yes, manual testing is time consuming, but it is vital to assure the highest quality of the software. This article shares 3 major reasons that prove why you must use manual quality assurance during the quality assurance process.
1. Nobody can replace human experience
The automation tools are great to test the software in least amount time, but it may not be able to test those aspects which are not programmed by the automation script writers. The years of experience of a software qa engineer can find more critical defects along with clear solutions, which might not be possible to log with the automation testing. Furthermore, in manual testing the software testing engineer will also put his / her analytical and logical power which would find those hidden bugs as well, which are difficult to find with the automation testing.
2. Manual QA can help you define if the software is ready for hardcore qa or not
Automation tester is not fully automated. It requires certain human efforts in writing scripts and running or scheduling the tests. This can be a time consuming process at the beginning. If your software has silly bugs, then performing automation qa can be a waste of time and efforts. On the other hand, an experienced software qa expert can identify whether the app is ready for the hardcore testing process or not at a glance or by running a small set of manual tests.
3. Manual testing can touch personalized areas
Only humans know the human expectations. The manual testing can use conceptualization and empathetic quality assurance to find those bugs which can become a hurdle in positive user experience. It can be aesthetic issues or localization quality assurance or something similar. The manual testing is more powerful and effective in such scenarios.
4. Some scenarios can’t be automated
There are some test cases which either can’t be automated or are too expensive to automate. For example, in small projects, manual testing is more cost effective than automated qa . Also, some technical scenarios such as, quality assurance the tap gestures on an iPad with automation testing can be expensive and time consuming. On the contrary, the manual quality assurance can be faster and more effective.
5. Manual quality assurance tests what is not defined to test
As per experience of many software quality assurance experts, they find bugs while it is least expected. Thus, manual testing performed by the experienced QA experts can find even those bugs which are hidden from logic. On the contrary, the automation script is a program and will test only defined test logics.