Successful testing: Manual vs Automation
Manual Testing vs Automation is an argument that will still be disputed by the quality assurance industry for years to come. Even though automation may be becoming more dominant in the industry, manual testers are still vital to the quality assurance (QA) industry.
What does Manual Testing have to offer?
It is true that automated testing will execute tests with less input from testers. However, there are some instances when this is not the case. If a project is very complex and has lots of interconnected components, the automation environment and test setup will consume more time and resources. There are some instances where it is too expensive or impossible to create an automated testing platform.
A software’s visual aesthetic is an important detail for end users. Unfortunately, Automated Testing has no perception of what an end user would like to look at. This is where the human touch of a manual tester comes into play. An automated test would check if something were there, for instance, if a text box was showing on screen. However, it does not take the text box’s position on screen into consideration. In this instance, it is more convenient test manually since the element’s appearance can be easily verified by the tester.
What does Test Automation offer?
By automating the testing process, organisations can vastly improve their test coverage. Although the initial upfront cost can be a little daunting, the long-term benefit cannot be understated. From a business perspective, return on investment (ROI) is a performance measurement that companies use to evaluate the efficiency of an investment. For instance, if it takes 20 testers 200 hours to regress a product or 8 automation engineers 200 hours to write automated tests. The time has not increased yet the cost of the operation has decreased considerably.
We previously mentioned why the human touch is an important detail in software testing since it is people that will be using the software. However, the human touch can also become the human error. Manual testers are typically more likely to make mistakes in the process of writing test cases. These errors can lead to inconsistent test execution, which potentially jeopardises the overall quality of the software. Since automated tests follow predefined scripts consistently, ensuring the same steps are executed time and time again. There is a reduced risk of inconsistent test execution.
Why is it important to incorporate both?
In the modern day, you will not find many companies that are not leveraging both automatic and manual frameworks. When a test plan is put in place detailing the test case for both departments. It is impossible to automate every part of the operation. However, if you assign the more repetitive tasks and fundamental test cases to the automation engineers. The manual testers can focus their efforts on more exploratory and usability testing. This clear separation mitigates confusion for both parties.
Managers of QA projects should promote consistent regular communication between the manual and automated testing team. Effective communication will make team members coordinate better to achieving a common goal.
Conclusion
Manual testers and automated engineers are not constantly fighting and trying to displace one another. This is a common misconception in the software testing industry. Both are valuable in their own different ways. If a QA team of manual testers and automated engineers is coordinated properly it is like a bustling beehive. Where not every bee has the same role, yet despite their different tasks, they all work in harmony towards a shared goal of sustaining the colony. We hope you enjoyed this blog, if you would like to read some of our others, please visit Blog Grid – eTestware