This article contains information about Manual Testing versus Automated Testing Usage.
While automation seems to be the norm, not all testing activities should be automated. It might be advantageous to test certain components of a project manually. Only problem is that firms need to understand which approach works best in each situation. It all depends on the particular situation. The following situations call for manual testing by quality assurance teams.
Sometimes, it is important to be flexible
Although automation gives testers greater operational flexibility, manual testing is not always as precise as automated. Automated testing is useful in repeated situations and this often means that you will use the same code and scripts every time. Automation involves creating test cases and programming them with an automation tool. Then running the test takes time. This is especially important for testers who have an immediate idea. Manual tasks would be easier and faster in such situations. Manual testing can be used to quickly test the results and provide an easy way to observe them. You will need to set up automatic tests, which can prevent you from being short of time.
Automation requires significant preparation and expense. Both of these can be unnecessary. Automation is not recommended in this case due to the associated costs. The upfront cost of automation for this project could be too high compared to the return on investment and value it would bring. Manual testing is more cost-effective and profitable in this instance. Automated testing is not appropriate for short-term projects where automation costs outweigh the benefits. Little projects, which contributed only minor features and shared very little code with other areas of the project, are unlikely to ever be improved.
When usability is assessed
It can have a huge impact on whether an application succeeds or fails. This goes beyond automated testing to ensure that there are no issues. Because computers execute preprogrammed tasks rather than think independently, they cannot provide the same feedback as a human user when using an app. For example, automated tests can identify flaws in code quickly, but they cannot predict how users interact with that feature or how easy it will be for them to use the app.
The user’s experiences with the tool’s functionality may be key to influencing other users’ use of it. This data is not available from manual testing. Human perspectives will be required for exploratory and usability testing. Robots can do perfect repetition but are less adept at following intuitions and exploring. This could make it easier for users to fix bugs when they interact with the app in certain ways.
While automated testing has many advantages, manual testing can be preferred in certain situations. QA teams can speed up processes, improve productivity, and increase overall quality by being able to identify the best approach for each situation.