Does automation software replace manual testing?
There is a lot of discussion about how automated testing is taking the place of manual testing. Why tolerate the price of manual testing when you can just build automated tests in their stead, the reasoning goes? Isn’t it faster, less expensive, and produces the same findings as manual testing?
Wrong. The fact is that manual testing is still in use. It will never happen, taking into consideration the limits of test automation software.
Automated Testing vs. Manual Testing
The most significant distinction between manual testing and automated testing is who (or what) executes the test cases. Manual testing involves QA engineers doing each test case individually in order to detect defects and feature issues before product launch.
However, in automation testing, multiple test cases are conducted concurrently based on specified test scripts that are run using automated functional testing technologies.
As a result, the distinction between manual testing and test automation software boils down to whether the test case is carried out by a human or a computer.
So, how should you choose between automated and manual testing? This decision is influenced by the purpose of each test case as well as the expected outcome of the test.
Reasons why Manual testing can’t be replaced by Automated Testing
- The process of usability testing can hardly be ever automated
It is just not possible to automate usability assessments. Humans are required for usability testing. You can’t teach a computer to distinguish between “excellent” and “poor” usability. Maybe you’re thinking, “Okay, let’s just forgo usability testing.”
Don’t make that error. By omitting usability testing, you expose yourself to a significant level of danger. This phase in the QA process is critical to ensuring release trust, and there is no way to avoid incorporating a person in usability testing.
- Automation tests only those things that are predictable
Automated testing helps reassure what to anticipate to happen occurs. This is referred to as the “happy way.” test automation software relies on pre-existing capabilities. It has a broad coverage but not a deep one.
When resources are few, automated testing is ideal for regression tests. However, relying solely on automated testing is bound to produce flaws and gaps in your testing process.
- There can be still bugs even in automated tests
Test automation software, like your application’s code, may have defects. If you write automated tests containing defects, you will get false positives. This might cause severe issues for your customers and staff. The human aspect of manual testing may detect these problems and ensure that you are testing appropriately.
- There can be minor technical limitations
Some test situations are simply too complex or hard to automate. One prevalent argument is that “automated testing is less expensive.” However, it is not difficult to invest a significant amount of time and money in extensive automation.
Consider testing a range of touch screen gadgets. How can you automate the “tap” and “swipe” experiences? You can’t accomplish it in a way that’s comparable to human usage.
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages, and they can never be a complete substitute for one another. Manual testing allows one to comprehend the overall problem and explore several test angles with independency.
Automated testing saves a lot of time in the long run by performing a high number of surface-level tests in a short period. Although most premier testing companies and skilled testers are embracing automation in many areas, manual testing will never die entirely because of the above-mentioned benefits.