(ThyBlackMan.com) The main problem with manual testing is that it’s costly, time-consuming, and requires many specialists. The main goal of manual testing tools is to identify a bug in a program, a program error, or a non-functioning of a specific program.
Another problem with Manual Testing Tools is that the human factor is the biggest hurdle in this process because software testers can miss many bugs even if they run a test multiple times. It means that not every bug can be found, and not every program error can be detected. And the longer the bug stays in the system, the more expensive it will be to fix it. Also, the same bugs can occur in different parts of a program, which makes it harder to detect and fix them.
Then why do companies still prefer manual testing tools?
Manual testing is the process of testing a software application by a real person. And this test is essential for the below reasons:
Testing small projects: Getting an automation solution to automate the test cases is usually expensive. But, when you only have a few projects to test, it’s difficult to justify spending money on a tool. Aside from that, they spend a lot of money on administration and upkeep. The overall costs are likely to be significant, given the need to design and reevaluate testing scripts and set up parameters and processing times. Although this investment is worthwhile if you work on long-term projects or sell high-ticket items, it is not the case for smaller ventures.
Complex Testing Scenario: When utilizing exploratory testing, software testers cannot create test cases in advance. It’s generally utilized in highly complex testing circumstances where standard test cases aren’t sufficient. As a result, it’s hard to forecast which automated testing scenarios would be the most effective in any given case. Manual testing will be required to construct complicated test cases, so using a tool such as testRigor shall help.
Accurate User Experience: It is unquestionably necessary to determine whether or not the application is user-friendly. Because user-friendliness is the most important factor in determining whether consumers will keep your app or uninstall it. And there is no way to check this with an automation tool, and only a human can understand how another human would react to the software. As a result, manual testing is essential in this regard. Although smoke tests can be used to evaluate usability, manual testing is significantly more practical. That is one of the reasons why many manual testers undergo ISTQB (International Software Testing Qualifications Board) training to hone their skills. If you too are considering Elevating Your Career with ISTQB Certification, then consider checking the nitty-gritty of it on the Web and find whether it is suitable for you.
Agile Tests: In an agile environment, software testers must deal with constant feedback and adapt to changing needs in the user interface, product flow, and, in certain circumstances, core functionalities. Simultaneously, in agile contexts, these dynamic changes may affect regression testing scripts. As a result, even basic testing automation scenarios may necessitate considerable agile modifications. Furthermore, if the testing team is forced to rewrite the pre-written test cases due to changing requirements completely, valuable resources will be wasted.
Scenarios That Cannot Be Automated: In many circumstances, software testers cannot execute automated tests due to certain technology or platform restrictions. This can happen when the cost of automated testing is much higher than manual testing or when the testing scenarios are too complex to automate. In these situations, software testers must rely on manual testing to assess basic product functionality.
Most companies follow manual testing procedures and rely on manual testing tools to test their applications and software. But the main problem is because manual testing takes a long time and has a lot of problems, and has few disadvantages. But for the above benefits, companies still prefer manual testing tools over automated testing.
Staff Writer; Steve Brown
