For any software development company or professional to produce a successful application, rigorous testing is the key. As a stakeholder, you want the app, website, or software to be free of bugs and glitches before it is launched in the market.
It is always better to fix these errors before resorting to troubleshooting methods, later risking a shorter shelf life. The main aim of any profit-abiding enterprise is not to annoy its customers, which is achieved through testing these prototypes.
Over several decades, software developers have seen two kinds of testing – manual and automated. In this article, we want to shed some light on how, while manual testing seems to be the safer of the two options, it is not very efficient when it comes to software development.
What is Manual Testing?
Manual testing is a software testing procedure in which test cases are inculcated and executed manually, devoid of any automation or scriptless coding. Manual testing involves a human tester who changes preferences according to the end user’s perspective. Since it is a completely labor-intensive process, even the test case reports, which are analyzed, are generated manually.
End-to-End Testing on real iOS, Android Devices & Browsers
For a long time, software professionals have been using manual testing to test out their software and analyze the test cases. It is a mandatory check that every company must tick before proceeding to the next step in the development process.
While manual testing has no outward faults, it is a highly technical process executed only by the most accomplished professionals in the testing field. This makes the testing process extremely costly and time-bound, seeing as manual testing takes much more time than scriptless or automated testing.
This is why more and more companies and software professionals are upgrading to a more automated testing tool. By adopting an automated testing tool, enterprises save valuable time and effort.
5 Reasons Why Manual Testing is not the Best
Besides being an outdated technology, here are 5 reasons why manual testing may not be the right fit for your software development needs –
1. Manual Testing Requires More Time and Other Resources –
Since manual testing requires a human professional to design the test cases, keeping in mind the different scenarios, executing said test cases, and then curating the test case reports for each of these cases, it takes a lot more time than an automated testing tool would.
Therefore, manual testing not only takes much longer than alternate means but also results in using more resources – such as time, space, and effort. Resources that can be employed somewhere where the human touch is more imperative.
2. Decreased Accuracy –
Naturally, the nature of how manual testing is conducted makes it more prone to reporting basic human errors that can cause fluctuations in the final results. Human testers make mistakes, and it is hard to factor unforeseen mistakes into these test cases to produce accurate reports.
This accuracy is not compromised during automated testing as the right logic tool is inputted in order to get the correct information. Therefore, manual testing can hinder a software development company’s credibility and status while developing an app due to inaccurate data.
3. Narrower Scope –
In manual testing, the scope for test cases becomes extremely limited because the testers are human. A person can only pay attention to, or concentrate on one or two verification points, slowing down the process.
As opposed to this, an automated testing tool is programmed to deal with many versatile test cases at once, giving more results in less time. This leaves very little scope for enterprising using manual testing, as it greatly binds them.
4. Lack of GUI Options –
Manual testing is an incredibly technical skill only a professional can accomplish. Therefore, adding more customized options means an even greater skill set, making it difficult to inculcate versatile options.
Hence, it is very difficult to find manual testing tools that have graphic user interface tools such as an object, size, color, and differentiation combinations readily available – as opposed to an automated/scriptless testing tool.
This results in a more standard, less personalized test case, making it difficult for the enterprise to connect it with its application and analyze it accordingly.
5. Comparing Large Amounts of Data is Impractical –
Test cases require comparing two databases across different teams to curate the perfect test case reports. In manual testing, comparing such large amounts of data and sifting through thousands of records becomes extremely impractical and unproductive.
Not only this but since two teams work together, there are bound to be certain misunderstandings due to different internal goals. This misleads the process and leads to impractical wastage of time. Such comparison can be easily done in a matter of minutes through automated testing, also eliminating any confusion.
In an era of automation, where technology like Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Low-code are thriving, it is natural for traditional methods like manual testing to take the backseat. Manual testing as an option served well for decades, helping companies test and perfect their applications into something that strives in the software pro-market.
So much so that, even today, a few companies still employ these tools. But it would be remiss not to mention that it is slowly exhausting its efficiency, as it is being usurped by the more practical, more attractive automated testing option. Automated testing introduced the concept of customized test cases, allowing developers to test their apps without any restrictions.
TestGrid, via its scriptless testing tool, offers a solution to all the above-mentioned obstacles that are faced by a company employing manual testing tools. TestGrid offers a unique end-to-end automated testing platform that allows testers to have simple solutions for software, something that manual testing cannot accomplish. It is fast and efficient, cuts down costs, and offers accelerated product enhancement.