EN
FR
DE
ES
NO
SV
FI
DA
LV
As software systems continue to progress and grow in complexity and scope, automated testing has undoubtedly transformed the QA process, bringing speed, consistency, and efficiency. However, manual testing plays a significant role in the user experience of applications, flexibility, and quick bug identification in the early stages of development.
Automation is a powerful tool, but it has its limits. It can only do what we program it to do. Manual testing, on the other hand, relies on human intuition and creativity. It’s about thinking like a user, exploring features, and testing beyond what’s been planned. Whether it’s finding small design flaws, checking how users interact with the app, or uncovering tricky bugs, manual testing helps us see the software from a real user’s perspective.
As quality assurance professionals, we often see firsthand how manual testing complements automation and usually, this matches with the fact that before automation knowledge is gained, manual knowledge is needed. Automated testing is great for handling repetitive and large tasks, but manual testing adds a human touch. Combining automation with manual testing can create strong testing processes that ensure quality and build trust in every project.
In this blog post, we’ll explore why manual testing remains a very important part of software quality assurance, even in an era where test automation leads this field.
What are the advantages of manual testing?
Manual testing offers a human-centric approach that ensures an application is user-friendly and intuitive. It allows testers to identify unexpected issues, such as UI glitches or usability concerns, that automation tools might overlook. This hands-on method is ideal for enabling quick adjustments and feedback during early development phases without requiring an upfront automation setup.
Take a look at the top 3 advantages of manual testing:
1. Human insight
One of the biggest advantages of manual testing is the ability to adapt quickly and offer the desired results. While automation scripts are great for repetitive tasks, they can be hard. Manual testers, on the other hand, bring creativity and a more human-centric approach to the table. They can think outside the box and identify edge cases that automation might miss.
For example, a tester might notice UI/UX issues that affect the user experience, something automation might overlook, especially if the test script is too focused only on functionality.
2. Easy to integrate early on
In the early stages of development, manual testing is incredibly useful. When you go over again and again on features or make quick changes, writing automation tests can be time-consuming. Manual testers can give quick feedback and find bugs on the spot, helping the team to identify and fix issues as they arise.
Automation testing requires an initial investment of time to write and maintain the scripts, which can be a burden in fast-paced development environments, especially when the software is changing frequently.
3. Budget-friendly
While automation testing can seem like a cost-saving solution in the long run, it’s not always the cheaper option short term. Setting up automation frameworks, writing test scripts, and maintaining them can be quite expensive, especially for smaller teams or projects with a lot of changes. Manual testing, on the other hand, can be done relatively cheaply and doesn’t require the same initial investment.
Also, if you're working on a project with a limited budget or tight deadlines, investing in manual testing can be very useful without the need for an extensive automation approach.
Automation often comes with high initial investment costs. Tools, frameworks, script development, and maintenance require time and resources. Additionally, automation scripts need constant updating to keep up with new requirements and software changes.
On the other hand, manual testing offers a cost-effective solution for smaller projects or features that don’t require extensive regression testing.
The value of manual testing
For automation testers, understanding the software from a manual testing perspective is essential. When automation testers know how to test manually, they have a deeper understanding of the application’s flow, user interactions, and potential pain points. This knowledge helps them create more effective automation scripts because they can anticipate what the test cases need to cover.
Manual testing also helps identify which tests are worth automating. Not every test needs to be automated, and having a manual testing background gives testers the judgment to decide when automation will be more beneficial. This is very important and it usually doesn’t get that much attention, but having manual testing experience can give a tester a whole scope of testing and can influence the automation tester experience only for the best.
One more factor worth mentioning is that automation scripts can become complex and fragile over time. As the application evolves, maintaining automation scripts can become difficult. On the other hand, manual testing doesn’t require updates to scripts and can easily adapt to changes in the UI or functionality.
Best use cases for manual testing
While automation is excellent for regression testing, performance testing, and load testing, there are areas where manual testing it’s ideal to be used, such as user experience (UX) testing, visual testing, and testing for edge cases.
UX testing
In user experience (UX) testing automation tools cannot assess the emotional response of a user interacting with an application. Is the app difficult to navigate? Are error messages clear? These questions require human judgment and empathy, aspects that only humans (testers) can identify, monitor, and report correctly.
Exploratory testing
When it comes to exploratory testing, manual testing is the best approach, where testers actively explore the application without predefined scripts. This type of testing allows testers to look for unexpected behaviors and research deeply into areas that might not have been considered in automated tests. Automation is not well-suited for this kind of testing, as it relies on predefined steps and logic.
Visual testing
In visual testing, automation tools often miss subtle issues, such as misaligned text, inconsistent fonts, or images that fail to load properly under specific conditions. These small details affect how users see the app and are easier for humans to notice. Again, here manual testing is taking over because manual testers can recognize visual issues.
Testing for edge cases
In testing for edge cases, automation scripts typically follow predefined paths, often leaving edge cases untested. Manual testers excel at thinking outside the box, using experience, creativity, and intuition to uncover very important issues that might otherwise go unnoticed.
The bottom line
While automated testing has its place, manual testing remains a vital component of a successful software quality assurance strategy. Both approaches are valuable, but they serve different purposes. Manual testing brings human experience, insight, and flexibility. Qualities that automation cannot fully replicate. Furthermore, understanding and experiencing firsthand manual testing, allows automation testers to write better scripts and make more informed decisions about which tests to automate.
In the end, the key is balance. By using manual testing where it excels and automation where it makes sense, teams can ensure higher-quality software with greater efficiency.
Ready to enhance your software QA strategy with a hands-on approach? Contact us to discover how our manual testing service can uncover critical user experience issues that automation might miss.
