What are the Pros & Cons of Manual Software Testing
We must analyse and inspect a software component/product’s features after creating and evaluating the component for possible errors and bugs. When so that when it is delivered to the market, it is free of bugs and errors. It’s at this stage where we’ll need to put the app through its paces. There are two forms of software testing: manual and automated.
Manual testing, as the name implies, is the process of manually testing an application. The test cases/scenarios are manually performed by Testers (software testing professionals) without the use of any pre-made equipment, and the results are then tested. So, manual testing is a process in which we compare the behaviour of a piece of software (which may be a component, module, function, or something else) to the predefined, expected behaviour that we set during the SDLC’s early stages.
The most basic type of software testing is manual verification. It can be done by someone who has never used a tool before. Manual inspection may be performed by a student with a clear understanding of a device’s application or testing.
It is, however, an essential phase in the software testing process. Before automating testing any new device or programme, you must manually check. It primarily aids in ensuring the application’s consistency by providing the following points:
- Assuring that the application satisfies the system’s specified requirements.
- Identifying any bugs or errors that can occur when running the programme.
Before delving into the principles of manual testing, it’s essential to understand why we need manual verification of an application in the first place.
What is the need for manual verification of software or an application?
With the evolving trends in the software industry, more and more software professionals are opting for automated testing, but manual testing is still necessary for various reasons. Among them are:
- Human Perspective: Humans are the only ones who can assess the application’s basic usability and look and feel. Since the programme is designed for humans only, it can only do a decent job of validating from a user’s viewpoint.
- A more comprehensive view of the System workflows and some variation: Manual verification still provides a broader view of the programme as a whole. As opposed to a coding system that repeats the same steps every time, the human mind will still be in an exploratory state. As a result, the device validation would have a broader range of coverage.
- Automation costs: Because of the project’s timeliness or scope, extended automation efforts are not always justified, and we always prefer a simple manual validation to automation testing.
- Scenarios that are not automatable: Various techniques are either not worth automating or do not have strong trust in user actions when experimenting with automation.
When should manual testing be performed?
So the question remains: when do we do manual research, and what circumstances force us to do so? We conduct such testing in the following cases:
Adhoc Testing: As the name implies, Adhoc testing is done on the spur of the moment. It doesn’t have a fixed strategy, and there’s no documentation to go along with it. Adhoc research is completely unstructured, and the only thing that matters is the tester’s expertise and intuition. As a result, manual testing is a viable alternative in such situations. For more information on Adhoc testing, click on the link “Adhoc testing.”
Usability Testing: Usability testing is another situation in which manual testing is needed. Usability testing is used to determine how simple, reliable, and user-friendly a product is for its intended audience. We need the most manual intervention for this evaluation and can’t rely on tools to do it for us. As a result, we choose manual testing to assess the product from the perspective of the end-user. For more information on Usability testing, click on the link “Usability testing.”
Exploratory testing: When the test documentation is terrible, and we only have a limited time to execute it, exploratory testing is essential. It involves the tester’s analytical abilities and ingenuity, as well as product knowledge. We use manual checking when doing experimental research because we can’t use software with limited information and documentation. For a more comprehensive understanding of exploratory testing, see the link “Exploratory testing.”
What are the Pros & Cons of Manual Software Testing?
A few of the significant pros of manual testing are mentioned below:
- The majority of problems, including the application’s look and feel, are discovered through manual testing.
- The tester can easily access visual components such as text, layout, and other features, and UI and UX issues can be identified.
- Since we don’t use any equipment or high-level expertise, it also has a low operating cost.
- Since it is adaptable, it is well-suited if we make any unplanned changes to the application.
- In manual experiments, humans can observe, assess, and have intuition, which is helpful for user-friendliness or a rich customer experience.
A few of the significant cons of manual testing are mentioned below:
- Manual research takes a long time.
- Using a manual test, it’s difficult to find size differences and colour combinations of GUI elements.
- Manual tests make load monitoring and performance testing impractical.
- Manually running tests when there are a large number of them is a very time-consuming task.
- Manual regression testing cases take a long time to complete.
In conclusion, as the name suggests, this blog is created to help you understand the pros and cons of manual software testing and some aspects of the same. I hope that this blog helped you and was worth a read.