Are There Many Cases Where Manual Testing Is Preferred Over Automated Testing?

Are There Many Cases Where Manual Testing Is Preferred Over Automated Testing?

Manual testing requires human intervention. It is done by a person or a group of people without resorting to the automation effort. To conduct tests, a human being uses his hands, his wit and his brain to produce the scenarios that will cause the product to fail down or to perform its mission. Human-based testing makes it possible for you to create real-life scenarios by using realistic user data in production environments and provides the possibility to catch both evident and subtle defects.

Manual testing is a great way to uncover defects associated with app’s business logic. Actually, business logic known also as domain logic is the programming involved in encoding user requirements; put it differently, it is the program that manages interaction between a database and an end user app.  Business logic has to do with underlying processes within the software that handles operations between the user interfaces and custom-server code; it requires a human effort in the loop to determine whether it is correct, while automation is hardly suitable for accomplishing this task.

Test automation companies look to improve clients’ business processes by running and rerunning a bigger number of tests for a development project.

It is likely that it will be the case that developer-based methods will evolve to replace human-present testing effort completely. In fact, this would be a salvation for software engineers and software customers alike, the future these people dream of, but as far as the predictable future is concerned, tester-oriented exposure is our best expectation at uncovering the defects that are of importance. There are a multitude of scenarios, lots of distinctions, and too many probable problems for test automation to keep track of it all. “Brain in the loop” is necessary for automation. This is the case for these 10 years, the next 10 years, and possibly some more after that.

It would great if it was just so easy, but for all seasons the industry has been rather bad at manual testing. It is too slow, not repeatable, too ad hoc, time-consuming, too tedious, not moveable, and there are not enough good recommendations out there for testing specialists to succeed in this discipline. As a result, manual testing has fallen into disrepute, as the ugly foster child of development. Unfortunately, that this is the case, but such is the hand that we are dealt.

It is time we should apply the best technology available to manual testing methods.