13 Reasons Why Manual Testing Is Still Important

New apps and products enter the market daily, each undergoing rigorous testing before release. As automated processes advance across various industries, software development is no exception. Many quality assurance (QA) teams heavily invest in automation to handle most of their tests. This ensures repeatable tests are efficiently executed while quality assurance professionals focus on other tasks. 

With all these advancements, one might wonder: Is manual testing still important? The answer is yes! Despite the incredible advancements in automation, there are still numerous situations where manual testing is irreplaceable, such as exploratory tests. In some cases, it’s even cheaper to test manually than using automation.

But does manual testing really have a future, or is it becoming outdated?

Let’s find out the answer in the article below!

Does Manual Testing Have A Future? 

Yes, manual testing absolutely has a future. While automated testing is fantastic for handling repetitive tasks and improving efficiency, it can’t replace the human element in testing. Automation, while powerful, can sometimes be impractical or too costly to implement in certain scenarios. 

For instance, manual testing is often more efficient and effective when features and designs frequently change during the early stages of product development. In these situations, testers can adapt quickly to modifications without the overhead of constantly updating automated scripts.

As previously mentioned, manual testing excels in areas that demand human intuition and creativity, such as exploratory and usability testing. These steps are challenging to automate but necessary for providing a high-quality user experience. 

As the product matures, the balance between manual and automated testing can be adjusted, but the need for skilled manual testers will always remain.

Here’s why developers still need manual testers, whether working externally or in-house, to achieve the best testing outcomes.

1. There’s a Whole Bunch of Testing That’s Best Performed Manually

User experience (UX) is one of the biggest reasons manual testing is important. We all could use valuable criticism from time to time (even developers!). When it comes to functionality and initial impressions, nothing beats the insights of a human observer. 

Some tests work better when humans perform them. For example, exploratory testing is about testing the application to spot bugs that might slip through automated checks. 

Only humans can really nail down the details when it comes to languages and local dialects in a product targeting multiple regions. These hands-on tests catch more issues and ensure your app feels right to real users.

2. Automated Testing Can’t Replace Humans But Complements Them

Automated testing is like having a reliable assistant tackling repetitive tasks, freeing up manual testers to explore more creative and challenging scenarios. It’s similar to having a car that can brake in an emergency while you focus on making more complex driving decisions.

By automating common tests, manual testers can concentrate on developing creative test cases and guaranteeing complete product coverage. Rather than replicating human behavior, good automated testing improves testing efficiency by creating new and effective test scripts.

3. Some Bugs Are Unpredictable, Which Automated Testing Can’t Catch

Bugs can pop up unexpectedly, even in areas automated tests cover. Testers often find these issues while exploring different components of the app. Automated testing might miss these bugs since it only checks what it’s programmed for. 

QA Teams need to plan upfront regardless of the testing method they use. But we can never expect to come up with everything on the first go around. Manual testing is a much faster catch-all for most of what was missed.

4. Human Insight and Creativity are Irreplaceable for Understanding User Perspective

Human insight and flexible thinking beat artificial intelligence (AI) when it comes to understanding the user perspective. Manual testers often empathize with users and provide invaluable insights beyond evaluating the product’s performance.

This empathetic approach, combined with human expertise, creativity, and analytical skills, enables human testers to identify problems, suggest changes, and lead product development. 

5. Agile Workflows Complicate Automated Test Maintenance 

Agile workflows mess up automated test maintenance. Constant updates to product flow, user interface (UI), and features mean rewriting testing scripts in almost every sprint. Even classic automation for regression testing requires frequent tweaks in agile environments. This ongoing script updating makes it tough to keep automated testing aligned with sprint goals. 

Automation streamlines testing processes, but without careful management, it may overlook outdated fixes. Manual testing complements this by ensuring thoroughness, smart resource allocation, and long-term planning in agile development.

6. Manual Testing is Cheaper For Smaller Projects

Manual testing is a cost-effective choice for smaller projects. It requires fewer upfront investments than automated testing, which incurs software, maintenance, script writing, and setup time expenses. 

For startups and small companies, where budget and resource constraints, manual testing allows for quick checks and immediate feedback to developers without the overhead costs associated with automation. 

Automation may be justified for long-term projects or large-scale applications. However, the simplicity and efficiency of manual testing often outweigh the expense and complexity of automated solutions for smaller endeavors.

7. Good Testing Needs Both Automation and Manual Checks

Good testing requires a blend of automation and hands-on checks. While automated testing is excellent for routine checks, it can’t cover all bases alone. 

You also need human testers to introduce variety and test unexpected scenarios. Together, these approaches ensure comprehensive product coverage.

8. Mobile Devices Have Complicated Use Cases

Mobile devices pose complex testing challenges. Automated scripts often fail to address issues related to device compatibility and interactions. Tasks such as switching Wi-Fi networks, multitasking with other apps, managing permissions, and handling incoming calls and texts can significantly impact app performance.

Moreover, variations in swipe directions and the number of fingers used for tapping further complicate testing on mobile platforms. Manual testing becomes essential to ensure your app is defect-free, as it allows testers to explore these complex device behaviors thoroughly.

9. Manual Testing Goes Beyond Simple Pass/Fail Metrics

Pass/fail testing is super cool. We ask our network testers to conduct use cases with set outcomes all the time. But for most projects, more complicated (and, yes, variable) scenarios are desirable.

For example, automated tests can validate predefined responses and interactions under normal conditions in a chatbot application. However, they often miss how well the chatbot handles informal language or unexpected user inputs. 

Additionally, automated tests cannot assess user emotions or gauge satisfaction based on conversational flow and context.

10. Manual Testers Can Quickly Reproduce Customer-Caught Errors

Manual testers can swiftly recreate errors reported by customers. While you aim to catch all bugs before release, customer feedback often highlights issues you might have missed.

For cloud-based products, quick fixes are essential. Manual testers can take customer-provided details and promptly create bug reports that engineers find invaluable.

When resolving customer issues, manual testing significantly accelerates the time from problem identification to fix. 

11. Automated Testing Faces Access Restrictions in Some Cases

Automated testing faces significant challenges in complex projects due to access restrictions. It can hit roadblocks when engineers lack full access to necessary systems and environments. Without these permissions, the effectiveness of automated tests is limited. 

Manual testing also requires appropriate permissions to access systems and environments. However, manual testers can often work around certain restrictions more flexibly. They can make real-time decisions and explore different aspects of the system based on their understanding and observations.

12. Validation of User Stories Requires Manual Testing

Validating user stories necessitates manual testing because it verifies functionality against documented requirements. Unlike automated testing, which may miss specific real-world scenarios, manual testing ensures that newly implemented features or changes align with user expectations. 

This process begins with a test engineer conducting manual tests to identify defects or discrepancies. Once these issues are addressed, you can create automated tests to maintain consistent functionality. 

13. Manual Testing Allows Flexible Workarounds for Failures

Manual testing offers flexibility when dealing with test case failures. Unlike automated testing, where failures are straightforward to report but often limit the ability to explore other areas, manual testing allows testers to adapt and perform workarounds. 

For example, if one test case fails, a manual tester can review the application to verify related functionalities or scenarios that automated scripts might overlook. 

How Manual Testing Can Stay Relevant?

For manual testing to stay relevant, it must adapt and evolve with the latest technology and industry trends.

Here are a few practical strategies:

  • Focus on human-centric testing: Areas like user experience, usability testing, and accessibility testing need a human touch. Manual testers should dive into these areas where automated tools fall short.
  • Keep learning and upskilling: Manual testers must learn new tools, techniques, and programming languages. They must handle challenging testing scenarios and work well with automation experts.
  • Team up with automation: Instead of seeing manual and automated testing as rivals, let’s blend them. Manual testers can help design and fine-tune automated scripts, ensuring that both testing methods work seamlessly.

You can optimize traditional testing approaches to integrate with automation for faster and more cost-effective software delivery. Testlio’s fused software testing provides a flexible, nimble, and impactful solution, aligning testing processes with rapid development cycles. 

It combines automated and manual testing, merges on-demand and dedicated resources, and integrates quality and operations systems. This fused approach helps engineering teams reduce quality costs, expand testing coverage, and improve release velocity.

Final Words

While automation has transformed testing practices with speed and efficiency, manual testing remains undeniably relevant. Its ability to provide thorough insights, adaptability to complex scenarios, and collaborative potential with automation ensure comprehensive software testing. 

Adopting a balanced approach that integrates manual and automated testing can optimize efficiency, enhance accuracy, and deliver superior software products. 

Need help with your quality assurance endeavors? Testlio is here to help! Our flexible, innovative, and proven approaches empower digital innovators to mitigate risks during high-stakes releases, prioritizing quality above all.

Explore how Testlio can transform your approach to quality assurance. Contact sales today to learn more!