Automation is taking over everything in tech, and we’re loving it. At every turn, AI is seeing numerous applications across different fields. One main reason is its highly coveted capacity for automation. Now, we can run demanding tasks, kick back, and enjoy the midday breeze.

However, automation still does not dominate quality assurance, and this is for excellent reasons. In many ways, experts still rely on the technique of manual testing. So, why is this method still trusted so much? And does it still matter in this day and age of AI?

This article will explain different reasons why manual software testing jobs are still surviving. And it will express how we can bridge the gap between it and automation. 

Why Automation Has Surpassed Manual Testing in QA

What is manual testing? It simply means running software quality assurance checks with human input. Instead of script-processing test scenarios, a manual tester punches in commands and observes how the program responds. This was the way things were in ancient times (and by ‘ancient,’ we mean the days before AI).

Experts had to perform all tasks by hand, and human eyes, prone to fatigue, monitored the processes. Humans printed reports and projections on paper, requiring their brains to calculate every detail, sheet by sheet. The sheer burden of this alone is enough to cause errors, slow productivity, and eventually, quality loss.

But automation came to the rescue. These advanced tools generate reports and calculations without error because they speed up data management. AI technology manages repetitive tasks with complete ease. And as they advance, these systems adapt to meet new levels of complexity. 

So, automation made life easier for developers in the long run. But this doesn’t make them the proverbial knight in shining armor. In many cases, quality assurance manual testing still comes out on top. And knowing where these are can help you learn how to balance both sides of the tech coin.

6 Reasons Why Manual Testing Still Matters in QA

Automated testing may be the new rave, but it’s not the ultimate solution. Yes, it offers some perks that give it an edge, but there are areas where it still bows to manual software testing. Let’s explore them below:

Irreplaceable Human Touch

Human interaction is a major factor when comparing manual vs. automated software testing. No matter how advanced technology becomes, we’ll always need human interaction to make it work at its best. Automated testing is, at best, described as a tech-based assistant for voluminous repetitive tasks. So, you still need people to handle creative assignments.

Furthermore, no AI can be better at understanding human perspectives than humans. It’s analogous to managing the numerous complexities associated with mobile devices. You need humans to properly evaluate factors like user interface and preferred app elements. After all, what AI can better test swipe directions and the total number of fingers for typing?

Unpredictable Bugs

Most automated QA tests are programmed to find bugs in given areas of the code. Therefore, even after testing, new bugs will remain invisible. However, manual software testing jobs easily detect these errors, such as minor changes in ID, UI, or even a button’s class.

To catch such errors, developers would reprogram an automated test to search for these small bugs. And that costs extra time and effort, which they’d save if they just performed manual tests from the start.

Maintenance Complications by Agile Workflows

The agile environment is always changing. Constant updates to UI, features, and product flow mean rewriting testing scripts per sprint. This kind of workflow can’t allow the smooth use of automated testing—if anything, it slows the project.

However, QA manual testing works wonderfully with agile workflows. Its nature allows you to run thorough tests while also saving time and energy. If there are any updates, you can even return at your convenience.

Not all Tests Can Be Automated

Some tests require more human judgment than an evaluation of the codes. Examples include:

• Regression testing, to confirm new updates don’t bring new issues.
• Exploratory testing, to check for possible updates and bugs.
• Usability testing, for user friendliness.
• Ad Hoc Testing, to detect urgent, impromptu issues.
• Niche testing, like localization and payment testing.
• Functional testing, like smoke testing, black, white, and gray box testing.

In these cases, human intuition is often important, hence the need for manual software testing. In some cases, such as Gray Box testing, you even need a bit of knowledge of the software’s internal environment. Others, such as niche testing and IoT apps, are simply too complicated for automation.

Cheaper for Smaller Projects

Automated testing, at any level, is an expensive process. You will incur significant costs for scripting, setup, maintenance, and software. So, if you’re running a smaller project, it’s relatively pointless to consider automated tests.

Manual testing tools are efficient enough for most small software testing projects. They’re also flexible with budgets and are excellent for quick checks and immediate feedback. 

Validation of User Stories 

You need manual testers to confirm functionality against documented specifications. You can only create automated scripts after running these manual tests. This is because automated tests for functionality can only be accurate if their scripts are based on results from manual tests.

If you skip this step to run automated tests instead, you may miss scenarios that align with user stories. The script won’t find proper defects because it doesn’t know what to look for.

Balancing the Need for Automated and Manual Testing in QA

As wonderful as automation is, you can’t completely ignore manual tests. There’s a need to combine both in software development. So, how can you accomplish that?

We already know not every software test works with automation. However, the following scenarios demonstrate the most effective use of automation:

• Tests using large or multiple data sets
• Stable tests with high passing rates
• Tests where it’s necessary before QA manual testing
• Time-consuming tests, or tests prone to human errors
• Tests with significant downtime between stages

And though manual testing jobs still have their uses, more automated scenarios are creeping up their territory. So, how can you keep it relevant in this advanced day and age? Consider these techniques:

Prioritize Human-centric Testing: We’ve already stated that some tests require human involvement. As long as we limit these areas to only manual quality assurance testing, they should continue to be in demand.

Upskilling: Experts need to upgrade their knowledge in manual testing with new tools and programming languages. The more their skills and scope advance, the more they can compete with automation experts.

Collaboration with Automation: Experts should consider joining forces rather than fighting for superiority. Both kinds of testing work best when combined, so why not build team-ups?

How We Can Help

North South Tech understands the quality assurance argument over human vs. automation testing. Manual testing is important in many situations, especially when intuition and creativity are essential. We combine the best of both worlds with a rigorous testing method that doesn’t use jargon or hollow promises.

We use a unique strategy that combines manual and automated testing. Usability testing, exploratory testing, and user story validation are our testers’ specialties. We also use cutting-edge automated solutions for repetitive activities and massive data sets to provide a balanced testing process.

We provide high-quality quality assurance that adapts to software development changes by combining manual and automated testing. We don’t just talk industry jargon—we deliver outcomes that improve your software’s functionality, user experience, and quality.Are you prepared to enhance your testing? 

Let us develop a methodology that is tailored to your requirements and enhances the quality of your software. Message us today.