Is Automation testing preferred over Manual testing?
I have been into QA field for the last 1 and 1/2 years. Always there's a question in my mind as a QA.
In today's Software sector or any other field whether Automation Testing is more preferred than manual testing. Why?
I have the same question as you!
This is my opinion and mine only. I do not claim this is true.
I am more experienced and passionated with manual testing. My background is as an interaction designer, therefore doing manual testing also allows me to perform interaction design tests and look for graphic/design errors.
I believe that developers have higher status than a tester or an interaction designer. Most of the script/automation testers are developers (as their background) and therefore have higher status. The comapnies also want a tester who can write code and act as a developer. "Everybody" knows that when a project runs out of money and/or time, quality is ignored (first, interaction designers are fired, then testers).
That's my opinion after being to several job interviews and also went to education in interaction design, software testing and software development.
This is a most debatable topic. In short, if you are talking about job prospects, then automation testing has high advantage considering it involves you to be skilled in technology or tools. The demand for automation testers is more because, 60 - 70 % projects in the current industry are in maintenance phase only and hence there would be lot of effort needed to re-run the old tests part of regression rather than new development scenarios.
Yup, very debateable
This is what I think.
In terms of skill sets people look for,
Manual - Leadership abilities, Attention to details
Automation - Technical Knowledge/Experience
This is the reasons why I think automated testing will have lower barriers to entry for more Jr. positions.
1. Automation skills are technical skills and easy to put on a resume vs. the soft skills needed to be a good manual tester.
2. Most companies have desires to move towards automated testing. Even if they have a position for manual testing, they want eventually port those manual tests to automated ones, and would like people who can do both.
3. Even manual positions will require a good amount of technical skills, SQL, REST, etc... It would be good to get someone who can do all that, and code.
now days manual testing are moved to some business specific.Retail,Health care like that
In 25+ years of software validation, starting out as a tester, all we had back then was manual testing. My testing also included using skills such as SQL, and looking into the code to find where the problem was (I'm not a programmer though I am self-taught in some of it, but I don't believe it's that hard to find errors in code if you understand the rules of the particular language). Once automated testing became possible, most companies I worked for wanted to use it but didn't want to spend the time or money buying the tool, validating it for their intended use (I'm in the regulated world), training people how to use it, or spend the time needed to input test cases (most projects never had enough people to begin with, timelines are always tightened - when they need to be expanded - and too many in management don't see how more time spent now will save you time towards the end of the project; that's especially true when it comes to defining requirements).
I've used a few automated tools and to be honest I prefer manual testing. Partly, I'm sure, because that's what I started out doing, but part of it is I've seen too many tools, ones that claim to be able to write your scripts based on your input requirements, not cover tests they should. If the right tests aren't being done, then you can't be confident your system is working as it should be. I really prefer to write my own scripts based off requirements...that also helps me ensure the requirements are as defined as they need to be.
Technology is great, but it's only as correct as how someone coded it, and that goes for automated test tools, also. In the regulated environment I'm in they see software as having a 100% failure rate; manual testing makes me feel more confident that the software I'm testing is meeting the requirements. I relate it to it's great to be able to bring my Kindle on long trips so I can read a bunch of books without having to drag them all along, but there's nothing like the feel of an actual book in my hands
Indeed the most debatable topic for any tester.
It depends on the nature of testing required, scope, duration of the project, and most importantly the budget of a company and the cost of automation tool and engineer against a manual tester.
Go for automation if:
1. The software is stable and the updates are not too much drastic changes, the developed scripts can be run with minimal changes to perform regression much faster than the manual testing.
2. For such software, just one or two automation engineer having the technical knowledge is needed to write the automation script against a team of few manual testers.
3. The project is for a long time and that the ROI(Return on Invest) on the cost of the automation tool and that the automation engineer will lead to profitability of the company.
4. The requirements of the software are clear and major changes are not very frequent.
5. Some things cannot be tested by manual testing like load, and performance.
Go for manual testing if:
1. The software is in the initial cycles of the development and there are major and frequent changes.
2. The project is not for a long term(develop and deploy type).
3. Some important features of the software like look and feel, usability, etc that cannot be covered in automation testing.
4. The updates in the software are such that the time and money invested in manual testing is less than the time and money invested in updating the automation scripts.
5. The software needs manual intervention to operate like it has to be connected to some external supporting environment or device and that the behavior of the software has to be tested on the connected device too which in most cases is out of the scope of the automation tool.
6. The cost of manual testing the software is less than the cost of a licensed automation tool and the automation engineer.
To generalize the thing, most of the software testing teams include manual as well as automation teams in the project. A automated test is not possible without firstly testing the software manually.
Most of the automation test scripts are based on manual test cases.
In my view u should go for Mobile test Automation. Manual Testing is less in demand comparetively.
I look at Automation as a way to enhance manual testing, not to replace manual testing. Automated testing lets us run test cases after hours and over a weekend, and helps to make performance testing more consistent. We also use it for environment verification and integration. In our shop everything goes through manual testing and automation is used to provide additional coverage.
I agree with Luxin.
Industry needs both manual and automation testing. They both serve different purposes. Automation is needed to execute types of tests that are hard and often impossible to implement manually, such as performance, stress, concurrency and the tests where human error factor might be high. Automation also provides repeatability. Some types of white box testing that test code in depth, like Unit testing, is never possible manually. At the rate that technologies change now, and with the rising demands of customers for best quality and performance, you can't get around without automation. But you can't get around without manual testing too: human intelligence and creativity will never be replaced with automation! In addition, some tests have to be manual. Implementing automation correctly and efficiently will leave manual testers with more creative and interesting testing tasks, instead of redundant and often boring. In short, both manual and automated testing are important and useful, they both serve different purposes and complement each other.
Last edited by Nadyushka; 02-05-2014 at 11:30 AM.