In the software testing arena, a perennial debate has raged between proponents of manual and automation testing. In our experience, the two are complementary; they form a more effective test strategy. (Manual vs automation testing)

Manual testing

Since pretty much the start of software development in the 1960’s manual testing has been carried out by teams of testers. In this technique a team of people ( qa testers) get access to the latest software build and test it to validate that the software build works correctly. For feature testing there are two broad categories of manual testing that can be carried out.

Test case based testing

In this case test cases are defined up front, prior to the arrival of the next software build and the manual team work through the list of test cases performing the actions defined in the test cases and validating that the test case and hence the software build is operational. This technique requires more domain understanding at the test case creation point and less domain knowledge at the time of execution.

Exploratory testing

Here a manual QA tester that understands the domain of the software fairly well attempts to “break” ( cause a bug to happen) the software. Exploratory testing is an excellent complement to to test case based testing. Together they result in a significant improvement in quality

Manual vs automation testing? Manual testing and automation testing are the two basic approaches for testing. Manual testing is a time-consuming and expensive approach for which the testers must know about the product and test cases. On the other hand automated testing is a less time-consuming method for developing software and helps to reduce the time, cost, and risk involved in manual testing.

#webomates #manualtesting #Manualvsautomationtesting #automationtesting #softwaretesting #Testing