Manual Testing

404: Manual testing not found.

Entry inspired by Lisa Crispin.

Before my actual testing career started, I was a "manual tester" for a week in ~2001, stepping in for a colleague. My job was to test the installation manual for a piece of software. That is what manual tester means in the context of software, right?

Human driven testing activities, that are not using or focused on building automated checks. Manual testing may still make use of tools and code, but is driven by a human and not a computer.

A potentially broad term, manual testing could be applied to any part of software testing. However there is a good chance, people use the term manual testing to mean, human driven test execution.

The term can be controversial, because it is sometimes used to down play the skill needed for testing, outside of the value of automation.

It used to be said, that there is no such thing as manual testing, because all testing is manual in the same way that all development is manual. This line of thinking is currently being challenged by the introduction of generative Ai tools that are, with varying degrees of success, attempting to automate development, as well as testing.

The phrase 'manual testing' is often used to describe testing activities performed by humans without the aid of automated scripts or tools. On the surface, it seems harmless enough, a simple way to distinguish between human-driven testing and tool based testing. 

Adding ‘manual’ to describe testers' work became common after the rise of a credible alternative, which was automation. As people were talking about automation testing, the term manual testing crept in. It should not have had a long shelf life. However, trends along the lines of ‘testing is dead because…’, which started with automation and continues through today with AI replacing testers, have kept this limiting and inaccurate label alive. 

Testing is not simply about how tests are executed (manually or automated). It’s a multifaceted process that requires exploration, critical thinking, and creativity. These activities cannot be reduced to a binary measure of 'manual' versus 'automation.' Worse still, the term 'manual tester' can inadvertently imply 'less valuable' or 'tech-lite,' leading to the perception that these testers are simply executing predefined steps of a script without the need for deeper analytical or investigative skills. This misconception not only does a disservice to the profession, but to the brilliant testers who happen not to create or like doing automation and, more importantly, to the quality of software itself.