Given that automation testing is more efficient, why do we still need manual testing?

Even though automation testing offers noteworthy benefits in terms of effectiveness, repeatability, and speed, manual testing remains basic and complementary for a few reasons:

Exploratory Testing:

The nature of exploratory testing makes it best suited for manual execution due to its reliance on adaptability, creativity, and real-time decision-making. When we execute an automation script, it simply runs the pre-defined code we have written. In exploratory testing, also known as ad-hoc testing, we test the application in various crucial and complex scenarios. Therefore, for performing this kind of random testing, manual testing is necessary. Manual analyzers bring human judgement, instinct, and inventiveness to the testing prepare, empowering them to adjust to energetic necessities, complex scenarios, and advancing client expectations.

User Interface (UI) Testing:

Manual testing is fundamental for UI-related testing, such as confirming visual components, format, responsiveness, and aesthetics. Automation testing is not a recommended way for performing this.

Usability Testing:

Assessing the user-friendliness of an application is only possible through manual testing because it requires us to rely on our senses and assess how comfortable we feel while using the application. Human testers can think creatively to uncover potential issues that automation may overlook.

Manual testing is recommended for initial testing phases, especially when the system is unstable.

Manual testing is highly recommended during the early stages of testing because the application is often unstable at this point. Automation is not recommended during these early stages due to the frequent changes and evolving nature of the application.

Edge Case and Negative Testing:

Manual testing is successful for distinguishing and testing edge cases, unordinary scenarios, and negative test cases that might not be secured enough by automation scripts.

Validation of Complex Scenarios:

Some scenarios including complex trade rationale, multi-step workflows, or perplexing information validations are more effectively tried physically. Human analyzers can adjust rapidly to changing conditions and make choices based on relevant knowledge.

Cost-Effectiveness and ROI:

For small or short-term projects, manual testing may be more cost-effective than investing in complex automation infrastructure. It offers flexibility and quick turnaround times without requiring significant upfront investment.

In outline, whereas automation testing upgrades proficiency and versatility, manual testing remains crucial for its adaptability, versatility, and capacity to reveal basic issues that automation scripts may ignore. A combined approach with  both manual and automation testing guarantees comprehensive test scope and high-quality program conveyance.