The most common allegation against manual testing is – it is complicated, time consuming, costly, difficult to manage and not repetitive. Some business owners also claim – it has some difficulties during training to the employees and manual testing is not scaling well. Among them, some are partially true! They are potential pitfalls for manual testing. However, they can be overcome by expertise, planned test execution and effective management skills. However, here are some key factors that give you an effective manual testing approach –
Here are some “Best Practices” that helps you to design an effective manual testing -
Detailed Test Design
No matter whether it is a functional testing, regression testing or anything else, in all cases a detailed and thorough test design is essential. Before you launch a manual testing, it is essential that, the QA professionals, developers and testers must prepare a detailed test case in order to ensure a rigorous testing of the application.
In both cases – automated testing and manual testing, detailed documentation play a vital role. It not only ensures the reproduction of testing scenarios, but also helps other developers and testers to further expansion of the test cases. Most importantly, the main goal of the documentation processing is – documentation of every test case (as much as possible) without hampering the testing schedule. In short, the testers, write each test case along with results/feedback along with other details like regenerating the issues after executing each test. Initially, this process takes time, but once the testers habituated with this, gradually slash the documentation time and become a part of the testing.
Separating Automated Testing and Manual Testing Areas
The title is self explanatory. As we know, manual testing is costly because lots of manpower and hours involved. Whereas automated testing is cost effective due to automation tools. That is why, it is very important that, finding the manual and automated testing areas effectively and eliminating the automated testing areas in order to save the manpower and of course the money.
“Adding priority” is a management term, but it plays a significant role in software quality assurance. Finding bugs, generating reports and documentation is not enough, adding priority of the bugs is most important. It can be done by simple text labels like “High”, “Medium”, “Low” or something similar or can be described in tables or even infographics for better understandings of the situations. The primary goal of setting up priorities is – rank the test cases (red – critical, blue – high priority, yellow – moderate and so on… ) based on their importance, critical aspects, risk, and the user interaction frequency. So that, the developers can fix the critical bugs as soon as possible.
Many companies funded software quality assurance adequately, but still they didn’t get the desired results – i.e. the bug free software. The main reason of it is – lack of accountability. Accountability comes with a different perspective in the Software Quality Assurance arena. Accountability for – finding bugs, managing/reporting bugs, working hours (for both – testers and the developers) and cost is essential. All the factors are interrelated and affect each other. Well planned manual testing approaches always cover the proper accountability, so that the project owner can calculate ROI (Return on Investment) end of the day!
Finally, the software quality assurance scenario changing dramatically, and the QA professionals must adopt the newest technologies as soon as they can. Additionally, the “sense of ownership” of the QA professionals adding more value to the overall software quality assurance process.