Call 0330 332 6217

Manual vs. Automation - which is the best web testing approach?

Posted by Rachel.Wilson on Friday 12 August 2016

SOFTWARE TESTING IS A VITAL PART OF ANY RELEASE, BUT JUST AS IMPORTANT AS DOING IT IS MAKING SURE YOU TAKE THE RIGHT APPROACH. WE LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

Countless hours go into developing your software; day after day of code, sweat, and tears until finally it’s finished. It’s something you invest a lot in — and something you will hope others will too, so it’s important that it works exactly the way you intended. If not, you’ll find your intended customers may soon go elsewhere.

That’s why bug testing is such a vital part of any release, but just as important as doing it is making sure you take the right approach. Depending on your timescale, budget, and needs you’ll probably find yourself having to choose between various types of automated and manual testing. But which approach is more likely to save your blushes? Or is there a different option altogether?

 

Manual vs. automated testing

Both manual and automated testing have their strengths and shortfalls. Automated testing is quick to set up and tests are reusable. It’s also fast, meaning you save money, and is more collaborative than manual processes, with every member of your team able to log-on and check results. Plus you can test more code, on more platforms, in less time, which is important when you’re regularly deploying code to production.

It’s not all positive, though. Test automation can be hugely expensive to set up and maintain, and it’s particularly difficult to emulate human use for all areas of functionality. For example, no machine can tell you how an interface looks to the human eye.

It’s this attention to detail that some think gives manual testing the edge. It may be slower, and more prone to error due to the repetitive nature, but it’s the only way of truly recreating the user experience.

So what if there was a way of taking advantage of this human approach that wasn’t as slow? If you look just beyond your internal resources, there may well be.

 

The BugFinders approach: the best of both worlds

At BugFinders we take an approach to software testing that combines the many benefits of manual testing with the support of automation at exactly the point it makes sense to do so. We call this approach TRUE, which stands for ‘Tested, Retested, Ultra-Fast and Extensive’.

It begins with Crowdsourced Software Testing — a form of Manual Testing that enables you to quickly get feedback from a large section of your target audience, while covering a multitude of use cases, and a wide range of devices and locations.

The next step, ‘Retesting’, comes when bugs are identified, in which instance they are investigated and confirmed by our expert in-house teams. All of this happens quickly too, which is where the ‘Ultra-Fast’ comes into play. We can test websites in just two days, and apps in 24 hours or less, which means you can get to market that much faster.

What’s more, our testing is ‘Extensive’, covering thousands of different mobile devices and all major operating systems.

This approach allows you to test your applications with the people who most resemble your end users; identify quality assurance gaps; specifically direct users to areas of the application you want testing or let them roam free; and ultimately ensure your apps are functional, reliable, secure and intuitive from the very first download. You then get continual assurance through regular automated testing cycles.

In short, you get the best of both worlds – leading to faster releases, lower development costs, and a company reputation that remains in one piece.

 

Find out more about Crowdsourced bug testing

If you’d like to know more about how Crowdsourced Software Testing can accelerate your delivery cycles and improve your software quality, contact us today.