Does using the word ‘manual’ bother you?

🧑‍🏫 Content Discussions
,
1

If you have been working as a software tester or in software development for any length of time, you will probably have come across the term ‘manual testing’. At its worst, the term ‘manual testing’ can create a damaging divide, undervaluing human contributions while over-glorifying automation. At best, it diminishes thoughtful test activities.

In my article, " More than just ‘manual testing’: Recognising the skills of software testers", I discuss why this term might be harmful to the craft of software testing and how we can shift our focus to a more inclusive and accurate understanding of what all testers truly bring to the table. Who knows if we will ever see the term ‘manual’ go away, but we can and must try.

Let me run some quick questions by you. You don’t have to answer now, but bear it in mind when reading the article.

  • Does a musician play music, or do they ‘manually play music’?
  • Could you ever imagine yourself saying ‘manual’ in front of another profession like painter, actor, sculptor, doctor, scientist, chef, philosopher, designer, innovator?
  • When humans move do they manually walk, talk, breath or think?
  • Have you ever heard the phrases, manual accessibility testing, manual security testing or manual usability testing?

So, what are your thoughts? Does using the word ‘manual’ bother you? Do you use or can suggest alternatives?

6 Likes
2

Nah, it is what it is. Manual tester or Functional Tester :man_shrugging:
I often use the term Technical & Non-technical tester but it’s not that it bothers me.

People get the idea of a manual tester being “lesser” then an automator. Which isn’t the case.

But for me it doesn’t bother me :d

2 Likes
3

It doesn’t bother me at all. It doesn’t bother the Engineering team I work with. But it has been a contentious term with management types outside QA and triggers exactly the biases you mention. I would try and explain “Why is it called test automation? Because you automate tests…where do you think the tests come from?”…but it would give short term relief before the same biases would resurface . So I decided to rebrand the team to communicate that principle more clearly.

So I have UX Test Experts and Tech Test Experts. For me the UX testers are experts in “WHAT” we should test and tech testers are experts in “HOW” we test it. They need and respect each other.

Bottom line it worked. The testers feel their passion and expertise is better understood. They have an identity outside engineering that is understood. The business no longer assumes each tester wants to be an automation expert or assumes each automation engineer crafts test cases out of thin air.

4 Likes
4

Honestly what bothers me the most is when people assume discouraging the use of the term “manual testing” means we don’t value the work they do that they describe that way, often in spite of going to great lengths to defend the importance of the work itself—and the thought and skill it actually involves. To me that lack of critical thinking to be able to even hear the argument against describing one’s work using that term without viewing it as an attack on the work itself is an even bigger concern.

3 Likes
5

Hi Ady, this is an excellent article and I can agree with you that the term “manual testing” contributes to this really challenging activity being underestimated and undervalued by some people. That’s why I often use the term exploratory system testing.

2 Likes
6

A historical comparison occurred to me on this subject.
During the Industrial Revolution, simple “manual” tasks were replaced by “automation”.
Here, “manual” stands for stupid and outdated and “automated” for modern and progressive.

It is wrong to transfer this image to testing.
But this is exactly what can happen more easily by using the term “manual testing”.

7

When it’s used by someone to describe the majority of my testing, yep I’m not a fan.

This is what I associate the term with. Rote, scripted, known risk, test case execution. Pretty much anyone can do this, they don’t need a lot of testing knowledge or skill and they don’t even need to be technical and you can pay these people a lot less as a result. They will often be attempting to test to machine type strengths but in a highly inefficient way.

Now a few readers will look at that and likely say that’s not what I do and for the most part they will likely be right, they are not doing manual testing they are doing something else but there will be some doing exactly that, all you need to do is read some articles online, any article that has that manual vs automation for example or the transition from manual to automation, the only way those articles make any sense is if that rote stuff is how they view manual testing.

I have also encountered teams doing the above, outsourced cheap labour argument, even some crowd source models follow this without consideration of the testing footprint, big banks used to do it, they were not interested in the ROI, they had lots of funds which made cost not a factor or different ideas of good testing they just wanted those pass fail reports.

When the above is manual testing but a whole load of hands on, highly technical, risk aware, tool loving testers that view testing as an investigation where discovery, learning, exploration and experimentation are core to their testing model are put into the same basket or worse not even recognised as existing because companies have not even considered that their is an alternative to the rote manual approach that’s problematic and harmful.

I am not a manual tester, well apart from those 5 mins in the morning when someone drops a quick script on my desk and I have not had a cup of tea yet to kick start my day.

1 Like
8

I have often felt that the term doesn’t fully capture the depth of what we do. It’s not just about following steps or clicking through screens, but about curiosity, empathy and asking the right question at the right time.
We explore, we observe, and we bring the human perspective that automation simply can’t replicate. Calling it “manual” sometimes feel like we are downplaying the creative and investigative nature of our work.
You said right-no one says manual artist/chef, they just focus on the craft. I think it’s time we do the same in testing.

One thing bothers me when I came across JDs filled with only automation, automation as if that’s the only skill that matters, it’s disheartening and then when I see the word manual, I feel a fix of connect and discomfort- while I resonates with it, I also see how creates a category that divides manual testers. There’s often this perception that we are doing low-level work or that we are less skilled than automation, The reality is, thoughtful testing, regardless of the tool, is what drives quality.

Thanks for sparking this conversation.
It’s definitely reflecting on how we define our roles & advocate for the value we bring.

5 Likes
9

The thing for me is that I don’t really know any non-technical testers these days.

Maybe less technical than some on the team but not non-technical considering we work in a technical industry its really hard to remain non-technical.

On the second point, if you are testing to machine type strengths just much less efficient than an automator is providing that similar coverage then the idea of lesser holds water, its fairly accurate.

The argument may be that is not what a manual tester is doing, but for a lot of people that is exactly what manual is interpreted as. How else would that idea of lesser even come into play if it was not this very limited view of what manual testing is.

It’s a far cry though from what most hands on testers do, and they don’t want to be misrepresented with the above.

2 Likes
10

For a newbie, I have the impression that Automation testers are indeed superior to “Manual” testers.

Based on my observation, Manual testers with over 5 years of experience can keep being “manual” and get away with it even if they don’t want to code or automate. However, this seems to be changing too as demand for automation gets higher for management who doesn’t know better.

Freshers who only know manual testing have it tough to get a job (unless they have connections, wink wink). The demand for Manual & Automation testers are now in a Junior level, which is something me and my seasoned QA friends are confused about, because aren’t you supposed to master “Manual” testing first before you can use tools for it?

So my impression that Automation testers are superior to “Manual” testers is there because I am assuming people who can Automate tests already know testing so well that they know how and where to apply the tools AND code for it.

I think the term “Manual” bothers me because a lot of non-tech c-suite people can easily overlook how important it is beyond things that anyone else can do like click and write. I feel like QA isn’t a robotic thing, it’s something creatively human.

11

That’s crazy though :o I know so many xD
I guess it’s a location based thing. There are a LOT of testers here, who have no technical knowledge (not even knowing an API)

This ^
People always think “so you click a button?”

12

Could be worth a step back and ask what is manual testing to you.

I’ve flagged for me it is that rote scripted test case execution, very limited, lesser and may not even qualify as testing. As a opposed to hands-on highly technical risk based investigative testing.

So what does it mean for you, here a few common one’s I also see.

It means hands-on testing as opposed to an automated tool running the testing. If this was the view then security or penetration testing could also be called manual testing - would you call them manual testers. If not you can rule out this definition.

It means non-technical testing. So is this like a new user, using and going through an app and providing feedback? My 11 year old is more technical than that level, if you work in IT you highly likely to be more technical than the average person out there, you may be less technical but you are likely technical. One other comment flagged this is a reality for them so I will not rule out this view but its a very narrow group imo.

It means testers not using tools. I’ve got to question wtf does this mean, even typing this I am using tools, even just the hardware tools on my desk rule this out not to mention the software tools used in testing, the idea of a web tester not using dev tools for example scares me, how do they do the investigative part of testing. Decent testing in my view must use tools so I’m ruling this view out too.

It means not using automation, well I guess that’s a massive catch all definition which might actually be the problem.

It means a focus on unknown risks rather than known risks that scripts cover. Perhaps but then those script focused hands on testers or lost in limbo as this is not them.

It means a focus on known risks but not using automation, this one expands a bit on my rote test case execution but still limited. It could work though, perhaps.

It means hands on highly technical risk based testing, this one would be nice but again we have established not all testers are doing this. So I rule that one out too.

Given the above I still come back to it meaning the rote test case execution activity, its the only one that makes sense to me and remains very harmful to testing in general.

13

If it were up to me, I would absolutely eliminate the term “Manual Tester” (:raised_back_of_hand: :memo: :robot:) and replace it with “System Explorer”! (:magnifying_glass_tilted_right: :light_bulb: :brain:)

A role that emphasizes curiosity, deep investigation, and the ability to navigate and understand every corner of a system.

1 Like
14

I’ve talked about this before but my biggest problem with the term often comes from conversations with recruiters and other people that may not necessarily understand QA in-depth.

They speak in a way that creates a tier system where automation sits at the top, above manual testing:

  • “Would you be willing to do manual testing?”
  • “A small amount of manual testing may be required”
  • “We automate everything” this one exists on the premise that automation is possible without manual test cases as the backbone somehow

When speaking to other QAs, I never feel bad about talking about manual but after speaking to recruiters, it can often feel like a dirty word.

1 Like
15

When recruiters tell you that they “automate” everything, why do they still conduct “manual” interviews instead of automating them with chatbots?

1 Like
16

The unnecessary debate around topics like manual vs automation, or that automation will kill manual jobs, that AI will replace manual testers, etc. bother me

Automation is fast and might be fancy, but manual testing is slow and may require human intervention at every step. Still, manual testing contributes to the overall quality of the product.
So I’m not bothered with using the word “manual.”

1 Like
17

I’ve said it before I’ll say it again, test automation is not something that will “REPLACE” manual testing. Both are part of the process.
I don’t find any harm in calling it manual but I guess it can be labelled as doing testing and writing automation scripts.

2 Likes
18

Doesn’t bother me at all. Our “manual” testing is often significantly more technical than our “automation”
I need people who can do both. Someone who only automates existing tests is of little value to me.

19

There is, as with a lot of topics, a whole load of different dimensions to the question of “manual” being appropriate to describe what testers do, who don’t happen to be automating checks.

Of course it isn’t in any way adequate to describe the richness of the testing that goes on and variety of creative ways we find to ensure what we are testing makes it way to production in the best state possible.

To start with there seems to be a general assumption that there is a binary split between “manual” and “automated” testing. When the reality is that testers use many different tools, some require coding and some don’t and then there’s all the other testing that requires different technical knowledge and skills, quite often niche to whatever it is that you are testing.

So really we are all testers and use different tools, you could include hands, voices and other humans things in that space, I do.

I feel like it is really the baggage that comes with the word “manual” that is contentious. “Manual” as a word is derived from workers that used their hands to to their work. It became synonymous with less skilled workers and so to apply that to testing is not acknowledging the level of skill a good tester has. This was exacerbated by the early testing days (I am quite old :shushing_face:) where scripts were seen as a way of herding requirements and ensuring the right checks were done. at least until it was seen as being too complex and expensive to maintain. This resulted in seeking cheaper labour which kind of reinforces the view that anyone can test as anyone can follow a script. I couldn’t it was too tempting to go off script!

The drive to make all testers automators or value them more added to this class system but misses the point to an extent in that not all automation focussed testers are good testers . . . and automation tends to stop bugs re-occurring rather than prevent new ones . . . unless you are doing TDD . . . unless you are doing it right . . . and are a good tester . . . and probably good at coding.

And then there’s testing that you can’t automate and all the testing that happens before the code is even written.

If you got this far through the above, thanks for considering my thoughts, there are many more but that’s enough for now.

20

It bothers me insofar as I reject the dichotomy of “manual vs automation”.
While developing automation is a different skill than (explorative) testing, reducing testing to things that can be automated reduces testers to biological executors.
By that many testers get treated badly and are forced to learn development.

At the very least I see “automation in testing”, but no “test automation”.

1 Like