I remember from TestBash Autumn 2023, the guys at DVLA used the term “Human Led Testing”.
I felt that was a good way of describing it. 
1 Like
Personally I think it’s a mistake to equate “technical” with “understand code”. There are a lot of technical skills besides that 
.
1 Like
I never said “understand code” 
Yup, but I guess I made the inference from the “not even knowing an API” part. To me there are technical skills like being able to analyze data, critical thinking, attention to detail, etc. that if someone doesn’t have, they shouldn’t be a tester at all.
I meant with that, that they don’t even know what an API is, let alone ever “seen” one 
Like the concept of an API… I didn’t mean “know how to code one”
Wow…This is very important conversation @AdyStokes Just one thought comes to my mind when we say Manual, that is lack of innovation.
Good testers explore, question, model systems, make critical decisions, and design experiments. These are not “manual” tasks they are deeply cognitive and often creative.
My real problem with “manual/automation testing” is not from the use of the word “manual” or “automation” but the confusion and noise that it introduces around testing to be some kind of test execution process, which it is not.
It’s a defocusing term that swiftly shifts the focus from testing craft to test execution mode.
Of course, I (we?) want to use tools to execute or design or assist us with the testing but that’s not everything in testing.
This distinction between manual & automation essentially misstated the perception of testing to be an execution activity. When non-testers comprehend it as an execution activity, they start thinking of it in terms of some “objects” to execute or some finite steps to complete
This is the reason behind the “test case addiction”. When people talk of testing in terms of an object instead of investigative activity, this mess increases more.
We have ourselves created a plastic shop of test case creation & execution and now we feel choked when we hear stakeholders asking and talking only about test cases, automation tools, automation %, test scripts, execution, etc.
Testing is much more than this!
I know, some may say: “I don’t care about calling it “manual” or “automated”. I know what I am doing. I don’t care about these terms and I can focus on testing instead of talking about these terms.” That’s fine, but with this, you can only continue to do your job well…
If we want to make a change where non-testers, stakeholders, developers, etc. understand what testers actually do or can do or what testing actually is; I think it is essential to talk about this.
Else, soon our medicine will be the cause of our future diseases. Bye!
If you like this response, I have also documented it here for future reference: What the hell is my problem with the term, “manual” testing? - Rahul’s Testing Titbits
3 Likes
Saw a comment but can’t remember who said it and thought it would fit here. I’m paraphrasing the original.
With copilots and AI tools do we now have manual and automation developers?
Thoughts?
2 Likes
The term manual became and still is a flagship sales pitch for automation tool providers and automation training providers. They propagate the dysfunction associated with it because it is in their benefit to do so.
Development groups are less likely than the testing community to buy into that nonsense, many managers think they know better than testers but less think they know more than developers, however if the tool sellers and trainers invest enough into it as they did with testing they might just sell that snake oil concept. Developers be warned.
4 Likes