Michael Bolton, principal at DevelopSense, explains why there should not be the perceived division between manual and automated testing. He says they are both just tools in a tester's toolkit, and we should use the tools appropriate to the job at hand.
| Apr 27 |
STAREAST Software Testing Conference in Orlando & Online |
| Jun 08 |
AI Con USA An Intelligence-Driven Future |
| Sep 21 |
STARWEST Software Testing Conference in Anaheim & Online |
| On Demand | Building Confidence in Your Automation |
| On Demand | Leveraging Open Source Tools for DevSecOps |
| On Demand | Five Reasons Why Agile Isn't Working |
| On Demand | Building a Stellar Team |
| On Demand | Agile Transformation Best Practices |
User Comments
When/if Michael Bolton writes/says "...there should not be the perceived division between manual and automated testing..." it is clear to me that he does not understand the potential value that quality automation can and does bring, if it is done to the strengths of what automation can do for measuring and managing software quality.
Manual testing is important and the need for it will never go away completely, but quality automation (not counting or discounting AI/ML) can do very powerful things for the team if it is done well and not limited to manual-testing thinking. Manual and automation are good at very different things for quality.
For example, there is this post on the differences between manual testing and automated quality measurements:
http://www.metaautomation.net/metaautomation-blog/to-ship-trustworthy-so...
This post has very little on what automation can do with the information that automation can deliver on the SUT -- if it's done well -- to help the team ship higher-quality software faster. I write more on that elsewhere.