The 5 Challenges Mobile Testers Face in Manual Testing

Today, many argue about which type of testing is better. But practice shows that manual and automated types have its benefits and different areas of use. So, if you are dealing with a small project or startup, also have limited financial resources or want to ensure that the user is satisfied with the cooperation, then you need to use manual testing. Many mobile testers who work in this direction face specific difficulties, which we want to discuss in more detail.

How is manual testing different from automated testing?

Mobile testing is the process of checking software for mobile platforms. No matter how good your programming team is, no one is immune from mistakes. Thus, the work of a mobile tester can be compared to an editor in a newspaper who finds errors, not in the tests of journalists but in the program code.

Testing can be divided into 2 large groups – automatic and manual. In the first case, the specialist uses special programs that check the code and look at the software’s performance, functionality, and stress resistance. Such programs are usually quite expensive, so not all startups can afford them.

Manual testing for mobile involves a specialist checking the operation of an application or program from the user’s point of view. Usually, various automatic testing tools cannot simulate a person’s work, understand how user-friendly the interface is, whether all the buttons work and whether the product performs the necessary functions. In this case, manual testing comes to the rescue. In addition, in some cases, the tester can manually proofread the code to find apparent errors.

Ideally, both types of testing should be performed. After the verification, the programmer has to correct the errors, after which manual testing is taking place. It allows you to make sure that the new edits were made correctly and everything works smoothly.

The main challenges of manual testing

Manual testing has several basic issues:

• Errors are possible due to the human factor;
• Return on investment;
• It makes job chaotic;
• Interferes with the testing environment;
• Requires programming skills.

Each of these aspects is important enough that they need to be discussed in more detail.

1. Errors are possible due to the human factor

Because mobile testing is done by a person on his own, without using various tools, he or she may make or miss some errors. Of course, they can eliminate obvious problems that lie on the surface, but some more global ones may not be noticed.

1. Long return on investment

If only one person can handle automated testing, you most often need to involve a large team of specialists like TestFort in the case of manual testing. Otherwise, this process can take a very long time, or one person can not physically cope with such a large amount of work.

In this case, testing financial services will be pretty expensive; as a result, many large companies use automated testing. It leads to the fact that many applications that are inconvenient to users appear on the market.

1. Makes job more chaotic

When you create software, you must understand that it will gradually improve and improve, and new features and versions will appear. Every time you make any changes, you need to retest. Doing this manually will take a lot of time, negatively affecting the project’s marketing and financial components. As a result, many companies prefer automated testing.

1. Interferes with the testing environment

To ensure your software works correctly, you must test it in a natural environment. So, before giving it a clean slate, you need to try the software for all supported devices, Android and iOS versions, all browsers, and operating systems. Doing it manually will take a very long time, which means it will cost quite a lot. Automated testing can handle this task much faster.

1. Requires programming skills

Since the mobile tester has to work with program code, he or she must have actual programming knowledge and skills. It is preferable that such a specialist has experience in writing code and not just theoretical knowledge, and there are not enough such specialists among testers.

Conclusion

Thus, a specialist needs to know not only metrics for performance testing but also fully understand how code is written, where errors are most often made, and much more. Checking the code manually takes a lot of time, and due to routine work, a person’s level of attention drops dramatically, which leads to many errors. That is why experts advise using manual testing mainly for checking the interface and functionality and entrusting the verification of the program code to automatic tools. It will bring high-quality market software with good technical characteristics and will be liked by users.