Welcome to Perusal



Perusal Tech Pvt Ltd
  • 01 May, 2021





It is a type of Software Testing in which test cases are performed manually by a software tester without the usage of any kind of Automation tool. It’s motive is to recognize the issues, bugs, errors and defects in the software application. Manual Software Testing is the most basic technique of all other Testing types and it helps in finding crucial bugs and errors in the software application. Any new Application should be tested manually first before it’s sent for automated testing. This type of testing demands more effort but is necessary to check Automation feasibility. The impressive quality of manual testing is that it’s concepts does not require any knowledge of any Testing tool. One of the Software Testing Fundamental is “100% Automation is not possible”. This makes Manual Testing more vital. 


Manual testing is a testing process which is executed manually in order to find defects and errors without the usage of tools or any automation scripting. A test plan document is being prepared that acts as a guide to the testing process in order to have the absolute  test coverage. Manual Testing is one of the most fundamental testing processes as it can find both visible and hidden defects of the software. The difference between output and expected output, given by the software, is defined as a defect. The developer fix the defects and hand-over it to the tester for retesting. 




The fundamental concept of manual testing is to make sure that the application is free of errors and is working in conformance to the defined functional requirements. 


Test Suites or cases are designed during the testing phase and they must have 100% test coverage.


Testing manually also ensures that reported defects, errors and bugs are being fixed by developers and re-testing has been executed  by testers on the fixed defects.


Basically, this type of testing checks the quality of the system and delivers bug-free product to the customer for their utter satisfaction. 






Even when testing is done for specific use cases, software testers can still find bugs even when they weren’t necessarily looking for them. That’s actually a big deal. For some projects, the majority of bugs are found by testers who were totally looking for something else. Human interaction makes the testing more accurate and reliable. 




Automation software testing doesn’t only cost you a huge sum of money but you also have to pay higher maintenance and management costs associated with them, because of rewriting and script writing as well as processing times and set up. It’s fine and worthy for big products and long term projects, but for smaller projects it’s an enormous waste of money and time. And hence manual testing is way far affordable than Automated Tests. 




Human software testers can quickly identify when something looks odd. Whereas Automation Testing can not always pick up those micro vital issues. It’s easy for humans testers to find defects as their user would, that way they could easily be able to discover and solve user interface glitches. Automated testing doesn’t always get successful in doing so. The human perception involvement makes it more authentic. 




It’s not possible to test the User Interface (UI/UX) and User Experience through Automated Tests. A good manual tester can spot functional, contextual, visual and usability bugs/errors that Automation scripts may not recognise. For example, the tools of Automation can not test for visual considerations such as font size, gestures or image color. Testing functionalities like shake, gestures, tap, CAPTCHA and video control-based trigger actions using automated scripts still need a lot of time and effort. 




Automated tests only executes the actions which you tell them to. They require preperation and planning to write, which limits the test to certain boundaries. These boundaries mean there isn’t any room to stray from the written test to truly “explore” the application. Exploratory testing or ad hoc testing gives us the opportunity to answer questions like, “what happens if I do this?” It allows us to carve our own path throughout the test with little to no boundaries.




(1) Visual components such as layout, text and other related components can simply be accessed by the tester and UX & UI issues can be found and detected.  


(2) It is very well suited in situations or cases where some unplanned changes are made to the Application as it is adaptable. 



(3) Humans can judge, observe and also provide intuition in case of manual test scripts and this is highly useful when it comes to rich customer experience and user-friendliness. 


(4) Manual Testing of any Application recognises maximum no. of the issues, defects and errors, which includes the looks and feel issues of that Application. 



(5) Manual Testing usually has a low cost of operation as any tools or high-level skills are not used or required. 




(1) It is not easy to find color combination and  size difference of GUI objects using manual testing.


(2) Manual testing is time-consuming.



(3) Regression Test cases performed using manual tests are time-consuming.


(4) When there are a large number of tests, then running tests manually is a very time-consuming job.



(5) Load testing and performance testing is impractical in the manual tests.

* To be continued.