Understanding iOS and Android App Testing
Early testing for software allows developers to examine artifacts and trace the behavior of such software at every stage of development. This is often achievable through verification and validation. Over the years, developers have gradually diversified the approaches in software testing to include highly effective mobile automation testing. While the conventional way of testing mobile applications remains relevant today, much about technology has changed.
As such, developers currently can utilize mobile app manual testing and mobile automation testing approaches jointly or separately when examining software. Even then, manual vs automation testing has varying implementation processes, procedures, and objectives.
The use of either manual vs automation testing depends mainly on a variety of factors. Such factors include the delivery time set, budgets, and the set app requirements. However, it’s important to note that most apps require mobile app manual testing before mobile automation testing. But are there any fundamental differences between manual vs automation testing?
Most testers prefer a cocktail of manual and automation testing during mobile application development. Even then, the application of each of the procedures goes through a series of test cases.
Mobile app manual testing is simply the manual procedure undertaken by humans. The procedure requires no programming language knowledge or other technical skills. This testing occurs through simulation of the end user’s behavior. Manual tests commonly occur following a series of test cases handled manually by testers.
During the manual testing process, the testers use test scenarios developed based on the specific app’s requirements. However, the entire testing procedure must pay attention to the specific functionalities of the mobile app under examination.
While cucumber testing has emerged as a more sophisticated app testing method, it’s a modern example of manual testing approaches.
Compared to manual testing, automated testing focuses primarily on frameworks to conduct tests. Each of the frameworks, in this case, follows a scripted approach with clear automation rules. Most automation testing options encompass function libraries, object details, and other a variety of reusable modules.
Testers have to ensure that they choose the proper automation testing framework constantly. This helps optimize the testing process and deliver high-level performance. Compared to manual testing, automated app testing helps you save money during the entire process while enhancing performance. As noted earlier, most testers prefer using manual and automated testing options when assessing tools.
Automation testing is often considered an option when the scope of testing is broader than usual. Further, compared to manual testing, automation testing makes sense when the development cycle is shorter and there’s a need to execute the codes repeatedly. The turnaround time factor is also an important consideration. The automation option is best considered when the project results require short deadlines.
As noted earlier, there’re notable differences between manual and automation testing. The differences are pronounced considering the difference in approaches.
One of the main differences between manual and automation testing is the level of accuracy. In most cases, manual testing must show a higher accuracy level. As noted, manual testing depends mainly on the human mind, often susceptible to errors. The possibility of human errors compromises the possibility of achieving the highest level of accuracy.
Achieving accuracy is a primary objective when testing codes. This may explain why most testers consider automation app testing a critical fallback option.
Compared to manual testing, automated app testing depicts exceptionally high levels of accuracy. Automation testing is highly computer-based, which means that at the end of the day, the level of accuracy is notably high. The automation testing approach eliminates every possible chance of errors in the final product.
A fundamental premise when assessing the quality of an application is the level of accuracy in the application. Automation testing offers a level of accuracy in testing that helps qualify the quality of a mobile application.
Sometimes testers need to undertake extensive scale tests within limited time scopes. On the one hand, manual testing may not be able to offer extensive scale tests even when time isn’t a factor. But more importantly, on the other hand, when there are existing time constraints, the ability to provide timely tests at scale further faces constraints.
If the intention is to provide significant scale tests for multiple apps, then there’s a chance that manual testing may fail the test. The testing scale for manual testing is, therefore, notably limited in scope.
Automation testing, on the other hand, can easily undertake extensive scale testing regardless of the time limits. Testers can undertake high-scale testing regardless of the level of accuracy demanded and the period set.
The other notable difference between automation testing and manual testing is notable when there’s a turnaround time set. Manual testing often takes longer to complete than automation testing. The turnaround time is higher, which could be due to fatigue and the need to repeat the tests owing to recurrent instances of human error.
On the other hand, the automation app testing option is primarily computer-based. As such, the turnaround time for automation testing is lower. You can undertake test cases with automation testing within a record time, regardless of the number of cases. The issue of challenges when with the turnaround doesn’t arise as much with automation testing. The cycle of automation testing is short mainly and accurate, minimizing the additional time required to correct errors.
Manual testing often needs help with the cost. Ideally, the testing face should incur the lowest possible cost. However, the manual testing phase is usually more expensive due to the higher number of hands required to undertake the manual process. Secondly, the cost of hiring professional testers to oversee the case runs also makes the manual testing process seemingly pricier.
On the other hand, automation testing eliminates the additional costs that are salient with manual testing. Once the software infrastructure is in place in automation testing, the period it serves before a need for replacement is long. As such, the automation testing process can test and qualify extensive scale tests at the lowest possible cost.
The ability to save on costs is a significant advantage of using automation testing over the more traditional manual approach.
Every user hopes to get the best possible experience when using testing tools. However, sometimes the existing issues on the technical side of the testing process can easily affect the user experience. Manual testing is often the option that offers the best user experience. The extended need for human observation and cognitive abilities ensures a perfect end-user experience.
In comparison, automation testing may not guarantee the best user experience. The machines used in the automation testing process need more human observation and cognitive aspects. The lack of a human hand, therefore, limits the user experience.
In both cases, there’s a need for users to have a certain level of experience for them to handle the testing process. The procedures during the application testing process often require unique skills. As such, users must be able to mimic user behavior and build on test plans, making the testing process comprehensive. Testing in the manual approach is specifically complex since it requires a human hand from the start.
On a similar note, users need high skills to conduct automation testing successfully. The users must be skilled in programming and have a broad scope of scripting skills to achieve the best results in the test process.
Beyond accuracy, the app testing process should also indicate a high level of reliability. Manual testing is not the most reliable solution when undertaking app testing procedures. The susceptibility to inaccuracies caused by the high dependence on human beings can be a real challenge. As such, manual testing is often associated with a certain level of unreliability.
Automation testing, on the other hand, is a reliable method. As is with any computer-based process, there’s a higher level of reliability due to limited instances of human error and improved tools and scripts to help with the process.
The initial investment for automated testing is often higher. The entire process of setting up hardware is high. However, once this phase is complete, there’s real value in terms of ROI in the long term.
Comparatively, the initial cost of setup for the manual approach is lower. However, the ROI is also notably lower in the long term. The running cost tends to be higher due to the need to sustain the labor force.
Whether you are going for a manual or automated testing process for your upcoming job, you might need a testing platform that’s reliable and accurate. You also need to partner with a provider who can ensure that your access is remote in a way that allows you access to test websites, native mobile applications, and other hybrid apps.With Kobiton, you’ll have all these solutions under one platform. You can contact our support team today for more information on the various products, services, and solutions we offer.