The most common definition I got was: That part of software testing that requires operator input, analysis, or evaluation.


But is the sufficient enough? anyone who doesn't know what is manual testing can understand everything from it..

And doesn't automation testing require operator input, analysis, or evaluation?

Views: 282

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

>>>>> But is the sufficient enough? ..... And doesn't automation testing require operator input, analysis, or evaluation?

You seem to have made good begining by questioning the definition that you see.. You find that the definition of manual testing as mentioned in the link is inadequate and does not answer your question ... and does appear to address "automation" ... probably you are right ... read more ... then state your view point ....

I suggest you to learn yourself and critically analyse every definition that you come across ... (including the ones that we subscribe in context driven testing school ....) and find out yourself ... for all you know you might come up with a new definition that world would use tomorrow .... Do not get limited by what you see on google just like that ...

A word of caution ... as far as possible stay away from FAQs and interview questions ... (unless you are looking for such ones for yourself....) Also, anything that has phrase "QA" in it ... is a suspect for misleading information (this is a heuristic probably) QA is not testing .... and most of the testers do not know this "secret" ... they think that QA is most dignified term as compared to "testing" ... that is not true....

Did you check few posts on this forum itself? You can especially look for replies from Michael, myself and Pradeep.... where we have (as members of context driven school of testing) have explained the definition of manual testing...

Look for definitions of testing (most of it is manual unless otherwise stated)... from or --- you might have to do some searching and reading to get to the definition of testing ...

Good luck

Hi Shrini

Thanks a lot for the guidance and encouragement. Its actually surprising that these definitions, (sometimes even ISTQB definitions) don't make much sense. I don't understand how people manage to say, if your fundamentals are strong, you don't need to study for ISTQB or any certification... I still think most of the definitions posted at interview sites and at certification sites are not convincing.. but people mug them up and hold on to them as thats what most organizations beleive in...
Thanks for posting these links. They are very informative and helpful. I really feel that testing cant be learnt from books... but from experience... like driving a vehicle.... you have to intuitive and alert to be a good driver... You cant get the real picture until you are in the situation yourself..

Thanks again for your encouragement and guidance... I do check out some posts in the forum on and off and it has been very helpful...
I got better ideas of what the world kept saying as "automation testing" by reading this

The good thing is, I learnt that I was fooling myself for quite some time before I read that or I at least became conscious of the things that my sub conscious mind was echoing.

You read that, and you will be absolutely fine.
Hi Pradeep,

Thanks a lot for your guidance and for posting this link.. It is very informative and helpful.
Thanks to people like Dr Cem Kaner.


© 2014   Created by Test Republic.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service