After putting a lot of effort into software development, user acceptance testing is your last defense before you release it to customers with the assurance that it meets the requirements.
UAT is vital. Is it worth automating? Can UAT be automated efficiently?
These are tough questions for those in the software industry. There are pros and cons to automated user acceptance testing.
This post will help you to make an informed decision about software testing.
What is User Acceptance Testing Automation?
Automated UAT refers to when your quality assurance team uses scripted tests that are run automatically in an automated testing tool.
Your team will get a binary answer from an automated test that determines if the software’s actual performance is in line with the expectations. It could be as simple as a yes or no response.
Automated UAT has the advantage of repeating repetitive tasks quickly and accurately. Automated UAT is not prone to “boredom” or test fatigue.
While it is different than manual testing, in which actual testers are involved running test scripts and recording the results , automated testing can still be a powerful tool.
Manual Testing vs. Automated Testing vs. Manual Testing
NoteRacer’s team has seen clients use both automated and manual testing together.
These are the advantages each option offers to your UAT process.
The Strengths Of User Acceptance Testing Automation
- It is possible to run tests quickly and repeatedly without worrying about fatigue or tester availability.
- Automated testing platforms provide high availability, reusability and accuracy.
- Tests can be used to test binary-based requirements and script-based load or stress testing.
- The provided test scripts can be automated with high accuracy and precision.
The Benefits of Manual User Acceptance Testing
- Actual testers can create test scripts to account for subjective or more complicated requirements.
- Manual testing can include usability testing and other types of software testing. It allows for evaluation of fonts and menu types as well as workflow logic and reports.
- Manual testers are able to identify issues, defects and solutions. Automated testing only delivers a binary result.
- Manual testers are able to confirm “soft” requirements such as compliance to branding guidelines, the ability for customizations and integrations, and the ability generate ad-hoc reports and workflows.
- Manual testers are able to identify alternative ways that software can be used and tested, which may be overlooked by the QA team.
Both manual and automated testing have their strengths. It makes sense to combine both. Software testing teams will require the flexibility and structure of, a test management tool, to streamline and organize testing.
All in One
NoteRacer believes that you don’t have to choose between manual or automated testing. We recommend that you use both the strengths and weaknesses of each approach to improve the delivery of your software applications.
We believe manual and automated testing complement each other. Tests can be set up so that repetitive, simple tests are automated, while complex, nuanced tests are manually run.