Manual Testing Still Matters

I’m a huge fan of automated testing—it just makes sense. Why spend hours running test cases when a computer can zip through them in seconds? With perks like that, my enthusiasm for automation might make it seem like I think everything should be automated. But honestly, that’s not the case at all.

Sure, there’s not much room in software development for mindless, repetitive manual testing. But that doesn’t mean manual testing is useless. Automated tests are fantastic at telling you if your software works the way you intended it to. What they’re not so great at? Telling you if it works the way it should for real users.

Take Outlook Calendar, for example. The default view shows a week’s worth of events. An automated test can easily check that the default is always a week and flag any code changes that mess that up. But here’s the catch: it can’t tell you if a week is actually the best default for users. That’s where user testing and research come in. After all, software is built for people, not machines. It’s hard to nail great functionality without seeing how real users interact with it.

Of course, talking to users isn’t always straightforward. Some might overreact, saying things like, “I hate this!” while still using the feature. Others might underreact, shrugging with an “It’s fine,” but never actually using it. Figuring out how much weight to give their feedback can be tricky, especially when you don’t know them well—and let’s be real, getting to know every user personally would take forever.

This is where manual testing really shines. Using the product yourself gives you context, perspective, and empathy for your users that you just can’t get from watching automated tests run. If you find yourself frustrated with a feature, that’s a pretty good clue that your users might feel the same way. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve dismissed user feedback as an overreaction, only to realise how clunky a feature was once I started using it myself.

Then there’s the question of who your ideal user is. User personas can help, but let’s be honest—the easiest details to fill out (like age, gender, job, or location) are often the least helpful in understanding who your user really is. What really matters are their habits. How do they use your product? What do they need from it? That’s the gold.

And that’s where manual testing comes into play. It might not follow a strict test case, but it’s still testing. The goal isn’t just to check if something works—it’s to get a feel for how your users will experience it. No automation can replicate that human touch. So while I love automated testing, I’ll always have a soft spot for good old-fashioned manual testing. It’s where the magic happens.