see manual testing is preferred because people can be easily trained. In automation you need to have flavor of coding within you. its not present in everybody. instead wasting time and money in training them for hours companies prefer manual testing!
There are other constraints of budget, cost also associated with it.
Following few reasons are there so that not all, maximum company is looking for Manual Testing.
1. Budget not allowed for Testing
a. Tool cost
b. Resources Cost
c. Training Cost
2. Available open source tools are Un-Compatibility / miss match with requirement
3. Not Support with Time Frame
3. Requirement Changes frequently
4. Resources unavailability
This very important question.according to me , here are few points.
1. Automation tool cost
2. Training cost to employee.
3.Most of deadline based job, everyone can prefer to manual
4.Mangment are not keen to it.
5.If requirment continues changing
6.Untrained employee & lack of knowledge of tool
But all the company has to do automation testing when they are coming under "Performance”. No one have alternate ways for performance test. It is simply not possible to do the manual test for performance bottleneck identification and if application released without testing of performance, then in future it is very difficult and very expensive to client as well as companies.
If any one has any other view please replies here.
To my knowledge , there are several reasons we can shoot,
1)It depends on the type the appln
2) budgetary Issues
3) technical difficulties
4) even if u want u go for automation , we need to go for executing the entire appln once manually to define the stability of the appln
5) time taking process ( if the team is not having technical knowledge it will be a great difficult for organization to provide training again which takes lots of time to get the things in track .)
6)we can't test all the functionalities with automation ( automation is only for valid data ).
7)maintaineace of the documents , builds and the environments proves to very costly.
Manual testing can be started at the moment, with the available resources quickly. Automation involves writing scripts, parameterising the data, making it reusable, and most importantly time and skilled QA resources are required(expensive) to develop the auto-scripts. If there are lot of UI changes build to build, then automation will be ineffective.
1) for carrying automation we need to purchase the tool lisence and respective add ins to support our entire appln . if the testers are not having enough techinical expertise ,they need to undergo training for specific time .
these are all adds the cost to automation .
maintaineace of the documents , builds and the environments proves to very costly.
2) automation is not replacement for manual testing .it is just a assistence to manual testing .
both the forms will b having thier own merits and demerits .
we cant choose any tool according to our convinience , for this there are many things to b analysed
1) it purely depends on the criticality ,complexity of the appln .
2)current appln involved lot of regresion and retesting
3) for doing automation , we need the presence of testers to give some insstructions to carry out the requiered process .
4) while at the initial stage , comapy management , QAand PM will decide the type of project depending on that a particulor tool will b choosen
5) for both manual or automation we need to fallow the directives given by our management interms of docs, process and metodes .
u will b directed everything like 1) what hasto b done
2) when to start
3) how to start