Nothing called manual testing

I have been a big-time advocate of not using terms like “manual” or “automation” to represent “testing”. However, there is still a lot of ignorance about this term.

I don’t want to contribute to ignorance and would like to share my views again on why I believe there is no such thing as “manual testing”.

The term “manual testing” misrepresents what testers do.

• The phrase came up only as a contrast to automation. It was never meant to describe the craft.
• Over time, it has made testing without tools sound like a lesser job.
• It suggests that testers are merely clicking through steps, rather than thinking critically.

Testing is not manual. It’s cognitive.

• You design, observe, question, and investigate.
• You look for risks, gaps, and unknowns.
• You make judgments that tools cannot make.

Automation has value. I 💚 automation. I started my career as an automater. Don’t get me wrong.

• It can run checks faster and more often.
• It can give repeatable results and integrate into delivery pipelines.
• But it cannot explore, assess usability, or understand context like you can.

However, right labels matter.

• “Manual vs automated” splits the craft into false categories.
• It hides the fact that all testing involves human thinking, even when tools are used.
• It feeds the stereotype that testers without automation are doing low-skill work.

The truth: All real testing is human-driven. Doesn’t matter if you are using tools for scripting or using tools that call LLMs or Generative AI technology.
Technology (AI or non-AI) is here to support you. It does not replace you.