Mixing
Is there a risk of taking IT quality assurance job in the future? [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
Is there a risk of taking IT quality assurance job in the future? Will it be fully automated in the future ?
software-industry
asked Jan 5 '16 at 15:11
User8
9
closed as primarily opinion-based by Marv Mills, user8365, The Wandering Dev Manager, NotMe, Lilienthal♦ Jan 5 '16 at 15:45
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
Is there a risk of taking IT quality assurance job in the future? Will it be fully automated in the future ?
software-industry
asked Jan 5 '16 at 15:11
User8
9
closed as primarily opinion-based by Marv Mills, user8365, The Wandering Dev Manager, NotMe, Lilienthal♦ Jan 5 '16 at 15:45
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Is there a job that doesn't carry the risk that it may eventually disappear?
– JB King
Jan 5 '16 at 15:28
If it does become automated, someone has to know what to automate. Programmers still won't want to do it. Writing editor jobs weren't taken away with spellcheck.They were lost due to the acceptance of poor and unedited writing. More QA jobs are lost because companies think quality doesn't count.
– user8365
Jan 5 '16 at 15:31
Don't take jobs in the future. After all, you could be hit by a bus and not be available. Depending on how far in the future, you could have already died of natural causes. Only take jobs that are available in the present. Unless you have a time machine. If you do, feel free.
– Amy Blankenship
Jan 5 '16 at 21:19
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
up vote
-2
down vote
favorite
Is there a risk of taking IT quality assurance job in the future? Will it be fully automated in the future ?
software-industry
asked Jan 5 '16 at 15:11
User8
9
Is there a risk of taking IT quality assurance job in the future? Will it be fully automated in the future ?
software-industry
asked Jan 5 '16 at 15:11
User8
9
asked Jan 5 '16 at 15:11
User8
9
asked Jan 5 '16 at 15:11
User8
9
asked Jan 5 '16 at 15:11
User8
9
9
closed as primarily opinion-based by Marv Mills, user8365, The Wandering Dev Manager, NotMe, Lilienthal♦ Jan 5 '16 at 15:45
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as primarily opinion-based by Marv Mills, user8365, The Wandering Dev Manager, NotMe, Lilienthal♦ Jan 5 '16 at 15:45
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Is there a job that doesn't carry the risk that it may eventually disappear?
– JB King
Jan 5 '16 at 15:28
If it does become automated, someone has to know what to automate. Programmers still won't want to do it. Writing editor jobs weren't taken away with spellcheck.They were lost due to the acceptance of poor and unedited writing. More QA jobs are lost because companies think quality doesn't count.
– user8365
Jan 5 '16 at 15:31
Don't take jobs in the future. After all, you could be hit by a bus and not be available. Depending on how far in the future, you could have already died of natural causes. Only take jobs that are available in the present. Unless you have a time machine. If you do, feel free.
– Amy Blankenship
Jan 5 '16 at 21:19
suggest improvements |Â
Is there a job that doesn't carry the risk that it may eventually disappear?
– JB King
Jan 5 '16 at 15:28
If it does become automated, someone has to know what to automate. Programmers still won't want to do it. Writing editor jobs weren't taken away with spellcheck.They were lost due to the acceptance of poor and unedited writing. More QA jobs are lost because companies think quality doesn't count.
– user8365
Jan 5 '16 at 15:31
Don't take jobs in the future. After all, you could be hit by a bus and not be available. Depending on how far in the future, you could have already died of natural causes. Only take jobs that are available in the present. Unless you have a time machine. If you do, feel free.
– Amy Blankenship
Jan 5 '16 at 21:19
Is there a job that doesn't carry the risk that it may eventually disappear?
– JB King
Jan 5 '16 at 15:28
Is there a job that doesn't carry the risk that it may eventually disappear?
– JB King
Jan 5 '16 at 15:28
If it does become automated, someone has to know what to automate. Programmers still won't want to do it. Writing editor jobs weren't taken away with spellcheck.They were lost due to the acceptance of poor and unedited writing. More QA jobs are lost because companies think quality doesn't count.
– user8365
Jan 5 '16 at 15:31
If it does become automated, someone has to know what to automate. Programmers still won't want to do it. Writing editor jobs weren't taken away with spellcheck.They were lost due to the acceptance of poor and unedited writing. More QA jobs are lost because companies think quality doesn't count.
– user8365
Jan 5 '16 at 15:31
Don't take jobs in the future. After all, you could be hit by a bus and not be available. Depending on how far in the future, you could have already died of natural causes. Only take jobs that are available in the present. Unless you have a time machine. If you do, feel free.
– Amy Blankenship
Jan 5 '16 at 21:19
Don't take jobs in the future. After all, you could be hit by a bus and not be available. Depending on how far in the future, you could have already died of natural causes. Only take jobs that are available in the present. Unless you have a time machine. If you do, feel free.
– Amy Blankenship
Jan 5 '16 at 21:19
suggest improvements |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Every job carries risks. Who knows what technological change might make any job redundant?
Sure, anything that can be automated will eventually be. That said, at it's core, QA is about breaking things in unforeseen ways. Every single time you add a human element (ie: the users) they come up with interesting ways of using a product that the designer wasn't even thinking about.
So, ultimately - no, I don't think QA is going away in any permanent fashion any time soon.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:19
NotMe
20.9k55695
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
1
down vote
In my honest opinion, there will always be manual tests run in a QA position. As someone who works in QA, I also work on Automating as many tests as we can automate (I'm kind of a hybrid between a developer and a tester). There are tests that just are physically impossible to automate. I am hoping to get somewhere between 50-60 percent of our tests automated.
As for if you should take a QA job, that is very much dependent on the company, as well as dependent on what you like/dislike. Running manual tests gets very repetitive, but they need run to ensure a safe build of the application. If you can deal with repetition, QA could be a career for you.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:18
Tango199
2713
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
Frankly, automating GUI tests for new features even before they are fully stable(not only in terms of "the program is stable", but also in terms "the functionalities & the workflow are stable") is, and always be, a waste of time.
Plus, manual tester make often great spec writers for automated test writers as myself.
EDIT : said otherwise : manual tests will always be needed to stick with the new evolutions, especially GUI tests.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:44
gazzz0x2z
5,93621634
The OP is fearing for his job if everything will be automated. My answer is to say : no, some things are nog going to be automated. Many will, and more & more will in the future, but only as mature.
– gazzz0x2z
Jan 5 '16 at 16:10
suggest improvements |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Every job carries risks. Who knows what technological change might make any job redundant?
Sure, anything that can be automated will eventually be. That said, at it's core, QA is about breaking things in unforeseen ways. Every single time you add a human element (ie: the users) they come up with interesting ways of using a product that the designer wasn't even thinking about.
So, ultimately - no, I don't think QA is going away in any permanent fashion any time soon.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:19
NotMe
20.9k55695
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Every job carries risks. Who knows what technological change might make any job redundant?
Sure, anything that can be automated will eventually be. That said, at it's core, QA is about breaking things in unforeseen ways. Every single time you add a human element (ie: the users) they come up with interesting ways of using a product that the designer wasn't even thinking about.
So, ultimately - no, I don't think QA is going away in any permanent fashion any time soon.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:19
NotMe
20.9k55695
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Every job carries risks. Who knows what technological change might make any job redundant?
Sure, anything that can be automated will eventually be. That said, at it's core, QA is about breaking things in unforeseen ways. Every single time you add a human element (ie: the users) they come up with interesting ways of using a product that the designer wasn't even thinking about.
So, ultimately - no, I don't think QA is going away in any permanent fashion any time soon.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:19
NotMe
20.9k55695
Every job carries risks. Who knows what technological change might make any job redundant?
Sure, anything that can be automated will eventually be. That said, at it's core, QA is about breaking things in unforeseen ways. Every single time you add a human element (ie: the users) they come up with interesting ways of using a product that the designer wasn't even thinking about.
So, ultimately - no, I don't think QA is going away in any permanent fashion any time soon.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:19
NotMe
20.9k55695
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:19
NotMe
20.9k55695
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:19
NotMe
20.9k55695
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:19
NotMe
20.9k55695
20.9k55695
suggest improvements |Â
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
1
down vote
In my honest opinion, there will always be manual tests run in a QA position. As someone who works in QA, I also work on Automating as many tests as we can automate (I'm kind of a hybrid between a developer and a tester). There are tests that just are physically impossible to automate. I am hoping to get somewhere between 50-60 percent of our tests automated.
As for if you should take a QA job, that is very much dependent on the company, as well as dependent on what you like/dislike. Running manual tests gets very repetitive, but they need run to ensure a safe build of the application. If you can deal with repetition, QA could be a career for you.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:18
Tango199
2713
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
1
down vote
In my honest opinion, there will always be manual tests run in a QA position. As someone who works in QA, I also work on Automating as many tests as we can automate (I'm kind of a hybrid between a developer and a tester). There are tests that just are physically impossible to automate. I am hoping to get somewhere between 50-60 percent of our tests automated.
As for if you should take a QA job, that is very much dependent on the company, as well as dependent on what you like/dislike. Running manual tests gets very repetitive, but they need run to ensure a safe build of the application. If you can deal with repetition, QA could be a career for you.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:18
Tango199
2713
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
In my honest opinion, there will always be manual tests run in a QA position. As someone who works in QA, I also work on Automating as many tests as we can automate (I'm kind of a hybrid between a developer and a tester). There are tests that just are physically impossible to automate. I am hoping to get somewhere between 50-60 percent of our tests automated.
As for if you should take a QA job, that is very much dependent on the company, as well as dependent on what you like/dislike. Running manual tests gets very repetitive, but they need run to ensure a safe build of the application. If you can deal with repetition, QA could be a career for you.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:18
Tango199
2713
In my honest opinion, there will always be manual tests run in a QA position. As someone who works in QA, I also work on Automating as many tests as we can automate (I'm kind of a hybrid between a developer and a tester). There are tests that just are physically impossible to automate. I am hoping to get somewhere between 50-60 percent of our tests automated.
As for if you should take a QA job, that is very much dependent on the company, as well as dependent on what you like/dislike. Running manual tests gets very repetitive, but they need run to ensure a safe build of the application. If you can deal with repetition, QA could be a career for you.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:18
Tango199
2713
edited Jan 5 '16 at 15:33
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:18
Tango199
2713
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:18
Tango199
2713
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:18
Tango199
2713
2713
suggest improvements |Â
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
Frankly, automating GUI tests for new features even before they are fully stable(not only in terms of "the program is stable", but also in terms "the functionalities & the workflow are stable") is, and always be, a waste of time.
Plus, manual tester make often great spec writers for automated test writers as myself.
EDIT : said otherwise : manual tests will always be needed to stick with the new evolutions, especially GUI tests.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:44
gazzz0x2z
5,93621634
The OP is fearing for his job if everything will be automated. My answer is to say : no, some things are nog going to be automated. Many will, and more & more will in the future, but only as mature.
– gazzz0x2z
Jan 5 '16 at 16:10
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
Frankly, automating GUI tests for new features even before they are fully stable(not only in terms of "the program is stable", but also in terms "the functionalities & the workflow are stable") is, and always be, a waste of time.
Plus, manual tester make often great spec writers for automated test writers as myself.
EDIT : said otherwise : manual tests will always be needed to stick with the new evolutions, especially GUI tests.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:44
gazzz0x2z
5,93621634
The OP is fearing for his job if everything will be automated. My answer is to say : no, some things are nog going to be automated. Many will, and more & more will in the future, but only as mature.
– gazzz0x2z
Jan 5 '16 at 16:10
suggest improvements |Â
up vote
-2
down vote
up vote
-2
down vote
Frankly, automating GUI tests for new features even before they are fully stable(not only in terms of "the program is stable", but also in terms "the functionalities & the workflow are stable") is, and always be, a waste of time.
Plus, manual tester make often great spec writers for automated test writers as myself.
EDIT : said otherwise : manual tests will always be needed to stick with the new evolutions, especially GUI tests.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:44
gazzz0x2z
5,93621634
Frankly, automating GUI tests for new features even before they are fully stable(not only in terms of "the program is stable", but also in terms "the functionalities & the workflow are stable") is, and always be, a waste of time.
Plus, manual tester make often great spec writers for automated test writers as myself.
EDIT : said otherwise : manual tests will always be needed to stick with the new evolutions, especially GUI tests.
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:44
gazzz0x2z
5,93621634
edited Jan 5 '16 at 16:14
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:44
gazzz0x2z
5,93621634
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:44
gazzz0x2z
5,93621634
answered Jan 5 '16 at 15:44
gazzz0x2z
5,93621634
5,93621634
The OP is fearing for his job if everything will be automated. My answer is to say : no, some things are nog going to be automated. Many will, and more & more will in the future, but only as mature.
– gazzz0x2z
Jan 5 '16 at 16:10
suggest improvements |Â
The OP is fearing for his job if everything will be automated. My answer is to say : no, some things are nog going to be automated. Many will, and more & more will in the future, but only as mature.
– gazzz0x2z
Jan 5 '16 at 16:10
The OP is fearing for his job if everything will be automated. My answer is to say : no, some things are nog going to be automated. Many will, and more & more will in the future, but only as mature.
– gazzz0x2z
Jan 5 '16 at 16:10
The OP is fearing for his job if everything will be automated. My answer is to say : no, some things are nog going to be automated. Many will, and more & more will in the future, but only as mature.
– gazzz0x2z
Jan 5 '16 at 16:10
suggest improvements |Â
Is there a job that doesn't carry the risk that it may eventually disappear?
– JB King
Jan 5 '16 at 15:28
If it does become automated, someone has to know what to automate. Programmers still won't want to do it. Writing editor jobs weren't taken away with spellcheck.They were lost due to the acceptance of poor and unedited writing. More QA jobs are lost because companies think quality doesn't count.
– user8365
Jan 5 '16 at 15:31
Don't take jobs in the future. After all, you could be hit by a bus and not be available. Depending on how far in the future, you could have already died of natural causes. Only take jobs that are available in the present. Unless you have a time machine. If you do, feel free.
– Amy Blankenship
Jan 5 '16 at 21:19