There are organizations that put careful thought into their test case documentation. I'm lucky to be in an organization that puts careful thought into their test execution with emphasis on learning.
Some weeks ago I tweeted that I don't think we need to use both automated and exploratory testing because these are not the same. With this weeks realizations, I think there is three kinds of testing.
I don't think these two are separate. They are only separate if automation is driven by a non-learning mindset and assuming that is and needs to be creates bad automation. https://t.co/NzD2yF2fcF— Maaret Pyhäjärvi (@maaretp) August 18, 2018
There's the kind of testing I work with. I would call that exploratory testing. It engulfs smart use of tools, programming and even regression test automation in a frame of learning.
There's the kind of testing that test case folks work with. I would call that manual testing. It includes creation of manual procedures for testing, with emphasis on planning ahead of time not so much on learning.
And then there's the kind of testing that all too many test automation folks do. They take a manual test idea, turn it to automation so that whatever is hard is left out. They take their "designs for tests" from somewhere outside their own work.
The first kind is really the only kind. And people doing that kind of testing may identify as testers, test automation specialists, or software developers. It's not about the role, but about the mindset of learning through empirical evidence that seeks to disprove to build a stronger case for the idea that things might work after all.