When should manual visual review be prioritized over automated testing?

Manual visual review is prioritized over automated testing especially in scenarios involving highly dynamic content or new designs. When you are dealing with content that frequently changes or user interfaces that are being implemented for the first time, automated tests may not be able to accurately capture visual discrepancies or context-specific nuances.

Automated testing relies heavily on predefined rules and expectations that may not adapt well to design variations or emergent user behavior. A human reviewer can assess not just whether elements are present or functioning as expected, but also evaluate the overall aesthetic and usability aspects—qualities which are sometimes subjective and difficult for an automated system to quantify.

Furthermore, new designs often bring a level of unpredictability regarding how they will render across different devices and browsers, so manual scrutiny ensures that visual elements meet both design specifications and user experience standards.

On the other hand, scenarios such as testing static content or when automated tests pass consistently might lean more towards continued automation. However, these instances do not necessarily maximize the benefits of human insight and judgment, particularly for visuals that need a careful eye.