For many years, quality in the software world was primarily defined by technical correctness. If a system worked as expected, produced no errors, and passed all predefined scenarios, it was considered “high quality.” However, as we enter 2026, it has become increasingly clear that this definition is no longer sufficient on its own. Today, we see countless software products that function correctly from a technical standpoint, yet fail to be adopted—or are quickly abandoned—by their users.
This leads us to a fundamental truth: software is built for people, not for systems. Evaluating quality solely through system responses means overlooking one of the most critical dimensions of the product experience.
A screen may open correctly, a flow may complete without interruption, and a process may succeed technically. Yet if the user leaves that screen immediately, hesitates midway through the flow, or asks, “Why does this work like this?”, the product has already failed at a behavioral level. Many test scenarios are designed around the assumption of an ideal user. In reality, users are impatient, guided by habits, rarely read instructions, and tend to interact with systems in ways designers and engineers did not anticipate.
When quality is assessed without acknowledging this reality, testing becomes limited to verifying system responses. True quality, however, lies in understanding the reasons behind user behavior. What a user does is important, but why they do it is even more revealing. The same screen, the same flow, and the same functionality can produce entirely different experiences for different users because behavior is shaped by expectations, prior experiences, habits, and even momentary emotional states.
At this point, quality moves beyond simple verification and becomes a process of observation, interpretation, and insight. This shift is also changing the role of testing and quality teams. They are no longer positioned merely as controllers, but as observers who seek to understand the human side of the system. Where users hesitate, where they lose confidence, and where system logic becomes unclear from a user’s perspective are now key indicators of quality.
In a time when technology has advanced so rapidly, testing tools and automation solutions are more powerful than ever. AI-driven systems, extensive documentation, and ready-made frameworks have significantly lowered technical barriers. Yet despite these advancements, user-related issues continue to appear in familiar patterns. This is not a failure of tools, but a limitation of perspective. Tools can measure behavior, but they cannot truly understand it. That understanding still requires human judgment.
This is where quality culture becomes essential. An organization’s approach to quality reveals how it positions the user. Is the user a real reference point that shapes decisions, or merely an abstract concept mentioned in reports? A genuine quality culture does not rely on assumptions about users but engages with real behaviors. It views defects not only as technical shortcomings, but as signals of misalignment between systems and the people who use them.
Ultimately, quality does not begin with more test cases, more tools, or more detailed reports. Quality begins the moment we genuinely try to understand the user. Technical correctness remains essential, but without reading behavior, quality can never be complete. As we discuss software quality in 2026, we must ask a more meaningful question: is it truly possible to talk about quality without understanding user behavior?
The answer, more often than not, is clearer than we expect.