Re: Validating manuals - PART II

Subject: Re: Validating manuals - PART II
From: Mary Arrotti <mary_arrotti -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: Michelle Vina-Baltsas <Michelle_Vina-Baltsas -at- datascope -dot- com>, techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:49:16 -0700 (PDT)

This sounds less like your docs are being validated against the reqs and more like they're being used as a testing tool to verify that the UI conforms to the UI requirements. And, as a result, you're being asked to change your docs so that QA can do this more easily. Is that correct?

I do support collaboration with different groups & help out with QA as I can. But I really view this as a poor methodology - at least based on my understanding.

This is the actual relationship as I see it: Requirements > UI > Doc. QA should verify that the UI conforms to the requirements and then that your doc conforms to the UI. To go from requirements to doc doesn't make sense to me (unless you're writing before there is any UI).

It seems that with this methodology - this scenario is possible:
Reqs say A
UI shows B
Doc shows A (based on Reqs)
QA checks - UI & Doc are different
Doc changes from A to B
QA checks - Reqs and Doc are now different
Doc changes from B to A
UI changes from B to A

To me, this would make more sense:
Reqs say A
UI shows B
QA checks - Reqs & UI different
UI changes from B to A
QA checks - doc shows A - same as Reqs and UI

Sorry - I can't give you any suggestions for how you can set up your docs in this effort. I've never worked in or heard of any organization working this way.

Michelle Vina-Baltsas <Michelle_Vina-Baltsas -at- datascope -dot- com> wrote:

Thanks to all who responded to my post. I want to clarify that QA is not
only validating that all the functionality is documented in the manual
based on the UI, they are also validating that the UI requirement was
interpreted correctly by the writer (that would be me). So, if the UI says
the XYZ button should be blue, and the Ops book says it will be green,
that's would be an issue. However you slice it, it's a lot of extra work
for me!

Is there a smart way to do this? Does anyone have to do anything like this
for their QA departments or am I the only UNLUCKY soul. Maybe I can
suggest that they just validate that the UI document table of contents be
captured in the Ops book rather than every single requirement.

Thank you,
Michelle Vina-Baltsas
Technical Writer
Datascope Corporation, Patient Monitoring
michelle_vina-baltsas -at- datascope -dot- com

Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include support for Windows Vista & 2007
Microsoft Office, team authoring, plus more.

Now shipping: Help &amp; Manual 4 with RoboHelp(r) import! New editor,
full Unicode support. Create help files, web-based help and PDF in up
to 106 languages with Help &amp; Manual:

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.


Validating manuals - PART II: From: Michelle Vina-Baltsas

Previous by Author: Re: Validating manuals
Next by Author: Re: Brushing up on my technical skills
Previous by Thread: Validating manuals - PART II
Next by Thread: Re: Validating manuals - PART II

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads