QA Guidelines

Subject: QA Guidelines
From: Thomas Quine <thomas -dot- quine -at- NCOMPASSLABS -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 17:40:50 -0700

At my workplace, documentation goes through standard editing, technical
review by a SME, and QA testing. QA testing is usually done by co-op
students or novice programmers - that helps them both learn the product and
act the role of new user.
I sent around a Technical Review Guidelines checklist last week and got
great feedback. I hope you don't mind if I do the same with my
Documentation QA Testing Guidelines.
To avoid sending an attachment, I've just pasted the whole document below -
apologies if you lost the formatting because of this.
Please help me improve this document!
- Thom

Documentation QA Testing Guidelines
Document Name:
Reviewer Name:
Return by this date: Return to:

Please check the attached document for readability, usability, and overall
Use a colored pen to mark your corrections directly on the document, and
flag your changes with a colored line or asterisk in the margins. For
longer comments, attach a separate sheet and reference your remarks by page
If you encounter information that you aren't sure is correct, test it
yourself, or ask someone (or suggest someone) who knows for sure. Please
don't just leave a question mark in the margin!
Put yourself in the user's shoes. Any and all comments are welcome!
Please read through the list below BEFORE starting your review. Check off
the items after you review the document, and sign below when your review is
finished. Thanks for your help!
o I have read the entire document from cover to cover.
o I have NOT read the entire document. (Please indicate which sections you
DID review.)

o I have walked through every step-by-step procedure in the document,
testing it directly on-screen against the latest version of the software
being documented.
o I have corrected all errors or omissions on the document itself, or on an
attached sheet.
o I have commented on all passages the user might find unnecessary,
misleading, frustrating, confusing, or insulting.
o I have compared all screen illustrations in the document to the software
on the screen.
o I have confirmed that all chapters, headings, and subheadings are
numbered correctly.
o I have tested the table of contents and the index by looking for several
topics at random.
o I have tested several cross-references both within and across documents
for accuracy.
o I have tested the glossary by searching for several key words at random.
o I have checked to ensure that all page headers and footers are accurate
and relevant.
o I have tested printing all documents as an end-user would.
o I have confirmed that all diagrams or illustrations are readable,
informative and accurate.
Date: Signature:

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=

Previous by Author: Final Version of Technical Review Guidelines
Next by Author: Critique of Wizards
Previous by Thread: What judging is like (WAS: Best examples of ...)
Next by Thread: Techwriter seeks employment info Bay Area

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads