With the economy pinching budgets, most of us are conscripting volunteers to assist with QA testing. This is fine — we operated under this model even in the fat years. But in the case of sites like LoriFoster.com, JuliaQuinn.com, or JanePorter.com, (or, add-your-huge-site-here-dotcom), each with upwards of 100 pages per site, asking a volunteer to test is no longer a 1- to 2-hour commitment.
Does each tester have to test every last page? How much is too much to ask of a volunteer? And even if you are paying someone, what can you expect for the fee?
We have addressed this by dividing the non-unique pages. I should define this term, since the last time I used it with a client I was met with: “Non-unique? I will have duplicate pages on my site? Whyever?”
Non-unique pages are essentially the same page with different content. The code is nearly identical, but the content is different. Article pages are good examples (example 1, example 2), or for author sites an obvious section of non-unique pages is the bookshelf/library (example 1, example 2). If you have products, then I am talking about your actual individual product pages. If you have a site like Crossed Keys Inn’s, then I am referring to a photo album page (example 1, example 2). Same essential page, but with different content per url.
All testers should hit your home page, of course, and your bio page, and other unique pages. But you can divide your book pages between your testers so that each tester hits three or four of them. This is still a lot of content to wade through, but at least you aren’t asking each tester to test 20+ book pages (which, no matter how devoted to your writing/product they might be, it’s a lot for one sitting, and likely impossible to tackle in a two-hour block).
You do need each tester to hit at least two (preferably three) of the same type of page so that they can catch inconsistencies if any exist. Similarly, each book page should be hit by at least two testers, though three is better. Try to make sure that the testers are on different browsers, or at least different browser versions.
It’s a lot of work on your part to painstakingly separate out your pages, but it does yield better results to be meticulous in divvying up the tasks.
Have you ever agreed to test a site only to find out that the time commitment is way more than you thought it would be?
(Don’t miss part one of this testing your site series…)
I test-drove Diane Gaston’s site, and in the process, I drove her bonkers with my pages of notes.
And here’s an example of the sort of stuff I came up with…
On page http://juliaquinn.com/books/london.php, the ALT tag needs to reflect the IMG SRC.
Oops, the actual code didn’t come up there. Trying again…
img src=”../images/covers/london/london_350.jpg” alt=”Mr. Cavendish, I Presume” width=”217″ height=”350″ border=”0″
When I was asked for Elizabeth Boyle’s site, I rather enjoyed going over the pages. But you know, sometimes adding slight variations to each page can change stuff. A slip of coding here and there can find its way in, no matter how careful you are.
The time frame doesn’t bother me. I’d rather comb a site and it take more than a few hours than visit at a later time and see stuff that isn’t right. But that’s just me and that type stuff nit-picks at me.
As for splitting the pages between various testers, that’s a good idea if you’re able to come up with that many testers to start with.
I’ve found that people, in general, still don’t get why designers need a tester when there are programs that will “scan” your coding. Trust me when I say I’ve tried to explain it until I was blue in the face!! Some never get the concept.
Haven, testers are to coders, what copyeditors and proofreaders are to writers.
Keira, Thanks — We will fix that alt tag (and to anyone who ever finds an alt tag error on one of our site, please just send us an email — the blog comments section won’t always lend itself to that kind of reporting and we ALWAYS welcome it).
And yes, just as even the finest, most successful writers need copyeditors, we depend upon eagle-eye testers.
Haven, thanks for your input. You are absolutely right in that a lot of people don’t understand about the need for testers. Some may never get the concept, no, but hopefully discussion can convert a few.