Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Stage one

Content is added and amended in GatherContent, checked by a Web Editor and approved by an appropriate Subject Matter Expert.

Editor review

  • Is the copy suitable for the web?
    • Has the content including micro copy been proofread?
    • Does the copy follow the style guide?
    • Is the copy free of spelling and grammar errors?
    • Have sources been cited?
  • Does the content require imagery?
    • Do the images reflect the equality and diversity of the University?
    • Have images have been credited where appropriate?

Client review

  • Has the content been approved by an appropriate Subject Matter Expert?

Stage two

Content is added to the CMS by the Web Editor, including images, copy and links. At this stage content can be added and/or removed from the section, it cannot be amended.

Development review

Has the Web Editor supplied:

  • a list of re-directs for existing pages which receive high levels of traffic?
  • a list of re-directs used in print publications less than 18 months old?
  • a list of go.bath.ac.uk URL used for campaign tracking purposes less than 18 months old?

Editor review

  • Has all the content been added to the section?

Funnelback

  • Have the search engine best bets been reviewed?

Stage three

The Section is published to the test server for checking. At this stage the section is frozen, meaning no content can be added and/or removed until after go live. Checks should be carried out by a Developer and/or Editor not involved in the Project.

This tool may be useful - http://www.bath.ac.uk/test.bho/internal-stats/siteaudittool.php

Development review

  • Can the Web Editor publish the section to the test server?
  • Have all the assets been published to the test server?
  • If content and/or functionality is being drawn from external resources do they work?
  • Have development tasks been reviewed?

Design review

  • Does the template, colour scheme and layout adhere to our visual identity? 
  • Have the correct content types been used?
  • Does the section render correctly in supported browsers?

  • Do controls work correctly?

Editor review

Information Architecture

  • Does the left hand navigation menu and folder structure match with the agreed IA?
  • Does the left hand navigation and page title correspond?
  • Does the title attribute for the Section landing page include H1 | Section Name | University of Bath for example New Undergraduates 2013/14 | University of Bath
  • Does the title attribute for all other pages include H1 | Section Name | University of Bath for example Studying | New Undergraduates 2013/14 | University of Bath 
  • Does the file name of the page correspond with the H1?
    • Is the file name of the page meaningful?

Content

  • Does the section comply with the brand?
    • Has the content, including micro copy been re-proofed?
    • Does the copy follow the style guide?
    • Is the copy free of spelling and grammar errors?
    • Have sources been cited?
  • Do images appear?
    • Are image file names meaningful?
    • Do images have meaningful alt and title attributes?
    • Have images been credited where appropriate?

  • Do audio and/or videos play?
    • Can you hear the audio file?
    • Can you see and hear the video files?
    • Does the video have a caption?
  • Do links to internal, external website and downloadable resources work?

    • Do the links point to the correct page or resource?
    • Is the file name of the downloadable resource meaningful?
  • Does each page have a meta description and keywords?

  • Does the page require categorisation?
    • Does it use the correct taxonomy?
    • Has it been tagged correctly?

Client review

  • Has the section been reviewed and approved by the Project owner?

CMS

  • Have redundant or unused resources been deleted?

Stage four

Section is published to the live server. At this stage the section remains frozen. Checks should be carried out by a Developer and/or Editor not involved in the Project.

Development review

  • Have all the assets been published to the live server?

  • If content and/or functionality is being drawn from external resources do they work?

  • Have the re-directs been setup?

Design review

  • Does the section appear visually correct?

Editor review

  • Do images appear?
  • Do controls work correctly?
  • Can you hear the audio files?
  • Can you see and hear the video files?
  • Do links to internal, external website and downloadable resources work?
  • Do the re-directs point to the correct page or resource?

 Funnelback

  • Have the search engine best bets been updated?

Stage five

The Section remains frozen. Visitors are encourage to browse the website and report errors, these are then corrected.

Stage six

The Section is un-frozen. Content can now be amended, added or removed in accordance with the Editorial calendar and maintenance plan.

Purpose

To make sure that any website which is published on bath.ac.uk meets a minimum standard when published.
Sections which are created by Web services must follow this process.

Before you begin

You will need the following items:

  • Results of the Content audit
  • Agreed IA
  • Agreed taxonomy (if appropriate)
  • No labels

8 Comments

  1. Unknown User (cap39)

    Can the difference between a SME and a Project Owner be clarified? (See client review)

    1. A SME is responsible for the factual accuracy of content, they are not, however, responsible for the style and presentation of the content. This is define by the brand and style guides.

      A Project Owner has final sign off on whether or not the project has met its goals and objectives, based on the original requirements document.

  2. Unknown User (pgw22)

    Can we add a new task "ensure all development work has been reviewed" to one of the stages please? In particular I'm thinking that for IPR there is work that has not been through the technical review process.

    1. Added under stage three 'Have development tasks been reviewed?'

  3. Unknown User (prm33)

    Carol just pointed out that the Editor Review stage of the Quality Assurance Task List on the wiki is missing a few things. At the moment it reads:

    • Is the copy suitable for the web?
    • Has the content including micro copy been proofread?
    • Does the copy follow the style guide?
    • Is the copy free of spelling and grammar errors?
    • Have sources been cited?

    Carol pointed out that it should also included checking the accuracy of the page titles, the use of keywords and other metadata. Thought I should bring this to your attention.

  4. Unknown User (prm33)

    See also Alt Text

  5. Unknown User (cap39)

    Actually Stage 3 (which we are at now on FYSE material) contains all the things I was asking Paul about. I think this is the QA list Paul should be working to, rather than the one that is printed on the board

  6. Updated QA process this morning to address a number of issues:

    1. Issues with the title attribute, which resulted in search engine results being rendered useless
    2. Issues with no check of print collateral for shortcuts and go.bath.ac.uk URLs which resulted in users being lead to broken links.