Skip to content

soft-launch-testing.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
204 lines (110 loc) · 16.8 KB

soft-launch-testing.md

File metadata and controls

204 lines (110 loc) · 16.8 KB

Soft Launch Testing Plan

Tester 1 — Navigation & Discovery

Subject: RMC Software Documentation Site — Soft Launch Testing (Navigation & Discovery)

Hi [Name],

We're preparing to launch a new documentation website for the RMC suite of tools. The site consolidates user's guides, technical manuals, validation studies, and other reference documents for RMC software — including desktop applications (LifeSim, RMC-TotalRisk, RMC-RFA, RMC-BestFit), web applications, and the full set of toolbox technical manuals (Internal Erosion, Overtopping, Risk Calculations, Seismic Hazard). The goal is to provide a single, searchable, version-managed home for all of this documentation, replacing scattered PDFs and legacy formats.

Before we open this up more broadly, we're running a small round of hands-on testing with a few trusted people to make sure the site works the way it should. Your focus area is navigation and discovery — can a user actually find what they're looking for starting from the homepage?

Here's what I'd like you to do:

  1. Find the RMC-BestFit User's Guide from the homepage. Start at the site homepage and navigate to the RMC-BestFit User's Guide. Once there, open the "Document Information" page (in the sidebar) and report back the document date and authors listed.

  2. Browse the Internal Erosion Suite toolbox page. Navigate to the Internal Erosion Suite from the homepage. Count how many modules are listed on the landing page and note which ones appear clickable versus grayed out or inactive.

  3. Test sidebar navigation in the LifeSim User's Guide. Open the LifeSim User's Guide and use the sidebar to jump to the last chapter, then back to the Preface. Let me know whether the sidebar stays in sync with where you are in the document as you navigate.

If anything feels confusing, broken, or just off, please note it — that kind of feedback is exactly what we're looking for at this stage.

Thanks, [Your Name]

Tester 2 — Search

Subject: RMC Software Documentation Site — Soft Launch Testing (Search)

Hi [Name],

We're preparing to launch a new documentation website for the RMC suite of tools. The site consolidates user's guides, technical manuals, validation studies, and other reference documents for RMC software — including desktop applications (LifeSim, RMC-TotalRisk, RMC-RFA, RMC-BestFit), web applications, and the full set of toolbox technical manuals (Internal Erosion, Overtopping, Risk Calculations, Seismic Hazard). The goal is to provide a single, searchable, version-managed home for all of this documentation, replacing scattered PDFs and legacy formats.

Before we open this up more broadly, we're running a small round of hands-on testing with a few trusted people to make sure the site works the way it should. Your focus area is search — when someone types a term into the search bar, do they get useful, accurate results?

Here's what I'd like you to do:

  1. Search for "backward erosion piping." Use the search bar at the top of the site. Report the top 3 results you see — do they come from the Internal Erosion Suite? Click one of them and confirm it lands on the correct page.

  2. Search for "flood frequency." The results should include content from both the RMC-RFA and RMC-BestFit documentation. Report what comes up and whether both tools are represented.

  3. Search for "seismic hazard curves." Click through to one of the results and verify the page loads correctly. Check that the sidebar shows you're in the Seismic Hazard Suite section of the site.

If anything feels confusing, broken, or just off, please note it — that kind of feedback is exactly what we're looking for at this stage.

Thanks, [Your Name]

Tester 3 — Versioning & Site Tour

Subject: RMC Software Documentation Site — Soft Launch Testing (Versioning & Site Tour)

Hi [Name],

We're preparing to launch a new documentation website for the RMC suite of tools. The site consolidates user's guides, technical manuals, validation studies, and other reference documents for RMC software — including desktop applications (LifeSim, RMC-TotalRisk, RMC-RFA, RMC-BestFit), web applications, and the full set of toolbox technical manuals (Internal Erosion, Overtopping, Risk Calculations, Seismic Hazard). The goal is to provide a single, searchable, version-managed home for all of this documentation, replacing scattered PDFs and legacy formats.

Before we open this up more broadly, we're running a small round of hands-on testing. You have two focus areas: version management and the guided site tour.

Here's what I'd like you to do:

  1. Test versioning on the Typical Event Tree Database. Navigate to the Typical Event Tree Database (under Risk Calculations Suite from the homepage). You should land on v1.5 by default. Open the Version History page from the sidebar — it should show entries for all versions (v1.0 through v1.5) with dates, descriptions, and reviewer information. Use the table to navigate to an older version (e.g., v1.0). Confirm the URL changes to include /v1.0/ and that a red warning banner appears at the top of the page telling you you're viewing an old version. Click the link in that banner and confirm it takes you back to v1.5.

  2. Take the guided site tour. Go to the homepage and start the site tour (look for a tour button or check the Help menu in the navigation bar). Follow the tour through each step — it should guide you across multiple pages with spotlight highlights and explanatory text. Confirm the tour navigates smoothly between pages, that each step is readable and points to the right area of the screen, and that you can dismiss the tour early without issues.

  3. Check the Change Log page. Open the Change Log from the Help menu in the navigation bar. Confirm the page loads and displays a table of recent site changes with dates, descriptions, and affected documents. Verify that the entries are in reverse chronological order (newest first) and that any links in the table navigate to the correct documents.

If anything feels confusing, broken, or just off, please note it — that kind of feedback is exactly what we're looking for at this stage.

Thanks, [Your Name]

Tester 4 — Content Rendering

Subject: RMC Software Documentation Site — Soft Launch Testing (Content Rendering)

Hi [Name],

We're preparing to launch a new documentation website for the RMC suite of tools. The site consolidates user's guides, technical manuals, validation studies, and other reference documents for RMC software — including desktop applications (LifeSim, RMC-TotalRisk, RMC-RFA, RMC-BestFit), web applications, and the full set of toolbox technical manuals (Internal Erosion, Overtopping, Risk Calculations, Seismic Hazard). The goal is to provide a single, searchable, version-managed home for all of this documentation, replacing scattered PDFs and legacy formats.

These documents contain a lot of technical content — figures, equations, citations, and cross-references — that all needs to render correctly in the browser. Before we open this up more broadly, we're running a small round of hands-on testing, and your focus area is content rendering. Does the technical content actually look right?

Here's what I'd like you to do:

  1. Check figures and figure references. Open the LifeSim User's Guide and browse through chapters 2 through 4. Verify that figures load with visible captions and numbered labels (e.g., "Figure 2-1"). When the text references a figure (e.g., "Figure 2-3"), click it and confirm it scrolls to the correct figure.

  2. Check equations. Find a document that contains equations — the RMC-RFA User's Guide or any of the Internal Erosion Suite modules are good options. Verify that equations render as properly formatted math notation, not raw code or plain text. If the text references an equation by number (e.g., "Equation 3-1"), click it and confirm it links to the correct equation.

  3. Check citations and bibliography. Open any document and navigate to its References page (usually the last page in the sidebar). Verify the bibliography renders as a numbered list. Then go back into the body of the document and look for in-text citations — you should see an author-year citation alongside a bracketed number (e.g., "(Smith, 2020) [1]"). Confirm these are present and consistent.

If anything feels confusing, broken, or just off, please note it — that kind of feedback is exactly what we're looking for at this stage.

Thanks, [Your Name]

Tester 5 — Document Structure & Metadata

Subject: RMC Software Documentation Site — Soft Launch Testing (Document Structure)

Hi [Name],

We're preparing to launch a new documentation website for the RMC suite of tools. The site consolidates user's guides, technical manuals, validation studies, and other reference documents for RMC software — including desktop applications (LifeSim, RMC-TotalRisk, RMC-RFA, RMC-BestFit), web applications, and the full set of toolbox technical manuals (Internal Erosion, Overtopping, Risk Calculations, Seismic Hazard). The goal is to provide a single, searchable, version-managed home for all of this documentation, replacing scattered PDFs and legacy formats.

Each document on the site follows a consistent structure — metadata pages, version history, numbered chapters, and formatted tables. Before we open this up more broadly, we're running a small round of hands-on testing, and your focus area is document structure and metadata. Does the organizational framework of each document hold together?

Here's what I'd like you to do:

  1. Check the Version History table. Open the RMC-TotalRisk Applications Guide. Navigate to the Version History page (in the sidebar, under the Document Information section). Confirm the table displays with columns for Version, Date, Description, Modified By, Reviewed By, and Approved By.

  2. Compare sidebar structure across two documents. Open any two documents from different categories — for example, one desktop application guide and one toolbox technical manual. In each, confirm that the sidebar has a collapsible "Document Information" section at the top and that chapters are listed and numbered in order.

  3. Check table rendering in a toolbox technical manual. Open any module from the Internal Erosion Suite (e.g., Backward Erosion Piping Initiation or Soil Classification) and find pages that contain data tables. Verify they render with proper formatting, headers, and borders — not as raw markdown text or broken layouts.

If anything feels confusing, broken, or just off, please note it — that kind of feedback is exactly what we're looking for at this stage.

Thanks, [Your Name]

Tester 6 — Site Look & Feel

Subject: RMC Software Documentation Site — Soft Launch Testing (Look & Feel)

Hi [Name],

We're preparing to launch a new documentation website for the RMC suite of tools. The site consolidates user's guides, technical manuals, validation studies, and other reference documents for RMC software — including desktop applications (LifeSim, RMC-TotalRisk, RMC-RFA, RMC-BestFit), web applications, and the full set of toolbox technical manuals (Internal Erosion, Overtopping, Risk Calculations, Seismic Hazard). The goal is to provide a single, searchable, version-managed home for all of this documentation, replacing scattered PDFs and legacy formats.

Before we open this up more broadly, we're running a small round of hands-on testing. Your focus area is site look and feel — does the site look right? We want your eye on visual consistency, layout, spacing, and overall polish across the site.

Here's what I'd like you to do:

  1. Review the homepage and landing pages. Start at the homepage and look at the overall layout — card alignment, spacing, icon consistency, and readability. Then click into at least two application landing pages (e.g., Internal Erosion Suite and LifeSim). Do the landing pages follow a consistent visual pattern? Do images, cards, and headings look clean and well-aligned?

  2. Review a document page for visual consistency. Open the RMC-BestFit User's Guide (or any other document) and browse through several pages. Look at heading styles, font sizes, figure placement, table borders, caption formatting, and overall whitespace. Does everything feel visually consistent page-to-page? Do figures and tables look well-spaced and professionally presented?

  3. Test mobile and responsive layout. Open the site on your phone (or resize your browser window to roughly phone width). Navigate from the homepage into a document and find a page with figures and tables. Check whether the hamburger menu works, figures and tables resize properly, text is readable without horizontal scrolling, and the overall layout holds together on a smaller screen. Also verify the external links in the navbar and footer — click the "RMC Website" link in the top navigation bar and the links in the site footer to confirm they open correctly.

If anything looks off — inconsistent spacing, misaligned elements, odd font sizes, broken layouts, or anything that just doesn't feel polished — please note it. That kind of feedback is exactly what we're looking for at this stage.

Thanks, [Your Name]

Tester 7 — Developer Resources

Subject: RMC Software Documentation Site — Soft Launch Testing (Developer Resources)

Hi [Name],

We're preparing to launch a new documentation website for the RMC suite of tools. The site consolidates user's guides, technical manuals, validation studies, and other reference documents for RMC software — including desktop applications (LifeSim, RMC-TotalRisk, RMC-RFA, RMC-BestFit), web applications, and the full set of toolbox technical manuals (Internal Erosion, Overtopping, Risk Calculations, Seismic Hazard). The goal is to provide a single, searchable, version-managed home for all of this documentation, replacing scattered PDFs and legacy formats.

In addition to end-user documentation, the site includes a set of developer resources — internal guides for contributors covering documentation standards, GitHub workflows, component usage, and style conventions. These are intentionally separated from the main documentation and should not appear in the site's primary search results. Before we open this up more broadly, we're running a small round of hands-on testing, and you're the dedicated tester for the developer-facing parts of the site. Your feedback here is especially valuable since you're the only tester focused on this area.

Here's what I'd like you to do:

  1. Find and access the Developer Resources page. Navigate to the Developer Resources page by adding /docs/dev to the site URL. Verify the page loads and shows the available content sections. Are the sections clearly labeled and organized? Is it obvious what each section covers?

  2. Test all links within the developer documents. Click through each link on the Developer Resources page (e.g., Documentation Guide, GitHub Workflows, Component Reference, Style Guide). Confirm that every link takes you to the correct document and that each document loads fully — no broken pages, missing content, or dead ends. Once inside a developer document, check that its sidebar navigation works and that internal cross-references (links to other sections or pages within the document) resolve correctly.

  3. Verify developer documents display correctly and are excluded from search. Browse through at least two developer documents and check that they render properly — headings, code blocks, component examples, and any tables or lists should all display as expected. Then go back to the main site search bar and search for terms like "GitHub Workflows," "commit message standards," or "component usage." These developer docs should not appear in the main search results. Let me know if any of them do.

If anything feels confusing, broken, or just off, please note it — that kind of feedback is exactly what we're looking for at this stage.

Thanks, [Your Name]

Coverage Summary

Area Tester Focus Tasks
Homepage & navigation flow 1 Main site 3
Search (relevance, cross-doc, continuity) 2 Main site 3
Versioning, site tour & change log 3 Main site 3
Figures, equations, citations, bibliography 4 Main site 3
Document metadata, sidebars, tables 5 Main site 3
Visual consistency, layout, spacing & mobile 6 Look & Feel 3
Dev docs: access, links, display & search exclusion 7 Developer Resources 3

21 tasks across 7 testers, 3 each.