PACT: Final QA / A11y / Design UAT for launch

[jilladams]

Status

[2024-08-01] [Fran] Noting that we'll wait until final content is provided and implemented before we begin UAT.

Definition

We need to QA PACT scenarios end to end for launch, as well as content.

There are high-level scenarios (listed below) with various 'sub-scenarios', and they all must be tested.

• 1990 or earlier
• 1989 or earlier
• During both of these time periods

Note: Fran has already started a QA checklist.

Artifacts

PACT Act Wizard branching logic / flow Mural

ACs

• [x] Create QA flow/checklist - we will use the PACT Act Wizard branching logic / flow Mural to verify flow logic
• [ ] All logic flows pass - @jilladams or @FranECross
  • [ ] Note the following: Mural R1 = actual screen r1-1; Mural R1.1 = actual screen R1-2
  • [ ] Any failing flows are annotated in the Mural
  • [ ] After failures are resolved, Mural is cleaned up as a final artifact and QA notes are removed
• [ ] Design review - @thejordanwood
• [ ] a11y Review - @laflannery
• [ ] ~All content passes~ -- CAIA will verify content, this is not in scope

[jilladams]

Talked about this in scrum.

Flagged: The Mural uses numbering for questions, and those numbers are no longer tied to the copy for the questions. Team suggestion was: let's update the Mural to include the first few words of each question copy, as a cross-reference. With that in place, we'll revisit with the team and it might be sufficient for our purposes to allow the team to verify the logic using Mural vs. a spreadsheet.

Also: yesterday in Slack, VA verified that CAIA will verify the copy, so we can stick to the logic in our test plan (woo!).

@FranECross , meantime could you add a link to your test plan spreadsheet, just so we have it if we decide to go that route?

[jilladams]

From refinement convo: Each PACT URL is structured to match the question. e.g. Burn Pits question 2.1 will have the URL https://staging.va.gov/pact-act-eligibility/burn-pit-2-1.

So: we can use the URL structure as the way to verify the logic flow and make sure testers know they have landed in the right place. (Rather than including the first few words of copy for each question in the flow mural, since copy is evolving).

There are some questions with A and B variants. The A/B-ness is not currently reflected with identifying letters in the flow mural. @thejordanwood is gonna help and add those.

At that point, we'll triple check if the mural is sufficient for guiding a tester through verifying the logic.

[thejordanwood]

@jilladams To clarify, all A and B variants were shown in the flow but they didn't have a question number above them that corresponds to a URL. I've now added that number above them to make this clear!

[jilladams]

Yes, good clarification and I updated my statement to be more clear.

I just verified the Agent Orange flows pretty easily, with this update. I think we should be set to do the testing with this, but we do need to discuss how to record issues / bugs where we don't get what we expected.

@laflannery @thejordanwood I know you all used a Mural when you tested header/footer. If we used this logic flow and had testers add a sticker / emoji for broken steps of the flow (if any), does that seem appropriate to y'all? Once QA has signed off / we're clear to ship, we could clean out the QA stickies /notes.

[jilladams]

Verified in scrum: Using Mural is good. ACs updated to reflect that.