QA against Wildlife Trust expectations

[katjam]

Description

Wildlife Trusts have provided the following as guidelines for quality of their digital products:

At point of Go live

SIgn off by GFSC + Wildlife Trusts IT team:

• [ ] Meets the Communications security, Access control, Backup and Cryptographic controls requirements of RSWT Infosec Policy
• [ ] Penetration test completed and all critical and high risk findings mitigated

SIgn off by GFSC dev team:

• [ ] Accessible to agreed standard e.g. WCAG 2.1 A
• [ ] User test acceptance - external – usability
• [ ] Acceptable load speed of pages

Sign off by GFSC + Wildlife Trust:

• [ ] Functional journeys can be completed with zero error page loads or dead ends
• [ ] User test acceptance - internal – usability – check against spec for product
• [ ] DPIA in place for any personal data (or agreement no DPIA needed)
• [ ] Documentation in place
• [ ] Onboarding/training/ get started docs in place (incl FAQ if needed etc)
• [ ] Link to customer journeys of RSWT/ other Trusts
• [ ] Available in Welsh
• [ ] Branded correctly – agreed by comms

3 month review

Sign off by GFSC + Wildlife Trust:

• [ ] Less than 5% downtime
• [ ] Less than 5% reported errors
• [ ] Number of rage clicks/ uturns same as RSWT website or lower (needs Hotjar for this)
• [ ] Number of users?
• [ ] Positive user feedback?
• [ ] Journeys completed as expected 60% of time

Plan

• [ ] Using this list as a starting point, confirm how we'll test against the following
• [ ] Test / verify, ticket or flag to appropriate person the items in the list
• [ ] Generate UAT from AC on issues been released (https://github.com/geeksforsocialchange/teamwilder/wiki)
• [ ] Send Team Wilder a rundown of the go live criteria (before 14 June) and progress against that so we can make sure our senior folks are happy to agree to launch

[katjam]

Contact Richard re. security stuff - getting "signed off"