
The Ultimate Website Launch Checklist - spxdcz
http://www.boxuk.com/blog/the-ultimate-website-launch-checklist
======
sam_in_nyc
Why should I care about CSS/HTML/JS validity, when I'm going to be checking if
it works in all browsers, anyway?

I never understood the whole "Does it validate!!??!" mantra with HTML. So,
what, I can't add my own custom attributes to HTML elements (which makes lots
of JS magic possible) because the HTML spec will go berserk over it?

IMO, cross browser testing trumps all this validation nonsense (which all
browsers have some bug somewhere with, anyway). Enough.

~~~
anc2020
Because its not very hard to validate and can catch minor errors and typos. If
you're a C programmer, do you also ignore warnings from the compiler?

~~~
sam_in_nyc
If my compiler gave errors for things like "invalid syntax in IF statement:
'if (true)' -- REQUIRED SPACES ARE MISSING, SHOULD BE 'if ( true )'" then I
wouldn't consider it any sort of technical achievement that my code compiles
without warning.

Just look at the worthless output for news.ycombinator.com:
[http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombina...](http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombinator.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0)

137 warnings, 5 errors. Let's take a look at what expert advise the validator
offers, so that our webpages will be forward compatible (or whatever the
supposed purpose of this is for).

It complains about every href that has "=" or "&" in it, claims you _must_ put
an ALT attribute on images, says <tr></tr> is invalid... etc. It essentially
complains about things that have no effect on anything, but for some reason or
another the W3C decided to put into their standards and enforce it.

W3C: how about you come up with something useful... like, for instance,
allowing me to center a fucking DIV with CSS. With tables, I can simply...
just kidding. But seriously, I have qualms with W3C.

~~~
tdavis
_It complains about every href that has "=" or " &" in it_

You should escape characters such as these, as they have different meanings in
the source context. It's merely a courtesy that the browser knows what to do
with them.

 _you must put an ALT attribute on images_

This data is used not only as descriptive text, but as a replacement for
missing images and for those who use screen readers.

 _< tr></tr> is invalid_

Of course it is, it's empty. Why do you have an empty element? It shouldn't be
there.

Worry about errors or don't, I certainly don't care either way, but there are
good reasons for those errors. The only difference between compiler warnings
and validation errors is you don't care about the latter. _Major browsers are
nice enough to allow you not to care_. That courtesy doesn't magically turn
_syntax errors_ into _style guidelines_. Ugh.

~~~
sam_in_nyc
So I should escape characters that are already inside of double quotes..
great. And the fact that all browsers support unescaped HREFs means nothing in
the face of the almighty "Look! I validated!" claim.

ALT attributes provide descriptive text and are replacements for missing
images. Great! Now, why are they required? Not to mention, any use of any
attribute _not_ on the list will get you unvalidated. Suppose I want to
include some extra data for JS, like "_droptype" or "_isDraggable". Sorry!
It's not on W3C's list of acceptable attributes so you fail validation, even
though all browsers ignore attributes they don't know about.

An empty tag... why do I have one? Well, maybe because inside the tag I have
server generate text.. .and instead of doing;

    
    
      if ($text) echo "<tr>$text</tr>"
    

I do

    
    
      echo "<tr>$text</tr>"
    

Would it be so hard to make the standard: "If theres nothing in the tag, treat
it like it doesn't exist"? No.

Furthermore, I have blank DIVs to take up width/height sometimes. Then again,
I'm sure there's some clever way to wrap 20 DIVs and put browser specific
hacks so it actually validates... but I prefer to do it the way that works.

Major browsers are nice enough to allow me to not care. So show me errors that
I need to care about. W3C validation, to me, is like saying "I memorized every
little gotcha that W3C implemented... and still, everything works! Aren't you
impressed? Five years from now, the site _should_ still work! Forward
validation! Yay!"

------
Edinburger
Nice list. I would add 'Test your ability to recover from backup'

~~~
spxdcz
Ah, I like it! Maybe I'll combine with the 'configure backup' one. ('configure
AND TEST backup' !!)

------
jodrellblank
_Check all bespoke/complex functionality_

One of our recent suppliers is a security provider that offers a service we
want to resell.

Their management website has a "mailto:" button for support. It doesn't work.

How can you a) break a mailto link in the first place, b) not notice the
support option doesn't work, and c) expect me to trust you with security with
attention to detail like that?

Maybe you can add "Check basic functionality" and then I can forward this to
them... ;)

~~~
olefoo
Nice; the old I tried to send you an email about the problem but your email
doesn't work...

In my experience this is often the result of a lack of communication between
the person who can set the MX records and the person who builds the website.

I would alter those checklist items to:

a. check that advertised emails are functional and reach the correct
recipients

b. check DNS records for validity and speed of access

------
josefresco
Along with creating a sitemap, you should also add your site to the Google
Webmaster Console/Yahoo! Site Explorer to monitor any errors and last crawl
date etc.

Also, along with checking different browsers/resolutions you should also view
the site on multiple PC's as colors tend to vary dramatically. Keep in mind
that not all consumers use high end monitors/pcs like we developers do.

------
Jem
This would be good popped in to a pdf.

(I could just print as pdf but that includes all the comments/etc that I don't
want.)

~~~
spxdcz
We'll definitely be doing this soon! Thanks for the suggestion.

------
alecco
Add proper RSS/Atom/etc. support on every relevant page. For example, all blog
and news posts.

<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="Example RSS Feed"
href="[http://example.com/blog/?feed=rss"](http://example.com/blog/?feed=rss)
/>

------
cake
I may be missing the point but many of the items shouldn't be done on pre-
lauch as indicated. ex : HTML validation, it's not a good time to do it at
this time, you can mess up the whole layout because of IE. Custom 404 : a good
page can be a big ammount of work...

------
CalmQuiet
Pretty nice checklist for web devs. ...ranging from usability issues to SEO
issues and security.

Even better... author is willing to augment checklist with your suggestions -
which means he could protect it against obsolescence. Bookmarked.

------
spxdcz
Thanks for all the suggestions; I've just (17:18 GMT) updated the list.

------
mtw
so who goes through this? the web developer? the web integrator? a project
manager? and also it seems to me that a few of those could be automated

~~~
spxdcz
Definitely a combination; depends largely on the structure of the organisation
in charge of the website (e.g. whether or not they have access to dedicated
testing).

It may be interesting to add another column to the list that allows
individuals to take responsibility for each item, as there's definitely a
range of skills required to tackle everything on here (from design to sys
admin).

------
EastSmith
Printed.

~~~
spxdcz
If you have any suggestions for additional checks, let me know, and I'll add
them in.

Also, this whole thing is CC licensed (haven't put the logo on the page yet),
under <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/> so feel free to re-
publish, change, etc...

