4 ms·

The Ultimate Website Launch Checklist

91 points by spxdcz 18y ago

EastSmith 18y ago
Printed.
- spxdcz 18y ago
  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/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ so feel free to re-publish, change, etc...
CalmQuiet 18y ago
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.
Edinburger 18y ago
Nice list. I would add 'Test your ability to recover from backup'
- spxdcz 18y ago
  Ah, I like it! Maybe I'll combine with the 'configure backup' one. ('configure AND TEST backup' !!)
josefresco 18y ago
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 18y ago
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 18y ago
  We'll definitely be doing this soon! Thanks for the suggestion.
spxdcz 18y ago
Thanks for all the suggestions; I've just (17:18 GMT) updated the list.
mtw 18y ago
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 18y ago
  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).
jodrellblank 18y ago
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 18y ago
  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
sam_in_nyc 18y ago
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 18y ago
  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 18y ago
    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.ycombinator.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombina... 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.
    - moe 18y ago
      I understand your qualms, everybody has them. But aiming for validation is really a good thing because the validation plugin will then immediately notify you about screwups, by refusing to display that green checkmark. Also a validating page puts you at least on some common ground with the browsers. That way you can focus on the known, documented inconsistencies without potentially adding new side effects through parsing errors.
alecco 18y ago
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 18y ago
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...

91 points by spxdcz 18y ago

EastSmith 18y ago

Printed.

spxdcz 18y ago
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/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ so feel free to re-publish, change, etc...

CalmQuiet 18y ago

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.

Edinburger 18y ago

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

spxdcz 18y ago
Ah, I like it! Maybe I'll combine with the 'configure backup' one. ('configure AND TEST backup' !!)

josefresco 18y ago

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 18y ago

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 18y ago
We'll definitely be doing this soon! Thanks for the suggestion.

spxdcz 18y ago

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

mtw 18y ago

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 18y ago
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).

jodrellblank 18y ago

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 18y ago
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

sam_in_nyc 18y ago

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 18y ago
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 18y ago
  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.ycombinator.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0 http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ycombina... 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.
  - moe 18y ago
    I understand your qualms, everybody has them. But aiming for validation is really a good thing because the validation plugin will then immediately notify you about screwups, by refusing to display that green checkmark. Also a validating page puts you at least on some common ground with the browsers. That way you can focus on the known, documented inconsistencies without potentially adding new side effects through parsing errors.

alecco 18y ago

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 18y ago

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...