Website QA review / Free checklist
Website QA checklist for one important workflow
Before you ask someone to review your site, walk through one journey yourself. This checklist helps you find reproducible problems and describe them clearly.
Last updated: 4 October 2026 · Practical desktop browser checks · Examples below are synthetic, not client results
Set the scope before you click
Pick a clear start and finish: “enter two amounts and read the total,” “find a product with two filters,” or “complete a test signup.” Write down what should happen, not just which page to open.
- Record the URL, date, browser version and desktop viewport size
- Use made-up inputs with a result you can check by hand
- Agree which actions are safe. Use an authorized test environment for submissions
- Stop before real purchases, messages, account changes or deletion unless explicitly authorized
Keep credentials, personal data and private URLs out of public reports. A check you could not perform is blocked or not tested, not passed.
12 checks, with an observable result
Mark each case Passed, Failed, Blocked or Not tested. Skip cases that do not apply, and record why. A pass only describes the case and environment you actually checked.
Start fresh
Try: Open the starting URL in a fresh tab. Record the browser, viewport and default state.
Look for: The page explains what to do and starts without an unexplained error.
Complete the main path
Try: Use synthetic, valid inputs and follow the intended sequence once.
Look for: The result matches a manually checked example; success is visible.
Leave required inputs empty
Try: Clear each required field, then try to continue.
Look for: An understandable message identifies the missing input; no stale success remains.
Try invalid input
Try: Try a wrong format and values just outside the documented limits.
Look for: The page explains the accepted format or range instead of producing a misleading result.
Check boundaries
Try: Try the minimum, maximum and one value on either side where limits exist.
Look for: Accepted and rejected values match the stated rules.
Change a previous answer
Try: After a result appears, edit an input and run the workflow again.
Look for: The new result uses the new input and does not show outdated details.
Repeat an action
Try: Click a safe local action twice. For submissions, use only an authorized test environment.
Look for: The interface stays usable; a test submission does not create unintended duplicates.
Cancel and restart
Try: Open a dialog or picker, cancel it, then open it again.
Look for: The original screen remains usable and the second attempt works.
Use Back and Forward
Try: Move through the workflow, use browser Back, then Forward.
Look for: The visible step and URL agree; restored or cleared inputs behave predictably.
Refresh at a useful point
Try: Refresh after entering inputs or reaching a result, when safe.
Look for: The page recovers clearly and does not imply an unsaved action completed.
Use the keyboard
Try: Tab through the workflow and activate controls with their expected keys.
Look for: Focus is visible, order is logical and you can leave dialogs. This is a spot check, not an accessibility audit.
Check a narrow viewport
Try: Resize the desktop browser and repeat the critical path.
Look for: Text, errors and controls remain usable without clipped actions. This is not a real-device mobile test.
A useful finding is specific
Synthetic example: The following is an invented calculator bug to illustrate reporting. It is not a finding from ZipKit or a customer website.
- Title
- Clearing an amount leaves the previous total visible
- Starting state
- A fictional two-amount calculator, with both inputs empty
- Steps
- Enter 10 and 20. Calculate and observe 30. Clear the second input. Calculate again.
- Expected
- A required-field message, with no total presented as current
- Observed
- The previous total of 30 remains visible without a warning
- Impact
- A visitor could mistake an old result for a calculation of the current inputs
- Proposed severity
- Medium in this fictional workflow because the result is misleading. The team should assess severity against its actual product and users.
- Evidence to attach in a real report
- Browser and viewport, date, build or URL, and a sanitized screenshot of the input and result state. No screenshot is claimed for this invented example.
- Retest
- Repeat the steps after a fix, then re-enter 20 and confirm that 30 is returned normally
Copy this report outline
Keep findings separate from coverage so that “no bug found” does not imply everything was tested.
Workflow and expected outcome: Starting URL / build: Date / browser version / desktop viewport: Authorized actions and synthetic test inputs: Case | Passed / Failed / Blocked / Not tested | Evidence Finding title: Starting state: Steps to reproduce: Expected result: Observed result: Impact and proposed severity: Sanitized evidence: Retest result: Untested paths and access blockers: Questions requiring the team's decision:
Need a second look at that workflow?
ZipKit offers scope discussions for an AI-assisted desktop Chromium review, with reproducible findings, screenshots and explicit coverage limits. Start with one workflow and an expected outcome.
Discuss website QA scope →The service uses a public GitHub inquiry and requires a GitHub account. Share only details you are allowed to make public. Availability, fee and timing must be agreed before work starts; no booking or payment happens here.
This checklist is not a security audit, load test, accessibility certification, cross-browser test or guarantee of a bug-free site.