Testing 1, 2, 3

When new products are developed, from widgets to luxury automobiles to light bulbs, they undergo extensive quality assurance testing for days, often months. However, when we develop our marketing and public relations materials, we sometimes forget this step. Not only do we need to make sure that the basics are covered (no typos, misspelled words, grammatical errors, etc.), we need to make sure that the recipients of our messages receive and interpret them in the way we intend.

We made this mistake ourselves when we sent out the inaugural issue of NewsWise last month. We used a standard e-mail program to design and send our first issue. It looked terrific on our screen and to the people (a couple) that we sent it to before the full distribution. Unfortunately, not all of our recipients received the newsletter in the way we intended. For many, the graphics or the fonts were incorrect. Some didn't receive NewsWise at all! Basically, our software couldn't speak to our recipients' software. Obviously, we didn't do enough testing to make sure that everyone would receive the newsletter in the format and style we intended. Not good.

We hope that our problems have been resolved, and yes, we did extensive testing by sending a sample newsletter to a variety of recipients with many different types of e-mail programs.

Everything we produce should go through "quality assurance" tests. No matter what it is, whether it's a brochure, a Web site, a press release or so on, have a fresh set of eyes (or two!) review it. The best reviewers often know virtually nothing about the subject. Does it make at least basic sense to them? Or, does it contain technical jargon or acronyms that they don't understand? Of course, materials need to be prepared with a specific audience in mind, but someone else may read it. For example, a product brochure may be written from an engineer's point of view. However, if the company's purchasing agent doesn't understand it, the product may not be ordered.

When a new Web site is developed, it must go through usability testing in much the same way. Does it make sense to the end user? As important, what does it look like on a variety of monitors? Were Web-friendly colors used? Is it easy to navigate? Is the amount of text appropriate? Also, be wary of making it too "fancy." We recently went to a Web site that played a two-minute video before we could enter the site. No "skip intro" option was given. Even worse, the company was an international conglomerate and as we drilled down to the local subsidiary we were forced to view the same video two more times! In addition, a common mistake is using too large or too many graphics. While many people have high-speed access, there are still users with analog phone lines and if they have to wait for multiple graphics to load on the home page, they've probably gone on to the next site. In most cases, the "KISS" (keep it simple, stupid) principal applies in Web site design.

One final comment on testing: proofread, proofread, proofread...then go back a day later and proofread again!