<br><br><b><i>vincent polite <firstname.lastname@example.org></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> <div>As I wrote earlier, I've been helping this guy out with his website. I'd never done q&a on a whole site. Just the page I was working on. While trying to figure something out, I noticed that the space to enter the credit card number was to small. Max characters was set at 14. Most credit cards are 16. The project was supposedly signed off on. But, if the site would not work right to begin with, wouldn't that invalidate the "signing off"? Shouldn't the developer do all the testing and not the client hire someone. As I say, I don't know all that has transpired on this project. Still trying to figure these things out. Thanks</div><br></blockquote>It is always good for the developer to perform as much QA as possible. However, final acceptance should be based on QA performed
by an entity other than the developer(s), with the developers allowed to respond to any bug reports filed by the QA team (or QA person). ISO 9000 requires this and in fact a company can lose their ISO 9000 certification if a product is shipped that was QAed by only the product developers. If a company is not ISO 9000, then it doesn't matter what QA process (if any) they use. But, in general, it is not a good idea to ship a product with only developer QA. Developers have a way of overlooking bugs and sometimes will even rationalize a bug as being an intended feature.<br><br><p>
<hr size=1>Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Football ’06 - Go with the leader.
<a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=33539/*http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com?ovchn=YAH&ovcpn=Integration&ovcrn=Mail+footer&ovrfd=YAH&ovtac=AD">Start your league today!</a>