‹ Home
Exported

TOLOGIX - ISLG App Rebuild

Laura Mindorff, COO at IndustrialHarsh Parikh, Tech Lead at DevITMelissa Cowell, General Manager at IndustrialHiren PatelMonica Martinez, MonolabMarysia RaptisPaul MoonIrit WeinfeldPatrick Harris, Web Designer at IndustrialPiyush Kanpariya, DevITRob Wiesenberg, ContegraRadomir Mladenovic, ContegraKetan Sondarva, Technical Project Manager at DevITStephanie Ducasse, Web Developer at IndustrialAkash Buch +16 others
From the list: ISLG Team Feedback - post-launch (low priority)

❏ Requirements for integrating HTML QC review process into new ISLG application

Morgan M. added this on
Assigned to
Martin Laporte, CTO at Tologix Martin L.
Notes
Further to the video below, please write requirements for integrating the HTML QC review process into the new ISLG application, which will be implemented post-launch. 

As described in the video the new ISLG application currently lacks two main features that are required for QC review:
  1. HTML editor with commenting functions; and
  2. Task assignment process that allows admin users to assign and track documents as they proceed through the QC review process.
The video references the following documents currently used for QC review:
  1. ISLG HTML Automated Coding list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c0mQ6rp7uEw7An7AjHxh4G5ieIekOOL9vaBWAv79png/edit#gid=202726874
  2. QC Application: http://dev.convertortool.com/QCTool
    • Access to this application requires a login
    • Please do not save any changes to documents (actively used)

Comments & Events

Naomi Joanis, UX Team Lead at Industrial Naomi Joanis, UX Team Lead
Hi Morgan Maguire, CEO Morgan , 

Thank you for the video walk through, that gave a good overview of the process. I do still have a few more questions I'm hoping you can answer:
  1. Do the QC technical/content review steps need to be completed before a document can be edited, analyzed, or reviewed? Similar to the current implementation, where subsequent tasks are not available until certain tasks in the flow have been completed.
  2. For the QC technical review process, what types of actions are they completing in terms of modifying the html code (not including adding comments), and is the source code function in the editor sufficient for them to complete their technical review task?
  3. If a document is marked as failed in either the technical or content review process, as it relates to subsequent tasks, what is the desired outcome? Should the HTML document be removed with subsequent tasks unassigned; and only the PDF document remains allowing a manually coded HTML document to be added at a later time? Who should be notified of a failed status?
  4. Is there a difference in terms of the tasks that a QC content reviewer performs and the actions they would perform in the “edit” task? More so wondering if there needs to be a clear delineation between what one would perform in “edit” versus in a QC content review.

Thank you, 

Naomi 
Notified 3 people
Morgan Maguire, CEO Morgan Maguire, CEO
Hi Naomi Joanis, UX Team Lead at Industrial Naomi ,

Here are the answers to the questions above:
  1. Do the QC technical/content review steps need to be completed before a document can be edited, analyzed, or reviewed? Similar to the current implementation, where subsequent tasks are not available until certain tasks in the flow have been completed.
  • The QC technical/content review would essentially replace the Edit task within the process. All editing of the HTML would be done as part of the review process. After the QC technical/content review process is complete, the document would proceed directly to the Analysis process.
  1. For the QC technical review process, what types of actions are they completing in terms of modifying the html code (not including adding comments), and is the source code function in the editor sufficient for them to complete their technical review task?
  • The source coded could be altered during the review process. For example, paragraph and footnote tags may need to be added. As a result, we may need to alter the timing of when things like the Provision List are generated to ensure any data pulled from the HTML only occurs after the QC technical/content review process is complete.
  1. If a document is marked as failed in either the technical or content review process, as it relates to subsequent tasks, what is the desired outcome? Should the HTML document be removed with subsequent tasks unassigned; and only the PDF document remains allowing a manually coded HTML document to be added at a later time? Who should be notified of a failed status?
  • If the document is marked as failed during the review process, the HTML does not need to be removed. It can exist in the database until it is replaced by the manually generated HTML, or the automated document is manually fixed by the HTML technical team. However, the document should not be able to proceed to the next step in the process (Analysis) until the result at the review stage is changed to "complete". 
  1. Is there a difference in terms of the tasks that a QC content reviewer performs and the actions they would perform in the “edit” task? More so wondering if there needs to be a clear delineation between what one would perform in “edit” versus in a QC content review.
  • No, as mentioned above, we could probably integrated the review into the editing task or replace the editing task with the review task. Once the document completes review, it can proceed to the "Ready for Analysis" state. 
Thanks,

Morgan
 
Notified 3 people
Naomi Joanis, UX Team Lead at Industrial Naomi Joanis, UX Team Lead
hi Morgan Maguire, CEO Morgan , 

Here are the cards related to the QC process:
Notified 3 people