# Design QA Checklist

## Objective

Give interface work a consistent review before it merges.

A short review pass over hierarchy, spacing, states, copy, responsiveness, and accessibility, applied to every change that touches the interface.

## Before You Begin

This feature is being added to an application that already exists and already
works. Do not scaffold a new project, and do not assume a blank slate.

Inspect the codebase first and establish:

- The existing application structure and where code of this kind already lives.
- The framework and version in use.
- The existing design system — colours, spacing, typography, and component conventions.
- Existing UI components you can reuse instead of writing new ones.
- The existing database structure, if this feature needs to persist anything.
- The existing authentication and authorization system, if this feature is user-scoped.
- Dependencies already installed, so you don't add a library that duplicates one.
- The existing test setup and conventions.

Only start writing code once you understand the above. If the application
already implements part of this feature, extend it rather than replacing it.

## Implementation Instructions

1. Write the checklist as a small number of concrete questions a reviewer can answer by looking at the running change, not as a list of principles nobody can verify.
2. Require every state to be shown, not described: loading, empty, error, partial, permission-denied, and the state with far more content than expected. A review that only sees the populated happy path approves half a feature.
3. Require a keyboard pass and a zoom pass on every change: tab through the new interface without touching the pointer, and view it at 200 per cent zoom with increased text size.
4. Keep the checklist short enough that it is genuinely completed. A checklist longer than a screen gets ticked without being read, at which point it is worse than nothing because it manufactures false confidence.
5. Mark each item as either a blocker or polish, and let polish items merge with a recorded follow-up. Automated rule checking belongs to the Accessibility Test Suite; this brief covers the judgement a machine cannot make.

## UI and UX Requirements

Match the application's existing design system exactly. Reuse its components,
spacing, and typography. This feature should look like it was always there.

## Responsive Requirements

Works on mobile, tablet, and desktop. Touch targets are large enough to hit on a
phone, and nothing overflows horizontally at 320px.

## Accessibility Requirements

- Fully keyboard navigable.
- Correct semantic elements and ARIA roles.
- Visible focus states.
- Meets WCAG AA contrast.
- Dynamic changes are announced to screen readers.
- Respects prefers-reduced-motion.

## Edge Cases

- Loading, empty, error, and permission-denied states are the ones shipped untested, because they are awkward to reach in development and the reviewer never sees them unless the checklist demands a screenshot of each.
- An interface that reviews well with a mouse can be unusable by keyboard and unreadable at 200 per cent zoom, so both passes have to be mandatory items rather than optional suggestions.
- A checklist that grows to forty items is completed by reflex, and every item on it stops meaning anything — cap it and remove an item whenever a new one is added.
- Without a blocker and polish distinction, either trivial spacing notes hold up a release or genuine defects are waved through as minor, and both outcomes teach people to ignore the review.
- Copy has to be reviewed as part of the same pass — placeholder text, inconsistent capitalisation, and error messages written for engineers all survive when the review is only about layout.
- The reviewer must see the change running rather than a static mockup, because hover, focus, and transition behaviour cannot be reviewed from an image.
- A checklist with no named owner for each item ends up self-reviewed by the author, which catches almost nothing.

## Testing

Exercise the feature end to end in the running application. Cover every edge case
above, then run the existing test suite and confirm nothing regressed.

## Acceptance Criteria

- [ ] The checklist fits on one screen and every item is answerable by looking at the running change.
- [ ] Loading, empty, error, partial, permission-denied, and overflowing-content states are each demonstrated before approval.
- [ ] A keyboard-only pass and a 200 per cent zoom pass with increased text size are required items.
- [ ] Every item is classified as a blocker or as polish, and polish items carry a recorded follow-up.
- [ ] Copy, capitalisation, and error wording are reviewed alongside layout.
- [ ] The review is performed by someone other than the author of the change.
- [ ] The feature matches the existing design system.
- [ ] No existing functionality is broken.

## Adaptation Rules

- Match the existing design system. Do not introduce a new colour palette,
  spacing scale, or component library.
- Reuse existing components and utilities wherever they fit.
- Follow the naming, file layout, and code style already present.
- Do not upgrade, replace, or remove existing dependencies to make this
  feature fit. Adapt the feature to the app, not the app to the feature.
- Do not break existing functionality. If a change is genuinely required in
  existing code, make the smallest one that works and say so.
- If something in these instructions conflicts with how the application is
  built, follow the application and explain the deviation.

## Final Verification

Before you report the work as done:

1. Re-read the acceptance criteria above and check each one against what you
   actually built.
2. Run the application and exercise the feature end to end.
3. Run the existing test suite and confirm you have broken nothing.
4. Check the feature on mobile, tablet, and desktop widths.
5. Check keyboard navigation and focus handling.
6. Summarize what changed: files added, files modified, and anything you
   deliberately did differently because of how this application is built.

If any acceptance criterion is unmet, fix it before reporting completion.