Approving a website after opening only its homepage is rather like reviewing a book from its cover. I try to behave like a visitor: choose a question, find an answer, follow a link and, where relevant, send an enquiry.
First pass: identity and claims
I check names, roles, project contributions, dates and contact information. Placeholder copy, private editorial notes and unsupported achievements should not remain. One company name carried over from another project can undermine an otherwise polished page.
English pages need equivalent information. Translating headings is insufficient if form messages, image descriptions or error pages remain inconsistent.
Second pass: follow the links
I begin within an article rather than always using the menu. Do related pieces open in the correct language? Does the portfolio file load? Does an older address reach an appropriate destination? The migration map should be tested here.
I also try a search that returns nothing and an incomplete form submission. Empty and error states reveal problems that the ideal journey can conceal.
Third pass: verify the actual operation
A clickable button does not prove the underlying action succeeded. Confirm that a message reaches its recipient, acknowledgements are accurate and failures do not produce false success messages. Local testing and live-environment testing are separate checks.
Saving, previewing and updating a draft in the editorial interface also belongs in the rehearsal. For a regularly updated publication, that path matters as much as the homepage.
Fourth pass: vary the conditions
Narrow screens, long headings, enlarged text, keyboard operation and slower connections expose different weaknesses. Empty cards, overflowing navigation and unreadable notices often appear under these conditions.
I record checked, issue found or not verified rather than looks good. An unverified operation should not be marked complete. A release decision becomes informed only when the impact of remaining issues is understood.