Mapped the journey
Defined the happy path, decision points, required data and moments where confidence could drop.
← Back to portfolio
Simulated product exercise · June 2026
Customer-workflow QA for a workforce navigation SaaS
Testing whether a job seeker can move from career goal to a saved training pathway confidently, accessibly and without losing their work.
- Product
- Pathway North (fictional)
- My role
- Customer-minded QA analyst
- Scope
- Onboarding → recommendation → save
- Method
- Exploratory + scripted testing
12Test cases
9Passed
3Defects
2High-impact fixes
The situation
A high-stakes journey needs more than a technically correct screen.
Pathway North is a fictional platform that helps people facing employment disruption compare career paths and training options. The tested flow asks a user to select a career goal, describe their experience, filter training and save a personalized pathway.
The customer may be stressed, unfamiliar with workforce terminology or using assistive technology. My test approach therefore considered task completion, clarity, error recovery, state preservation and keyboard accessibility—not only whether buttons worked.
Approach
How I tested the workflow
Designed test coverage
Covered happy paths, validation, back navigation, empty states, keyboard use and small screens.
Documented reproducibly
Recorded prerequisites, exact steps, expected and actual behaviour, severity and customer impact.
Prioritized action
Separated blockers from usability friction and proposed fixes that product and engineering could assess.
Key findings
Three issues worth fixing before broader release
A user could continue without selecting a career goal.
Customer impact: The next page returned generic recommendations, making the experience feel inaccurate and reducing trust in the product.
Reproduction steps and recommendation
- Open the career-goal step with no prior saved selection.
- Leave the goal field blank.
- Activate “Continue.”
- Observe that the workflow advances and displays unpersonalized results.
Expected: Remain on the step, display a specific inline error and move focus to the error summary. Recommended fix: enforce required validation in both the interface and request layer.
Keyboard focus did not move to a newly displayed validation message.
Customer impact: A keyboard or screen-reader user could hear no explanation for the blocked action and may assume the product had stopped responding.
Reproduction steps and recommendation
- Navigate through the form using only Tab and Shift+Tab.
- Leave the years-of-experience field empty.
- Activate “Continue” with Enter.
- Observe that focus remains on the button and the error is not announced.
Expected: Error summary receives programmatic focus and field error
is linked with aria-describedby. Recommended fix:
implement a focusable error summary with an assertive live-region announcement.
Training filters reset after reviewing a program and returning to results.
Customer impact: Users comparing several programs had to repeatedly rebuild their filters, increasing effort and creating avoidable abandonment risk.
Reproduction steps and recommendation
- Filter programs to “Online” and “Under $2,000.”
- Open one program’s details.
- Use the product’s “Back to results” action.
- Observe that all filters return to their defaults.
Expected: Query and filter state persists for the user’s comparison session. Recommended fix: store filters in the URL or session state and restore them when the results view remounts.
Prioritization
Recommendation memo
Fix required-field validation
This issue corrupts recommendation quality and undermines the platform’s central promise. Fix and regression-test it before inviting additional customers into the workflow.
Repair focus handling and state preservation
Both issues add friction for users already performing cognitively demanding tasks. Address them in the same stabilization cycle and add automated coverage where practical.
Close the loop with support and training
Update the known-issues note, prepare a short support response and confirm that training materials show the corrected interaction before release.
Test matrix
Coverage and results
Each test has a clear user objective and observable pass condition.
| ID | Scenario | Expected result | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| TC-01 | Complete the standard pathway flow | Relevant pathway saves successfully | Pass |
| TC-02 | Submit without a career goal | Specific validation prevents progress | Fail · PN-014 |
| TC-03 | Enter zero years of experience | Zero is accepted as valid data | Pass |
| TC-04 | Enter non-numeric experience | Input is rejected with useful guidance | Pass |
| TC-05 | Complete form using keyboard only | All actions and feedback are accessible | Fail · PN-018 |
| TC-06 | Filter training by format and price | Results update accurately | Pass |
| TC-07 | Return from program details | Selected filters remain intact | Fail · PN-021 |
| TC-08 | Use a combination with no results | Helpful empty state suggests recovery | Pass |
| TC-09 | Save a pathway while signed in | Confirmation appears and pathway persists | Pass |
| TC-10 | Attempt save while signed out | Return path preserves completed work | Pass |
| TC-11 | Use the workflow at 375px width | No horizontal overflow or hidden action | Pass |
| TC-12 | Refresh the saved-pathway page | Saved information reloads correctly | Pass |
What this demonstrates
My contribution is the bridge between customer context and actionable product work.
- Testing workflows through the lens of real user constraints
- Writing issue reports another person can reproduce
- Separating severity from inconvenience
- Connecting product fixes to documentation and customer communication
- Using structured judgment without overstating certainty
Disclosure: Pathway North is a fictional product created solely for this public portfolio exercise. The scenarios, data and findings are synthetic and contain no protected client, employer or Government of Canada information.