Heuristic Evaluation
Systematic usability review using established principles.
When to Trigger
- User shares a screenshot, mockup, or prototype
- User asks for design feedback or review
- User asks "what's wrong with this"
- User wants to improve an interface
- Before shipping user-facing changes
Quick Start
- Ask user to share the interface (screenshot, URL, or description)
- Ask: "Any specific flows or areas of concern?"
- Run evaluation using Nielsen's 10 (default) or requested framework
Core Workflow
Heuristic Evaluation Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Capture interface context
- [ ] Step 2: Select evaluation framework
- [ ] Step 3: Evaluate against each heuristic
- [ ] Step 4: Score severity of issues
- [ ] Step 5: Prioritize recommendations
Step 1: Capture Context
Before evaluating, understand:
- What is this? (App type, purpose)
- Who uses it? (Target users, expertise level)
- What task? (Primary user flow being evaluated)
If not provided, ask: "What are users trying to accomplish here?"
Step 2: Select Framework
Default: Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics
Alternatives (if user requests or context suggests):
- Shneiderman's 8 Golden Rules — for interaction-heavy interfaces
- Cognitive Walkthrough — for first-time user experience
- Custom rubric — if user provides one
See references/frameworks.md for full framework details.
Step 3: Nielsen's 10 Evaluation
For each heuristic, identify violations:
| # | Heuristic | What to look for | |---|-----------|------------------| | 1 | Visibility of system status | Loading indicators, progress, confirmation, current state | | 2 | Match real world | Familiar language, logical order, conventions from domain | | 3 | User control & freedom | Undo, cancel, exit, back navigation, escape hatches | | 4 | Consistency & standards | Same words/actions mean same things, platform conventions | | 5 | Error prevention | Confirmations for destructive actions, constraints, defaults | | 6 | Recognition over recall | Visible options, contextual help, no memorization required | | 7 | Flexibility & efficiency | Shortcuts, customization, accelerators for experts | | 8 | Aesthetic & minimalist | No irrelevant info, clear hierarchy, signal vs noise | | 9 | Help users with errors | Plain language errors, specific problem, constructive solution | | 10 | Help & documentation | Searchable, task-focused, concise, accessible when needed |
Step 4: Score Severity
Rate each issue found:
| Score | Severity | Description | |-------|----------|-------------| | 0 | Not a problem | Disagreement with heuristic but not usability issue | | 1 | Cosmetic | Fix only if time permits | | 2 | Minor | Low priority, causes minor friction | | 3 | Major | High priority, significant impact on task completion | | 4 | Catastrophic | Must fix before release, prevents task completion |
Scoring factors:
- Frequency: How often does user encounter this?
- Impact: How much does it block the task?
- Persistence: Can users work around it?
Step 5: Prioritize Output
Rank issues by: Severity × Frequency
Group into:
- Fix immediately (Severity 4, or Severity 3 + high frequency)
- Fix soon (Severity 3, or Severity 2 + high frequency)
- Fix later (Severity 1-2, low frequency)
Output Template
Automatically save the output to design/08-heuristic-evaluation.md using the Write tool while presenting it to the user.
## Heuristic Evaluation: [Interface Name]
**Evaluated**: [Date]
**Framework**: Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics
**Scope**: [Specific flow or screens evaluated]
### Summary
- Critical issues: [count]
- Major issues: [count]
- Minor issues: [count]
### Critical Issues (Fix Immediately)
#### Issue 1: [Brief description]
- **Heuristic violated**: #[number] — [name]
- **Location**: [Where in the interface]
- **Problem**: [What's wrong]
- **Impact**: [How it affects users]
- **Recommendation**: [How to fix]
- **Severity**: [0-4]
[Repeat for each critical issue]
### Major Issues (Fix Soon)
[Same format]
### Minor Issues (Fix Later)
[Same format, can be condensed to a table]
### Strengths Observed
- [What the interface does well]
### Next Steps
1. [Prioritized action]
2. [Prioritized action]
Adaptive Behavior
If user provides a screenshot:
- Analyze visually
- Call out specific elements by location
- Be concrete: "The save button in the top right..." not "buttons should..."
If user describes interface:
- Ask clarifying questions before evaluating
- Focus on described pain points first
If user is designer:
- Skip heuristic definitions
- Use shorthand: "H4 violation" instead of explaining consistency
If user is developer:
- Include implementation-aware suggestions
- Note which fixes are quick wins vs architectural changes
Handoff
After presenting the evaluation, suggest:
"Use this report to prioritize fixes. Want me to help refine any screens based on these findings?"
Note: File is automatically saved to design/08-heuristic-evaluation.md for reference.
Integration Points
Works well with:
assumption-mapping— before building, question if the design addresses real needscritique— for broader feedback beyond usabilityaccessibility-audit— for WCAG-specific evaluation
References
- references/frameworks.md — Full heuristic definitions and alternatives
- references/examples.md — Sample evaluations