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 needs

• critique — for broader feedback beyond usability

• accessibility-audit — for WCAG-specific evaluation

References

• references/frameworks.md — Full heuristic definitions and alternatives

• references/examples.md — Sample evaluations