ux-heuristics

UX Heuristics – Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics

Purpose

Deliver a structured heuristic evaluation of a UI screen or flow, scoring each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics and surfacing actionable findings. Useful for expert reviews, comparative audits, and tracking improvements across design iterations.

---

Evaluation Protocol

Step 1 — Gather context (if missing)

Before evaluating, confirm:

• Platform: iOS / Android / Web / Desktop
• User type: Target audience and their expected expertise level
• Task context: What is the user trying to accomplish on this screen?
• Scope: Single screen, multi-screen flow, or full app audit?

If the screenshot or description makes the context obvious, proceed directly. Only ask if ambiguity would change the evaluation meaningfully.

---

Step 1b — Choose output mode

Default to Quick unless the user explicitly requests a full audit.

Mode	When to use	Content
Quick	Default, single screen, fast feedback	Only heuristics scoring 1–7, plus summary
Full	Deep audits, client reports, multi-screen flows	All 10 heuristics scored, full findings, summary

If the user says "full audit", "detailed review", "client report", or similar → use Full. If the user just shares a screenshot with no extra instructions → use Quick.

---

Step 2 — Score each heuristic

Always evaluate all 10 heuristics internally regardless of mode. For each one:

• Assign a score from 1 to 10 (1 = completely violated, 10 = fully satisfied)
• Write a 1–2 sentence finding grounded in what you observe
• In Quick mode, only surface heuristics scoring 1–7 in the output
• In Full mode, include all 10 — for scores 8–10 briefly note why it works well

The 10 Heuristics

#	Heuristic	Core question
H1	Visibility of system status	Does the UI keep users informed about what's happening?
H2	Match between system and real world	Does it speak the user's language, not system language?
H3	User control and freedom	Can users easily undo, exit, or recover from mistakes?
H4	Consistency and standards	Are conventions followed? Is behavior predictable?
H5	Error prevention	Does the design prevent problems before they occur?
H6	Recognition over recall	Are options visible? Does the user need to memorize?
H7	Flexibility and efficiency of use	Are there shortcuts or accelerators for expert users?
H8	Aesthetic and minimalist design	Is irrelevant or rarely-needed info absent?
H9	Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors	Are error messages clear and constructive?
H10	Help and documentation	Is support available and easy to find when needed?

---

Step 3 — Output format

Score guide (used in both modes)

• ✅ 9–10 — Fully satisfied
• 🟡 7–8 — Minor gaps
• 🟠 5–6 — Noticeable issues, should fix
• 🔴 3–4 — Significant problems, fix before launch
• 🚨 1–2 — Critical violation, blocks or misleads users

---

Quick mode template

Use this by default. Concise, scannable, action-focused.

**Quick Heuristic Review — [Screen/Flow Name]**
*Platform: [X] | Context: [Y]*

**Issues found** (heuristics scoring < 8 only):

H[N] — [Heuristic Name] · [score]/10 [emoji]
[1–2 sentence finding. What's wrong and why it matters.]
→ [One specific, actionable recommendation.]

[Repeat for each heuristic scoring 1–7]

**Top priority:** [Single most impactful fix in one sentence.]

---

Full mode template

Use when explicitly requested. Complete coverage, suitable for reports.

**Heuristic Evaluation — [Screen/Flow Name]**
*Platform: [X] | Context: [Y] | Mode: Full Audit*

**H[N] — [Heuristic Name]** · [score]/10 [emoji]
[1–2 sentence finding grounded in observation.]
*Recommendation:* [Specific fix — omit if score ≥ 8.]

[Repeat for all 10 heuristics]

---
**Priority Issues** — scores 1–4, ranked by impact (max 5)
**Areas to Watch** — scores 5–6 (max 3)
**What works well** — scores 8–10 worth preserving (max 3)

---

Multi-screen / Flow Evaluation

When evaluating a flow (2+ screens):

1. Evaluate each screen individually using the protocol above
2. Add a Cross-screen consistency section at the end noting:
   • Inconsistencies in patterns, terminology, or visual language
   • Flow-level issues (dead ends, missing progress indicators, context loss)
   • Whether the overall journey aligns with user mental models

---

Comparative Audit Mode

If the user provides two versions of the same screen (A vs B):

• Score both using the same protocol
• Add a Comparison Summary table: heuristic | Version A score | Version B score | Delta
• Give a clear recommendation on which version to proceed with and why