ux-evaluate

UX Evaluate

Compare what you have against what the category expects. Not to copy competitors — to make intentional decisions about what to keep, evolve, and improve.

Core Principle: A redesign without evaluation is a reskin. Changing colors and fonts without understanding what works and what doesn't produces a different-looking version of the same problems. Evaluation grounds the redesign in evidence: what's working (keep it), what's convention (match it), what's below standard (fix it).

When to Use

After both ux-audit (know what you have) and ux-research (know what the category does). Before ux-brief (translating evaluation into design decisions).

Process

Step 1: Load Inputs

Read both artifacts:

• .sage/work/<feature>/current-design-system.md (from ux-audit)
• .sage/work/<feature>/category-benchmarks.md (from ux-research)

If either is missing, the evaluation can't proceed. Run the missing skill first.

Step 2: Evaluate Each Design Dimension

For each dimension (colors, typography, layout, components, information architecture), compare current state against category benchmarks and produce a classification:

Color Evaluation

## Colors
| Element | Current | Category Convention | Classification | Rationale |
|---------|---------|-------------------|----------------|-----------|
| Primary brand color | Orange #f97316 | Varies (each brand unique) | MUST KEEP | Brand identity — recognized by users |
| CTA color | Orange (same as brand) | Contrasting color from brand | SHOULD IMPROVE | CTA doesn't stand out from brand elements |
| Background | White #fff | White or light gray | SHOULD KEEP | Matches convention, no issue |
| Text color | #333 | #111-#333 range | SHOULD KEEP | Within convention range |

Typography Evaluation

## Typography
| Element | Current | Category Convention | Classification | Rationale |
|---------|---------|-------------------|----------------|-----------|
| Hero heading size | ~28px mobile | 32-40px mobile | SHOULD IMPROVE | Below category standard, feels less impactful |
| Body text | 16px | 16-18px | SHOULD KEEP | Matches convention |
| Heading hierarchy | h1 → h3 (skips h2) | Sequential h1 → h2 → h3 | MUST IMPROVE | Accessibility violation, not just preference |

Layout Evaluation

## Layout
| Element | Current | Category Convention | Classification | Rationale |
|---------|---------|-------------------|----------------|-----------|
| Hero pattern | Image grid + tagline | Clear value prop + single CTA | SHOULD IMPROVE | Category leaders lead with outcome, not feature showcase |
| CTA placement | Below fold on mobile | Above fold | SHOULD IMPROVE | Users must scroll to take action |
| Section count | 7 sections | 4-6 sections | MAY CHANGE | Slightly long but not critical |

Component Evaluation

## Components
| Element | Current | Category Convention | Classification | Rationale |
|---------|---------|-------------------|----------------|-----------|
| Course cards | Image + title + description | Image + title + key metric + CTA | SHOULD IMPROVE | Missing differentiating metric (e.g., "95% AI accuracy") |
| Testimonials | Text carousel | Photo + name + score + quote | SHOULD IMPROVE | Photo + score increases credibility |
| Bee mascot | Present throughout | N/A (unique to Prep) | MUST KEEP | Brand differentiator, recognized by users |

Information Architecture Evaluation

## Information Architecture
| Element | Current | Category Convention | Classification | Rationale |
|---------|---------|-------------------|----------------|-----------|
| First screen content | Brand tagline + animated images | Value prop + CTA + social proof | SHOULD IMPROVE | Category leaders answer "what is this?" and "why should I care?" above fold |
| Social proof position | Bottom half of page | Top half, near hero | SHOULD IMPROVE | 100K+ students is a powerful signal — it's buried |
| Navigation | Full nav with dropdowns | Simplified nav + prominent CTA | MAY CHANGE | Current works, but heavy for a landing page |

Step 3: Classification Framework

Use these four categories consistently:

MUST KEEP — Brand identity elements. Changing these confuses existing users.

• Logo, brand colors, mascot/character, brand voice/tone
• Unique differentiators that aren't replicated by competitors
• Test: "Would existing users not recognize this as the same product?"

SHOULD KEEP — Patterns that work and match conventions.

• Elements that are both functionally correct AND match category expectations
• Test: "Is there evidence this is broken or underperforming?" If no → keep

MAY CHANGE — Style elements where updating would freshen without breaking.

• Background colors, section styling, animation approaches
• Layout tweaks that don't change information architecture
• Test: "Would changing this confuse anyone or break anything?" If no → candidate

SHOULD IMPROVE — Elements that fall below category standards or have measurable problems.

• Missing conventions that users expect (CTA above fold, social proof near hero)
• Accessibility violations (contrast, heading hierarchy, touch targets)
• Performance issues visible in screenshots (layout shift, broken images)
• Test: "Is this measurably worse than category convention?" If yes → improve

Step 4: Prioritize Improvements

Rank SHOULD IMPROVE items by impact:

## Priority Improvements
1. [Highest impact]: [description] — [why: conversion / accessibility / performance]
2. [High impact]: [description] — [why]
3. [Medium impact]: [description] — [why]
...

Impact factors:

• Above-fold changes affect all visitors
• Accessibility fixes have legal/compliance implications
• Mobile fixes affect majority of traffic (in Vietnam, ~70%+ mobile)
• Social proof placement directly affects conversion

Step 5: Produce Evaluation Document

Save to .sage/work/<feature>/design-evaluation.md:

# Design Evaluation: [page/product]

**Based on:** current-design-system.md + category-benchmarks.md
**Date:** [timestamp]

## Summary
[2-3 sentences: overall assessment, how current design compares to category]

## Classification Table
| Dimension | MUST KEEP | SHOULD KEEP | MAY CHANGE | SHOULD IMPROVE |
|-----------|-----------|-------------|------------|----------------|
| Colors | [count] | [count] | [count] | [count] |
| Typography | [count] | [count] | [count] | [count] |
| Layout | [count] | [count] | [count] | [count] |
| Components | [count] | [count] | [count] | [count] |
| IA | [count] | [count] | [count] | [count] |

## Detailed Evaluation
[from Step 2 — all dimension tables]

## Priority Improvements
[from Step 4 — ranked list]

Show to user: "Here's the evaluation. Before I create the design brief, I want to confirm: do you agree with the classifications? Anything I marked as MUST KEEP that you actually want to change, or vice versa?"

🔒 CHECKPOINT: This is where the user's input matters most. The classifications are proposals — the user decides.

Rules

MUST (violation = uninformed redesign):

• MUST have both ux-audit and ux-research outputs before evaluating. Evaluation without evidence is opinion.
• MUST present classifications to the user for confirmation before proceeding to ux-brief. The user decides what to keep.
• MUST classify accessibility violations as SHOULD IMPROVE regardless of category convention. Accessibility is a standard, not a preference.

SHOULD (violation = incomplete evaluation):

• SHOULD evaluate all five dimensions (colors, typography, layout, components, information architecture).
• SHOULD reference specific category benchmark evidence for each SHOULD IMPROVE classification. "Competitors do X" is evidence.

MAY (context-dependent):

• MAY merge dimensions if the page is simple (e.g., a single-section landing page doesn't need separate layout and IA evaluation).
• MAY add dimensions not listed (animation, micro-interactions, illustration style) if they're relevant to the redesign.

Failure Modes

• User disagrees with MUST KEEP classification: Respect their decision. They know their brand better. Reclassify and note the reason.
• No clear category convention exists: Mark as MAY CHANGE with note "No strong convention — this is a differentiation opportunity."
• Current design is significantly better than competitors in an area: Mark as MUST KEEP with note "Ahead of category — preserve this advantage."
• User wants to change everything: Caution them: "Changing everything at once risks losing what works. Suggest phasing: SHOULD IMPROVE items first, MAY CHANGE items in a second pass." Respect their final decision.

Quality Criteria

Communication style: Analytical language. Justify classifications with evidence — benchmarks, conventions, principles. Evaluations should hold up if challenged by a stakeholder.

Good UX evaluation output:

• Every dimension is classified (MUST KEEP / SHOULD IMPROVE / MAY CHANGE)
• Classifications are justified with evidence — benchmark data, conventions, principles
• MUST KEEP items cite specific brand or usability reasons
• SHOULD IMPROVE items cite category benchmarks or established conventions
• Competitor analysis is specific — names, observations, patterns
• The evaluation would hold up if challenged by a stakeholder

Self-Review

Before presenting your output, check each quality criterion above. For each, confirm it's met or note what's missing. Present your findings AND your self-assessment:

"Self-review: [X/Y criteria met]. [Note any gaps and why they exist.]"