Heuristic Evaluation
A recording sheet for expert review, with severity rated from frequency, impact and persistence.
Definition
A structure for capturing heuristic evaluation findings so that several evaluators' results can be combined and prioritised consistently.
Expert heuristic. A review criterion developed by practitioners. Useful and widely taught, but evaluated by judgement rather than measurement.
On this plate
Fill it in
Loading your draft…
Saved in this browser only. Nothing is sent anywhere.
Scope
Specific flows and screens, plus the device and browser used.
Name the framework so findings can be compared across evaluators.
Who evaluated, their familiarity with the product, and any assumptions made.
Findings
One block per finding. Severity combines frequency, impact and persistence: critical blocks the task, high causes serious difficulty, medium causes friction, low is cosmetic.
Location, heuristic, what a user experiences, severity with reasoning, and a specific recommendation.
Keep findings atomic. One issue per block, so severities can be assigned independently.
Note positives too. They tell the team what not to break.
Summary
Group findings into two or three underlying causes, which is more actionable than a list of twenty items.
Expert review produces false positives and misses context-dependent issues. Say so.
Rating severity consistently
Severity is a judgement, and it only combines across evaluators if everyone is judging the same three things: how many people hit it, what it costs them, and whether they can get past it.
| Rating | Means | Typical evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 4, catastrophic | The task cannot be completed, or data is lost | A dead end, an unrecoverable error, an inaccessible required control. |
| 3, major | Most people are delayed or diverted, and some give up | A mislabelled primary action on a common path. |
| 2, minor | People notice, work around it, and continue | An inconsistent control that costs a moment of thought each time. |
| 1, cosmetic | Noticeable, no measurable cost | Misalignment, inconsistent capitalisation. |
| 0, not a problem | Recorded so other evaluators can see it was considered | A convention that looked wrong and is not. |
Evaluating
Do
- Review alone first, then combine. Discussing early converges evaluators on each other rather than on the product.
- Name the heuristic violated and the location, so the finding is checkable.
- Walk the same realistic tasks a user would, rather than touring the interface.
- Use three to five evaluators where you can, which is where the return per evaluator starts to fall.
Do not
- Do not write a recommendation as the finding. Say what is wrong first, then what might fix it.
- Do not rate severity by how much the issue annoys you.
- Do not treat expert review as a substitute for testing with users. It finds different things.
- Do not list forty cosmetic issues alongside three blocking ones without separating them.
Where a rating comes from
Local chart
TPL·008 · Region VIII · Grid G3
This entry and the entries it is stated to connect with. Each line is labelled with what the connection means.
Continue from here
Each link says what the connection is, so you can tell a principle from an alternative from a thing people mix this up with.
Applies when you are designing
Often used with
These usually appear in the same screen or the same decision.
- UX Audit ChecklistCHK·008 · Checklist
- Heuristic EvaluationRES·002 · Research method
- Design CritiqueTPL·012 · Template
- UX Audit ReportTPL·009 · Template
- Prioritising Design WorkFLOW·006 · Workflow
Short definition
The one-paragraph version, for when that is all you need.
- Heuristic EvaluationTERM·114 · Term