Review UX/UI
Evaluate user experience and interface design for usability, accessibility, and effectiveness.
When to Use
- Conducting a usability review of an application before release
- Assessing accessibility compliance (WCAG 2.1 AA or AAA)
- Evaluating user flows for efficiency and error prevention
- Reviewing form design for usability and conversion optimization
- Performing a heuristic evaluation of an existing interface
- Assessing cognitive load and information architecture
Inputs
- Required: Application to review (URL, prototype, or source code)
- Required: Target user description (roles, technical proficiency, context of use)
- Optional: User research findings (interviews, surveys, analytics)
- Optional: WCAG conformance target (A, AA, or AAA)
- Optional: Specific user flows or tasks to evaluate
- Optional: Assistive technology to test with (screen reader, switch access)
Procedure
Step 1: Heuristic Evaluation (Nielsen's 10 Heuristics)
Evaluate the interface against each heuristic:
| # | Heuristic | Key Question | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Visibility of system status | Does the system always inform users about what is happening? | |
| 2 | Match between system and real world | Does the system use familiar language and concepts? | |
| 3 | User control and freedom | Can users easily undo, redo, or exit unwanted states? | |
| 4 | Consistency and standards | Do similar elements behave the same way throughout? | |
| 5 | Error prevention | Does the design prevent errors before they occur? | |
| 6 | Recognition rather than recall | Are options, actions, and information visible or easily retrievable? | |
| 7 | Flexibility and efficiency of use | Are there shortcuts for experienced users without confusing novices? | |
| 8 | Aesthetic and minimalist design | Does every element serve a purpose? Is there unnecessary clutter? | |
| 9 | Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors | Are error messages clear, specific, and constructive? | |
| 10 | Help and documentation | Is help available and easy to find when needed? |
For each heuristic, rate severity of violations:
| Severity | Description |
|---|---|
| 0 | Not a usability problem |
| 1 | Cosmetic — fix if time allows |
| 2 | Minor — low priority fix |
| 3 | Major — important to fix, high priority |
| 4 | Catastrophic — must fix before release |
## Heuristic Evaluation Findings
| # | Heuristic | Severity | Finding | Location |
|---|-----------|----------|---------|----------|
| 1 | System status | 3 | No loading indicator during data fetch — users click repeatedly | Dashboard page |
| 3 | User control | 2 | No undo for item deletion — only a confirmation dialog | Item list |
| 5 | Error prevention | 3 | Date field accepts invalid dates (Feb 30) | Booking form |
| 9 | Error recovery | 4 | Form submission error clears all fields | Registration |Expected: All 10 heuristics evaluated with specific findings and severity ratings. On failure: If time-constrained, focus on heuristics 1, 3, 5, and 9 (most impactful for user experience).
Step 2: Accessibility Audit (WCAG 2.1)
Perceivable
- 1.1.1 Non-text content: All images have alt text (decorative images have
alt="") - 1.3.1 Info and relationships: Semantic HTML used (headings, lists, tables, landmarks)
- 1.3.2 Meaningful sequence: DOM order matches visual order
- 1.4.1 Use of colour: Colour is not the only means of conveying information
- 1.4.3 Contrast: Text contrast ratio ≥ 4.5:1 (normal), ≥ 3:1 (large text)
- 1.4.4 Resize text: Text can be resized to 200% without loss of function
- 1.4.11 Non-text contrast: UI components and graphics have ≥ 3:1 contrast
- 1.4.12 Text spacing: Content works with increased text spacing (line height 1.5x, letter spacing 0.12em, word spacing 0.16em)
Operable
- 2.1.1 Keyboard: All functionality is operable via keyboard
- 2.1.2 No keyboard trap: Focus is never trapped in a component
- 2.4.1 Skip links: Skip navigation link available for keyboard users
- 2.4.3 Focus order: Tab order follows a logical, predictable sequence
- 2.4.7 Focus visible: Keyboard focus indicator is clearly visible
- 2.4.11 Focus not obscured: Focused element is not hidden behind sticky headers/overlays
- 2.5.5 Target size: Interactive targets are at least 24x24px (44x44px recommended on touch)
Understandable
- 3.1.1 Language of page:
langattribute set on<html> - 3.2.1 On focus: Focus doesn't trigger unexpected changes
- 3.2.2 On input: Input doesn't trigger unexpected changes without warning
- 3.3.1 Error identification: Errors are clearly described in text
- 3.3.2 Labels or instructions: Form inputs have visible labels
- 3.3.3 Error suggestion: Error messages suggest how to fix the problem
Robust
- 4.1.1 Parsing: HTML is valid (no duplicate IDs, proper nesting)
- 4.1.2 Name, role, value: Custom components have ARIA roles and properties
- 4.1.3 Status messages: Dynamic content changes announced to screen readers
Expected: WCAG 2.1 AA criteria systematically checked with pass/fail per criterion. On failure: Use automated tools (axe-core, Lighthouse) for initial scan, then manual testing for criteria that require human judgement.
Step 3: Keyboard and Screen Reader Audit
Keyboard Navigation Test
Using only Tab, Shift+Tab, Enter, Space, Arrow keys, and Escape:
## Keyboard Navigation Audit
| Task | Completable? | Issues |
|------|-------------|--------|
| Navigate to main content | Yes — skip link works | None |
| Open dropdown menu | Yes | Arrow keys don't work within menu |
| Submit a form | Yes | Tab order skips the submit button |
| Close a modal | No | Escape doesn't close, no visible close button in tab order |
| Use date picker | No | Custom date picker not keyboard accessible |Screen Reader Test
Test with NVDA (Windows), VoiceOver (macOS/iOS), or TalkBack (Android):
## Screen Reader Audit
| Element | Announced As | Expected | Issue |
|---------|-------------|----------|-------|
| Logo link | "link, image" | "Home, link" | Missing alt text on logo |
| Search input | "edit, search" | "Search products, edit" | Missing label association |
| Nav menu | "navigation, main" | Correct | None |
| Error message | (not announced) | "Error: email is required" | Missing live region |
| Loading spinner | (not announced) | "Loading, please wait" | Missing aria-live or role="status" |Expected: Complete task flows tested with keyboard-only and screen reader. On failure: If a screen reader is unavailable, inspect ARIA attributes and semantic HTML as a proxy.
Step 4: Analyse User Flows
Map and evaluate key user flows:
## User Flow: Complete a Purchase
### Steps
1. Browse products → 2. View product → 3. Add to cart → 4. View cart →
5. Enter shipping → 6. Enter payment → 7. Review order → 8. Confirm
### Assessment
| Step | Friction | Severity | Notes |
|------|---------|----------|-------|
| 1→2 | Low | - | Clear product cards |
| 2→3 | Medium | 2 | "Add to cart" button below the fold on mobile |
| 3→4 | Low | - | Cart icon updates with count |
| 4→5 | High | 3 | Must create account — no guest checkout |
| 5→6 | Low | - | Address autocomplete works well |
| 6→7 | Medium | 2 | Card number field doesn't auto-format |
| 7→8 | Low | - | Clear order summary |
### Flow Efficiency
- **Steps**: 8 (acceptable for e-commerce)
- **Required fields**: 14 (could reduce with address autocomplete + saved payment)
- **Decision points**: 2 (size selection, shipping method)
- **Potential drop-off points**: Step 4→5 (forced account creation)Expected: Critical user flows mapped with friction points identified and rated. On failure: If user analytics are unavailable, assess flows based on task complexity and number of steps.
Step 5: Assess Cognitive Load
- Information density: Is the amount of information per screen appropriate?
- Progressive disclosure: Is complex information revealed gradually?
- Chunking: Are related items grouped visually (Gestalt principles)?
- Recognition over recall: Can users see options rather than remembering them?
- Consistent patterns: Do similar tasks use similar interaction patterns?
- Decision fatigue: Are users presented with too many choices at once? (Hick's law)
- Working memory: Do users need to remember information across steps?
Expected: Cognitive load assessed with specific areas of overload or underload identified. On failure: If cognitive load is difficult to assess objectively, use the "squint test" — squint at the screen and see if the structure and hierarchy are still apparent.
Step 6: Review Form Usability
For each form in the application:
- Labels: Every input has a visible, associated label
- Placeholder text: Used for examples only, not as labels
- Input types: Correct HTML input types (email, tel, number, date) for mobile keyboards
- Validation timing: Errors shown on blur or submit (not on every keystroke)
- Error messages: Specific ("Email must include @") not generic ("Invalid input")
- Required fields: Clearly marked (and optional fields are marked if most are required)
- Field grouping: Related fields visually grouped (name, address, payment sections)
- Autocomplete:
autocompleteattributes set for standard fields (name, email, address, cc-number) - Tab order: Logical flow matching visual layout
- Multi-step forms: Progress indicator shows current step and total steps
- Persistence: Form data preserved if user navigates away and returns
Expected: Each form assessed against the checklist with specific issues documented. On failure: If there are many forms, prioritize the highest-traffic forms (registration, checkout, contact).
Step 7: Write the UX/UI Review
## UX/UI Review Report
### Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: overall usability, most critical issues, strongest aspects]
### Heuristic Evaluation Summary
| Heuristic | Severity | Key Finding |
|-----------|----------|-------------|
[Summary table from Step 1]
### Accessibility Compliance
- **Target**: WCAG 2.1 AA
- **Status**: [X of Y criteria pass]
- **Critical failures**: [List]
### User Flow Analysis
[Key friction points with severity and recommendations]
### Top 5 Improvements (Prioritised)
1. **[Issue]** — Severity: [N] — [Specific recommendation]
2. ...
### What Works Well
1. [Specific positive observation]
2. ...Expected: Review provides prioritised, actionable recommendations with severity ratings. On failure: If the review surfaces too many issues, categorise into "must fix" (severity 3-4) and "should fix" (severity 1-2).
Validation
- All 10 Nielsen heuristics evaluated with severity ratings
- WCAG 2.1 criteria checked (at minimum: 1.1.1, 1.4.3, 2.1.1, 2.4.7, 3.3.1, 4.1.2)
- Keyboard navigation tested for key user flows
- Screen reader tested (or ARIA/semantic HTML reviewed as proxy)
- At least one critical user flow analysed for friction
- Cognitive load assessed
- Form usability evaluated
- Findings prioritised by severity with actionable recommendations
Common Pitfalls
- Confusing UX with visual design: UX is about how it works; visual design is about how it looks. A beautiful interface can have terrible UX. Evaluate both but distinguish them.
- Testing only the happy path: Error states, empty states, loading states, and edge cases are where UX problems hide.
- Ignoring real devices: Browser dev tools responsive mode is a proxy. Real device testing catches touch, performance, and viewport issues.
- Accessibility as an afterthought: Accessibility issues found late are expensive to fix. Evaluate early and continuously.
- Personal preference as UX feedback: "I would prefer..." is not UX feedback. Cite heuristics, research, or established patterns.
Related Skills
review-web-design— visual design review (layout, typography, colour — complementary to UX)scaffold-nextjs-app— Next.js application scaffoldingsetup-tailwind-typescript— Tailwind CSS for design system implementation