Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Conduct heuristic evaluation and document minimum fifteen issues
2 weeks (1–2 hrs/day)
Conduct a heuristic evaluation of an existing product or prototype using Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics (or an equivalent validated framework). Evaluate every screen in the primary user journey. Document a minimum of 15 usability issues: each issue must be linked to a specific heuristic, assigned a severity rating (1–4), and described with a concrete example from the interface.
Proof required
Submit your heuristic evaluation report: issue table (minimum 15 issues with heuristic, severity, screen reference, and description) plus a summary of the three most critical issues with specific interface examples.
What gets checked
- Minimum 15 issues documented across the journey — fewer indicates incomplete evaluation
- Each issue is linked to a specific named heuristic — not a general observation
- Severity ratings are consistent — same type of issue receives similar ratings throughout
Common mistakes
- Evaluation is too generous — fewer than 15 issues in a real product indicates evaluator bias
- Issues describe interface elements rather than heuristic violations
- All severity ratings are the same — no discrimination applied
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Verify minimum 15 issues — fewer in a real product indicates incomplete evaluation
- Check each issue is linked to a specific named heuristic — ask student to read back the heuristic for one issue
- Ask student: what is the highest-severity issue and what would fixing it require?
Run user testing sessions and compare to heuristic findings
2–3 weeks (recruitment + sessions + analysis)
Run a minimum of five user testing sessions on the same product you evaluated heuristically. Record completion rates for three tasks. Write a comparison analysis (minimum 400 words): which heuristic issues were confirmed by user behaviour, which were not, and what did user testing reveal that heuristic evaluation missed?
Proof required
Submit: (1) user testing session notes (five participants minimum, three tasks, completion rates), (2) comparison analysis (minimum 400 words: confirmed issues, disconfirmed issues, new findings).
What gets checked
- Five or more participants with completion rates for three tasks
- Comparison analysis addresses confirmed, disconfirmed, and new findings — not only confirmed issues
- Analysis draws specific conclusions about when heuristic evaluation is and is not sufficient
Common mistakes
- User testing only confirms heuristic findings — no disconfirmations or new findings reported
- Comparison analysis describes the methods rather than comparing the findings
- Fewer than five participants reduces reliability of the comparison
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Verify five or more participants with session notes — ask for the count
- Check comparison analysis includes disconfirmed issues — if everything confirmed, the analysis is incomplete
- Ask student: what would you choose first on a new project — heuristic evaluation or user testing — and why?
Present evaluation findings for methodology critique
1 week
Present your evaluation findings (heuristic report and user testing comparison) to a UX practitioner or product professional in a review session (minimum 20 minutes). The reviewer should challenge your methodology, prioritisation decisions, or conclusions. Document specific challenges and produce an evaluation reflection (minimum 300 words) on the limitations or strengths of your approach.
Proof required
Submit: (1) review session record (date, reviewer, methodology challenges — minimum half page), (2) evaluation reflection (minimum 300 words).
What gets checked
- Review record documents specific methodology challenges — not general feedback on findings
- Reflection addresses limitations revealed by the review honestly
- Reflection identifies a specific approach to change on the next evaluation
Common mistakes
- Review was a presentation of findings without methodology challenge
- Reflection is positive rather than honest — 'the review confirmed my approach'
- Reflection doesn't identify a specific change for the next evaluation
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm review challenged methodology, not just presentation quality
- Check reflection identifies a specific change for the next evaluation
- Ask student: what is the biggest limitation of heuristic evaluation that your user testing revealed?
Part of