Skills

Usability Evaluation

8 weeks · 0 milestones

Usability evaluation of an interactive system with minimum 5 real participants, conducted and reported to professional research standard. Triad: concept/ideation artifact (evaluation plan: usability methodology selected — cognitive walkthrough, think-aloud testing, heuristic evaluation, remote unmoderated testing, or mixed — with written rationale for the method choice and test scenario or task design), technical execution artifact (usability evaluation conducted with minimum 5 real participants: for moderated testing, recordings or timestamped observation notes from each session; for unmoderated, platform export with session recordings or heatmaps), documentation/critique artifact (findings report: severity-rated usability issues using a recognised scale — Nielsen's 1–5 or equivalent — frequency of occurrence for each issue, prioritised redesign recommendations with rationale, and a summary of implications for the next design iteration — minimum 1,200 words). Proof it is your own work: participant session records — consent forms, video recordings, or timestamped observation notes — are the unfakeable layer. Studio critique: UX lead or senior researcher challenges methodology choices and recommendation prioritisation at a documented session. Proof: evaluation plan, participant records (consent + session evidence), findings report, critique notes. Verifier: UX lead, senior UX researcher, or HCI academic.

Part of: Creative & Design · Proves for: PG

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?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

Powstik Guide

Five user test sessions compared with your heuristic findings.

Steps

Recruit five participants.
Give each the same three tasks.
Record completion and problems.
Compare with your heuristic review.

Template

| Participant | Task 1 | Task 2 | Task 3 | Problems |
|-------------|--------|--------|--------|----------|
Found by both / users only / heuristics only:

What gets sent back

Fewer than five participants.
Different tasks per person.
No comparison.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

Powstik Guide

A critique of your evaluation method, with your response.

Steps

Book a qualified reviewer, not a classmate.
Present the work and your intent.
Write down every challenge raised.
Decide what you'll change and why.
Record the revisions you made.

Template

Reviewer:        Role:        Date:
Challenges raised:
-
My response and changes:
Revised version attached: yes / no

What gets sent back

Record under half a page.
Peer-only review.
No response or revision.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

UX Research & Design →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Conduct heuristic evaluation and document minimum fifteen issues

2 weeks (1–2 hrs/day)

Proof required

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?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Run user testing sessions and compare to heuristic findings

2–3 weeks (recruitment + sessions + analysis)

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

Powstik Guide

Five user test sessions compared with your heuristic findings.

Steps

Recruit five participants.
Give each the same three tasks.
Record completion and problems.
Compare with your heuristic review.

Template

| Participant | Task 1 | Task 2 | Task 3 | Problems |
|-------------|--------|--------|--------|----------|
Found by both / users only / heuristics only:

What gets sent back

Fewer than five participants.
Different tasks per person.
No comparison.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present evaluation findings for methodology critique

1 week

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

Powstik Guide

A critique of your evaluation method, with your response.

Steps

Book a qualified reviewer, not a classmate.
Present the work and your intent.
Write down every challenge raised.
Decide what you'll change and why.
Record the revisions you made.

Template

Reviewer:        Role:        Date:
Challenges raised:
-
My response and changes:
Revised version attached: yes / no

What gets sent back

Record under half a page.
Peer-only review.
No response or revision.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

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?

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.