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). AI-fakeability countermeasure: 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.
Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
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