design-review

name	design-review
description	Critiques an existing design or UI with a heuristic evaluation - Nielsen heuristics, cognitive load, hierarchy, consistency, plus a11y. Use when reviewing or auditing a design for rated fixes.

Reviewing a design

Run a structured heuristic evaluation of an existing design or UI. Output prioritized findings with severity ratings and concrete fixes, not vague opinions.

Use when: critiquing, auditing, or reviewing something that already exists (screen, flow, prototype, live UI). Not for creating a design (design-draft) or writing copy (design-write).

Apply design-principles as a lens (remove steps and options; the smallest surface; a default over a choice) and review-principles (critique against the goal, severity-rated findings, each with a fix).

Steps

1. Frame the review. Note the user, the task, and the context. Walk the actual task path, not a feature tour. Evaluate against the goal, not personal taste.
2. Pass against the 10 heuristics (below). For each screen/step, note where each is honored or violated, with a specific location.
3. Assess cognitive load and friction. Count steps, fields, choices, and decisions. Flag unnecessary friction, redundant input, things the system could remember or default. Flag the reverse too - dangerous actions with no confirmation.
4. Check hierarchy and consistency. Is the primary action obvious on each screen? Does visual weight match importance? Are patterns, labels, and components consistent across screens and with platform conventions?
5. Check responsiveness and adaptation. Walk the task at a narrow (phone) and a wide viewport. Flag horizontal scrolling, clipped or overlapping content, tap targets too small or too close, primary actions pushed off-screen, and anything that assumes hover or a pointer. Breakage on small screens is a finding, often high severity.
6. Fold in an accessibility pass. Run the design-accessibility design-stage checklist (contrast, target size, focus order, alternatives, color-alone, labels). Accessibility issues are findings, often high severity.
7. Rate severity for each finding (scale below): a function of frequency x impact x persistence.
8. Output structured findings with a concrete fix for each. No finding without a proposed fix.

Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics

1. Visibility of system status - keep users informed with timely feedback.
2. Match between system and the real world - speak the user's language and concepts.
3. User control and freedom - clear exits, undo, redo; no dead ends.
4. Consistency and standards - same things look/behave the same; follow conventions.
5. Error prevention - prevent problems before they happen; confirm risky actions.
6. Recognition rather than recall - show options; do not make users remember.
7. Flexibility and efficiency of use - shortcuts for experts, simple path for novices.
8. Aesthetic and minimalist design - no irrelevant content competing for attention.
9. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors - plain-language errors, a way out.
10. Help and documentation - findable, task-focused help when needed.

Severity rating

• 0 Not a problem - cosmetic preference only.
• 1 Cosmetic - fix if time allows.
• 2 Minor - low priority; small friction.
• 3 Major - important to fix; blocks or frustrates many users.
• 4 Catastrophic - must fix before release; blocks the task or excludes users.

Findings output structure

# Design review - <surface>
For each finding:
- Location      - screen/step/element
- Heuristic / category (incl. accessibility)
- Issue         - what is wrong and why it hurts the user
- Severity      - 0-4
- Fix           - concrete, specific recommendation
Sort by severity, highest first. End with top 3 priorities.

Gotchas

• Walk the real task path, not a screen tour - and judge against the goal, not taste (review-principles).
• Do not skip the accessibility pass - those are real defects, frequently severity 3-4.
• Walk the task at phone width, not just desktop - small-screen breakage is a common, high-severity miss.