1# Heuristics Scoring Guide
2 
3Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest: a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
4 
5## Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
6 
7### 1. Visibility of System Status
8 
9Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
10 
11**Check for**:
12- Loading indicators during async operations
13- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
14- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
15- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
16- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
17 
18**Scoring**:
19| Score | Criteria |
20|-------|----------|
21| 0 | No feedback; user is guessing what happened |
22| 1 | Rare feedback; most actions produce no visible response |
23| 2 | Partial; some states communicated, major gaps remain |
24| 3 | Good; most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
25| 4 | Excellent; every action confirms, progress is always visible |
26 
27### 2. Match Between System and Real World
28 
29Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
30 
31**Check for**:
32- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
33- Logical information order matching user expectations
34- Recognizable icons and metaphors
35- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
36- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
37 
38**Scoring**:
39| Score | Criteria |
40|-------|----------|
41| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
42| 1 | Mostly confusing; requires domain expertise to navigate |
43| 2 | Mixed; some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
44| 3 | Mostly natural; occasional term needs context |
45| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
46 
47### 3. User Control and Freedom
48 
49Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
50 
51**Check for**:
52- Undo/redo functionality
53- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
54- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
55- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
56- Escape from long or multi-step processes
57 
58**Scoring**:
59| Score | Criteria |
60|-------|----------|
61| 0 | Users get trapped; no way out without refreshing |
62| 1 | Difficult exits; must find obscure paths to escape |
63| 2 | Some exits; main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
64| 3 | Good control; users can exit and undo most actions |
65| 4 | Full control; undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
66 
67### 4. Consistency and Standards
68 
69Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
70 
71**Check for**:
72- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
73- Same actions produce same results everywhere
74- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
75- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
76- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
77 
78**Scoring**:
79| Score | Criteria |
80|-------|----------|
81| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere; feels like different products stitched together |
82| 1 | Many inconsistencies; similar things look/behave differently |
83| 2 | Partially consistent; main flows match, details diverge |
84| 3 | Mostly consistent; occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
85| 4 | Fully consistent; cohesive system, predictable behavior |
86 
87### 5. Error Prevention
88 
89Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
90 
91**Check for**:
92- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
93- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
94- Smart defaults that reduce errors
95- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
96- Autosave and draft recovery
97 
98**Scoring**:
99| Score | Criteria |
100|-------|----------|
101| 0 | Errors easy to make; no guardrails anywhere |
102| 1 | Few safeguards; some inputs validated, most aren't |
103| 2 | Partial prevention; common errors caught, edge cases slip |
104| 3 | Good prevention; most error paths blocked proactively |
105| 4 | Excellent; errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
106 
107### 6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
108 
109Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
110 
111**Check for**:
112- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
113- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
114- Recent items and history
115- Autocomplete and suggestions
116- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
117 
118**Scoring**:
119| Score | Criteria |
120|-------|----------|
121| 0 | Heavy memorization; users must remember paths and commands |
122| 1 | Mostly recall; many hidden features, few visible cues |
123| 2 | Some aids; main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
124| 3 | Good recognition; most things discoverable, few memory demands |
125| 4 | Everything discoverable; users never need to memorize |
126 
127### 7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
128 
129Accelerators, invisible to novices, speed up expert interaction.
130 
131**Check for**:
132- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
133- Customizable interface elements
134- Recent items and favorites
135- Bulk/batch actions
136- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
137 
138**Scoring**:
139| Score | Criteria |
140|-------|----------|
141| 0 | One rigid path; no shortcuts or alternatives |
142| 1 | Limited flexibility; few alternatives to the main path |
143| 2 | Some shortcuts; basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
144| 3 | Good accelerators; keyboard nav, some customization |
145| 4 | Highly flexible; multiple paths, power features, customizable |
146 
147### 8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
148 
149Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
150 
151**Check for**:
152- Only necessary information visible at each step
153- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
154- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
155- No decorative clutter competing for attention
156- Focused, uncluttered layouts
157 
158**Scoring**:
159| Score | Criteria |
160|-------|----------|
161| 0 | Overwhelming; everything competes for attention equally |
162| 1 | Cluttered; too much noise, hard to find what matters |
163| 2 | Some clutter; main content clear, periphery noisy |
164| 3 | Mostly clean; focused design, minor visual noise |
165| 4 | Perfectly minimal; every element earns its pixel |
166 
167### 9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
168 
169Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
170 
171**Check for**:
172- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
173- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
174- Actionable recovery suggestions
175- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
176- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
177 
178**Scoring**:
179| Score | Criteria |
180|-------|----------|
181| 0 | Cryptic errors; codes, jargon, or no message at all |
182| 1 | Vague errors; "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
183| 2 | Clear but unhelpful; names the problem but not the fix |
184| 3 | Clear with suggestions; identifies problem and offers next steps |
185| 4 | Perfect recovery; pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
186 
187### 10. Help and Documentation
188 
189Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
190 
191**Check for**:
192- Searchable help or documentation
193- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
194- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
195- Concise, scannable content
196- Easy access without leaving current context
197 
198**Scoring**:
199| Score | Criteria |
200|-------|----------|
201| 0 | No help available anywhere |
202| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
203| 2 | Basic help; FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
204| 3 | Good documentation; searchable, mostly task-focused |
205| 4 | Excellent contextual help; right info at the right moment |
206 
207---
208 
209## Score Summary
210 
211**Total possible**: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
212 
213| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
214|-------------|--------|---------------|
215| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only; ship it |
216| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
217| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
218| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required; core experience broken |
219| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed; unusable in current state |
220 
221---
222 
223## Issue Severity (P0–P3)
224 
225Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
226 
227| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
228|----------|------|-------------|--------|
229| **P0** | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately; this is a showstopper |
230| **P1** | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
231| **P2** | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
232| **P3** | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
233 
234**Tip**: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.
235