Heuristic Evaluation Activity

prepared by Tammy VanDeGrift <tammy@cs.washington.edu>

1. Go to the website http://www.jetblue.com. [Alternatively, if one of the participants would like feedback on his/her personal website or company website, you might decide to perform a heuristic evaluation on that instead.]

2. Explore the website to get a feel for the interaction and the general scope of the website. [5 – 10 minutes]

3. Evaluate the website using the 10 heuristics developed by Jakob Nielsen. Each heuristic should be rated according to its severity on a scale from 0 to 4:

0 = I don't agree that this is a usability problem at all
1 = Cosmetic problem only: need not be fixed unless extra time is available on project
2 = Minor usability problem: fixing this should be given low priority
3 = Major usability problem: important to fix, so should be given high priority
4 = Usability catastrophe: imperative to fix this before product can be released

CA = Cant Assess This Heuristic

When considering the severity of each heuristic, think about the combination of the following three factors:

The frequency with which the problem occurs: Is it common or rare?

The impact of the problem if it occurs: Will it be easy or difficult for the users to overcome?

The persistence of the problem: Is it a one-time problem that users can overcome once they know about it or will users repeatedly be bothered by the problem?

The Heuristics

Visibility of system status

The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate feedback within reasonable time.

Match between system and the real world

The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.

User control and freedom

Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked "emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.

Consistency and standards

Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.

Error prevention

Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place.

Recognition rather than recall

Make objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.

Flexibility and efficiency of use

Accelerators -- unseen by the novice user -- may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.

Aesthetic and minimalist design

Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility.

Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors

Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.

Help and documentation

Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large.

Complete the table with your severity ratings:

Activity based on material from http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/.