Human-Computer Interaction

saadh.info/hci

​

Week 10 (Thursday): Heuristic Evaluation

1

Attendance and Agenda

1. Heuristic Evaluation Exercise

2

Announcements

• Assignment 3 is up on Canvas and due on Nov. 8
• Please go back and check if you finished all quizzes. There are some missing.
• I will fix grades for quiz 8 for the confusing question
• Start working on milestone 2! Due December 6
• Test 2 on Nov 21

​

3

Feedback

4

Feedback

5

Feedback

6

Feedback

7

Feedback

8

Two things to discuss

• Making course materials more accessible…
• Project breakdown
• Due on December 6, but realistically December 2 so you can present, 32 days, including 9 thanksgiving break days
• Prototyping (Try finishing by November 10)
• Heuristic Evaluation (Try finishing by November 14)
• Redesign (Try finishing by November 19)
• User Testing (Try finishing by November 23)
• Final Design (Try finishing by December 1)

9

Things identified that students can improve

• Focus in class
• Meet groups more often
• Get feedback early

10

Heuristic Evaluation

Steps

1. Gather inputs, prepare
2. Evaluate the system independently
3. Consolidate identified ideas and debriefing
4. Severity rating

​

​

11

Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman

12

Jakob Nielsen and Don Norman

Nielsen’s 10 Heuristics

13

Heuristic Evaluation Workbook

14

Nielsen’s 10 Heuristics

15

Nielsen’s 10 Heuristics

16

Nielsen’s 10 Heuristics

17

Heuristic Evaluation

Steps

1. Gather inputs, Prepare
2. Evaluate the system independently
3. Consolidate identified ideas and debriefing
4. Severity rating

​

​

18

1. Gather Inputs, Prepare for Heuristic Evaluation

• Who are evaluators?
• Need to learn about domain, its practices
• Get the prototype to be studied

– May vary from mock-ups and storyboards to a working system

– Sketches, Paper prototypes, Unstable implementations, Real Systems, etc.

• Set the scope: One task at a time, One section of the site or app, One user group, if you have many with diverse needs, One device type (desktop, tablet, mobile)

19

2. Evaluate the System Independently

• Each expert performs two or more passes through system inspecting
• Flow from screen to screen
• Each screen individually
• Find “problems”:
• Subjective (if you think it is, it is).
• For now, the experts don’t dwell on whether each “problem” they find is or isn’t a problem.
• They just make a note of anything they notice
• Evaluate against the list of heuristics; Justify each problem against a heuristic

20

3. Consolidate identified ideas and debriefing

• Organize all problems found by different reviewers
• At this point decide whether they are or are not problems
• Group and structure their notes. You can use affinity mapping!

21

4. Evaluate the System Independently

• For each of the problems they have found, the experts will assign a severity rating.
• 1 - 4 rating scale
• Based on:
• Frequency
• Impact
• Persistence
• Market Impact

22

1. Visibility of System Status

23

1. “Use my location” pin lacks clarity on function.
2. Screen jumps disrupt flow, no process indicator.
3. “Done” button lacks clear instruction for next steps.
4. Screen title should clarify “departure” or “arrival.”
5. Unclear sorting method for flights (not specified as by price).
6. “84 flights from $390” misleading; not sorted by price.
7. Title lacks indication of flight booking process step.
8. Button action unclear; does it proceed to payment or next step?
9. “Selected” icon function unclear; leads back to departure flight screen.

2. Match Between System and Real World

24

1. “Search award travel” ambiguous; needs more context.
2. Unclear if label shows flight number; lacks descriptive label.
3. Layover details need both place names and codes.

3. User Control and Freedom

25

1. Lacks back navigation; no way to return to prior screen.
2. “Favorites” list includes unwanted choices.
3. Automatic transition between screens without clarity on actions.

​

4. Consistency and Standards

26

A. “Search nearby airports” toggle seems redundant with location pin.

B. “Show basic economy fares” overlaps with selected economy option.

C. Redundant buttons (close, done, reset filters) clutter the screen.

D. “Compare” button unclear; user is already comparing options.

E. Dropdown here differs from “home” icon used elsewhere, causing inconsistency.

5. Error Prevention

27

A. Allows selection of identical departure and arrival airports, later flags error.

B. No “guest” option available on sign-in; creates unnecessary barrier.

C. Lack of clarity on whether action proceeds to purchase or another selection.

6. Recognition Rather than Recall

28

A. Previous screen’s departure airport not visible, increasing cognitive load.

B. Sorting method (e.g., by price) should be displayed.

C. Airport names should be shown in full, avoiding reliance on memory.

7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use

29

8. Aesthetic and minimalist design

30

A. Three navigation systems introduce unnecessary complexity.

B. Information overload below “economy” and “passenger”; could be simplified.

C. Calendar picker is cumbersome; a more efficient date picker is preferable.

D. Unnecessary information like airline details could be removed at early stages.

E. Sort and filter buttons hidden in tab bar, harder to access.

F. Scrolling through “connecting airports” on filter screen redundant; information visible elsewhere.

G. Specific aircraft options (e.g., TurboProp) add noise; may not fit general user needs.

9. Help recognize, diagnose, & recover from errors

31

A. Inline error notifications would prevent navigating back to correct information.

B. No password recovery option on login screen; inconvenient.

C. “Award travel” option active for guests without eligibility, causing confusion.

​

10. Help and documentation

32

A. Documentation lengthy and difficult to scan, resembling terms and conditions rather than helpful guidance.

Let’s fill out our wheel

33

Sample 1

34

Sample 2

35

Attendance & Next Time

• HCI Laws

36