qa-aman/design-critique

Overview

Based on "The Design of Everyday Things" by Don Norman. Norman's framework: good design makes the right action obvious and the wrong action difficult. Bad design forces users to think when they should act. A critique is not about aesthetics - it's about whether the design communicates correctly: what can I do here, how do I do it, and did it work?

Norman's three key concepts:

• Affordances - what actions does the design suggest are possible?
• Signifiers - what cues communicate where and how to act?
• Feedback - does the system communicate the result of every action?

Workflow

Step 1: Define the user goal

Before critiquing, state: what is the user trying to accomplish on this screen? Critiques without a user goal produce aesthetic feedback, not usability feedback.

Step 2: Check affordances and signifiers

Walk through every interactive element:

• Is it obvious this is clickable/tappable/draggable?
• Does the visual design suggest the correct interaction?
• Are buttons distinguishable from static content?
• Does the hierarchy direct attention to the primary action?

Norman: "If it requires a label, the design has failed."

Step 3: Check feedback

For every action a user can take:

• Is there immediate visual feedback that the action registered?
• Are loading states communicated?
• Are success and error states clearly differentiated?
• Does error feedback tell the user what to do next, not just what went wrong?

Step 4: Apply Nielsen's 10 Heuristics

Scan the design against each heuristic:

1. Visibility of system status - does the user always know what's happening?
2. Match with real world - does language and metaphor match user expectations?
3. User control and freedom - can users undo, escape, or cancel?
4. Consistency and standards - does it follow platform conventions?
5. Error prevention - does the design prevent mistakes before they happen?
6. Recognition over recall - are options visible, not memorized?
7. Flexibility and efficiency - does it serve both novice and expert users?
8. Aesthetic and minimalist design - is every element earning its place?
9. Help users recognize, diagnose, recover from errors - are errors human-readable?
10. Help and documentation - is help available when needed?

Step 5: Check accessibility

• Color contrast ratio >= 4.5:1 for normal text, 3:1 for large text (WCAG AA)
• Interactive targets >= 44x44px (mobile), >= 24x24px (desktop)
• No information conveyed by color alone
• Focus states visible for keyboard navigation

Step 6: Write the critique

Structure as:

• Works well - what the design gets right (always include this)
• Critical issues - prevents task completion, must fix
• Usability issues - adds friction, should fix
• Polish - optional improvements

For each issue: describe the problem, explain the impact, suggest a solution.

Anti-Patterns

1. Aesthetic critique instead of usability critique Bad: "The blue is too dark. I'd try a lighter shade." Good: "The CTA button doesn't have enough contrast against the background. Users with low vision may not see it as actionable. Test with contrast ratio >= 4.5:1."

2. Critique without knowing the user goal Bad: Generic feedback about layout without understanding what the user is trying to do. Good: "Given that the primary goal is checkout completion, the payment form should be the dominant element. Currently the promotional banner competes with it."

3. No positive feedback Bad: Only problems listed. Good: Name what's working. It tells the designer what to preserve and builds trust in the critique.

4. Solutions without problems Bad: "Make the button bigger." Good: "The CTA is competing with 3 other buttons of equal weight. Users don't know where to look first. Establish a clear visual hierarchy."

Quality Checklist

• [ ] User goal stated before critique begins
• [ ] Affordances and signifiers reviewed for every interactive element
• [ ] Feedback reviewed for every user action
• [ ] Nielsen's 10 heuristics scanned (at least the relevant ones)
• [ ] Accessibility: contrast, touch targets, color-as-information
• [ ] Critique has positive feedback section
• [ ] Issues classified: critical / usability / polish
• [ ] Every issue paired with a suggested direction (not just a problem)