Heuristic evaluation explained



The main goal of heuristic evaluations is to identify any problems associated with the design of user interfaces. Usability consultants Rolf Molich and Jakob Nielsen developed this method on the basis of several years of experience in teaching and consulting about usability engineering. Heuristic evaluations are one of the most informal methods[1] of usability inspection in the field of human–computer interaction. There are many sets of usability design heuristics; they are not mutually exclusive and cover many of the same aspects of user interface design. Quite often, usability problems that are discovered are categorized—often on a numeric scale—according to their estimated impact on user performance or acceptance. Often the heuristic evaluation is conducted in the context of use cases (typical user tasks), to provide feedback to the developers on the extent to which the interface is likely to be compatible with the intended users' needs and preferences.

The simplicity of heuristic evaluation is beneficial at the early stages of design. This usability inspection method does not require user testing which can be burdensome due to the need for users, a place to test them and a payment for their time. Heuristic evaluation requires only one expert, reducing the complexity and expended time for evaluation. Most heuristic evaluations can be accomplished in a matter of days. The time required varies with the size of the artefact, its complexity, the purpose of the review, the nature of the usability issues that arise in the review, and the competence of the reviewers. Using heuristic evaluation prior to user testing will reduce the number and severity of design errors discovered by users.Although heuristic evaluation can uncover many major usability issues in a short period of time, a criticism that is often leveled is that results are highly influenced by the knowledge of the expert reviewer(s). This "one-sided" review repeatedly has different results than software performance testing, each type of testing uncovering a different set of problems.


Jakob Nielsen's heuristics are probably the most-used usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen developed the heuristics based on work together with Rolf Molich in 1990.[1] [2] The final set of heuristics that are still used today were released by Nielsen in 1994.[3] The heuristics as published in Nielsen's book Usability Engineering are as follows:[4]

  1. Match between system and the real world:
  2. User control and freedom:
  3. Consistency and standards:
  4. Error prevention:
  5. Recognition rather than recall:
  6. Flexibility and efficiency of use:
  7. Aesthetic and minimalist design:
  8. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors:
  9. Help and documentation:

Gerhardt-Powals' cognitive engineering principles

Although Nielsen is considered the expert and field leader in heuristic evaluation, Jill Gerhardt-Powals developed a set of cognitive engineering principles for enhancing human-computer performance.[5] These heuristics, or principles, are similar to Nielsen's heuristics but take a more holistic approach to evaluation.Gerhardt Powals' principles[6] are listed below.

  1. Automate unwanted workload:
  2. Reduce uncertainty:
  3. Fuse data:
  4. Present new information with meaningful aids to interpretation:
  5. Use names that are conceptually related to function:
  6. Group data in consistently meaningful ways:
  7. Limit data-driven tasks:
  9. Provide multiple coding of data when appropriate:
  10. Practice judicious redundancy:

Weinschenk and Barker classification

Susan Weinschenk and Dean Barker[7] created a categorization of heuristics and guidelines by several major providers into the following twenty types:[8]

  1. User Control:
  2. Human Limitations:
  3. Modal Integrity:
  4. Accommodation:
  5. Linguistic Clarity:
    The interface will communicate as efficiently as possible.
  6. Aesthetic Integrity:
    The interface will have an attractive and appropriate design.
  7. Simplicity:
    The interface will present elements simply.
  8. Predictability:
  9. Interpretation:
  10. Accuracy:
    The interface will be free from errors.
  11. Technical Clarity:
    The interface will have the highest possible fidelity.
  12. Flexibility:
  13. Fulfillment:
    The interface will provide a satisfying user experience.
  14. Cultural Propriety:
    The interface will match the user’s social customs and expectations.
  15. Suitable Tempo:
    The interface will operate at a tempo suitable to the user.
  16. Consistency:
    The interface will be consistent.
  17. User Support:
    The interface will provide additional assistance as needed or requested.
  18. Precision:
    The interface will allow the users to perform a task exactly.
  19. Forgiveness:
    The interface will make actions recoverable.
  20. Responsiveness:

See also

Further reading

External links

Notes and References

  1. Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces, Proc. ACM CHI'90 Conf. (Seattle, WA, 1–5 April), 249–256
  2. Molich, R., and Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a human–computer dialogue, Communications of the ACM 33, 3 (March), 338–348
  4. Book: Nielsen , Jakob . Jakob_Nielsen_%28usability_consultant%29

    . Jakob_Nielsen_%28usability_consultant%29 . Usability Engineering . Academic Press . 1994 . San Diego . 115–148 . 0-12-518406-9.

  5. Gerhardt-Powals . Jill. Cognitive engineering principles for enhancing human – computer performance . International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction . 8 . 2 . 189–211 . 1996 . 10.1080/10447319609526147.
  6. http://usability.gov/methods/test_refine/heuristic.html#WhatisaHeuristicEvaluation Heuristic Evaluation – Usability Methods – What is a heuristic evaluation?
  7. Weinschenk, S and Barker,D. (2000) Designing Effective Speech Interfaces. Wiley.
  8. Web site: What's the difference between a Heuristic Evaluation and a Cognitive Walkthrough?. Jeff Sauro. MeasuringUsability.com.