{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028854824165915238, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.568047337278107, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An integrated method for evaluating interfaces

To take advantage of the interdisciplinary experience of our colleagues, we decided several years ago to add heuristic evaluation to our expert analysis method. Although heuristic evaluation is a cost-effective method for evaluating interfaces, we found that the recommended prioritization strategy--ranking the problems according to severity--has several limitations. Specifically, it does not address how much it will cost the developers to fix the problems, nor does it adequately capture the distinction between high-level (global) and low-level (specific, screen-level) problems. To address these limitations, we developed a method which retains the richness of heuristic evaluation, but communicates the results in such a way that project managers, developers, and designers can form a clear and immediately executable plan for addressing the problems. Our method integrates user research, heuristic evaluation, affinity diagramming, cost-benefit charts, and recommendations into a report that others can use to plan both short and long-term improvements.