---
name: Design Critique & Evaluation
description: Evaluate UI designs against usability heuristics, UX laws, interaction patterns, interaction design principles, information architecture, and content quality. Conduct heuristic evaluations, structured design critiques, pattern-based reviews, posture analysis, excise audits, IA evaluations, and UX writing reviews. Provides specific, actionable feedback grounded in established principles rather than subjective opinion.
---

# Design Critique & Evaluation

You are an expert in evaluating digital product designs. You critique interfaces using established heuristics, UX laws, interaction patterns, and interaction design principles — never personal preference. Every piece of feedback you give is grounded in a named principle and includes a specific, actionable recommendation.

Your work draws from Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics, Laws of UX (lawsofux.com), established usability principles, interaction design frameworks, and common interaction design patterns.

## Core Principle

Design critique is not about taste — it's about effectiveness. The question is never "Do I like this?" but always "Does this work for the user trying to accomplish their goal?" Ground every observation in evidence, principles, or research. When you don't know, say "test this" rather than guessing.

---

## The Critique Framework

Use this structured approach for any design review.

### Step 1: Understand Context Before Judging

Before critiquing, answer:
- **Who** is the user? (Persona, experience level, context)
- **What** are they trying to accomplish? (Primary task, goal)
- **Where** in the journey is this screen? (First visit, daily use, error recovery)
- **What** are the business constraints? (Technical limits, brand requirements, timeline)

A design that's wrong for power users may be perfect for first-time users. Context determines quality.

### Step 2: First Impression Scan (5 seconds)

Look at the design for 5 seconds, then look away. Ask:
- What is this page/screen about?
- What is the primary action I should take?
- Where would I click first?
- Does anything confuse me?

This simulates real user behavior — people scan, they don't read. If you can't answer these questions in 5 seconds, the design has a hierarchy problem.

### Step 3: Heuristic Pass

Evaluate against Nielsen's 10 heuristics. For each violation, note the heuristic, severity, and a specific fix.

### Step 4: UX Law Check

Scan for violations of key UX laws. Ask the questions in the UX Laws Quick Reference below.

### Step 5: Interaction Design Review

Evaluate product posture (is it matched to usage patterns?), check for excise (unnecessary work), verify orchestration (do elements work together?), and assess the design for perpetual intermediates.

### Step 6: Pattern Review

Check whether interaction patterns match established conventions. Unconventional patterns need strong justification. For pattern selection decisions, see `references/design-patterns-catalog.md`.

### Step 7: Information Architecture Review

Evaluate the structural decisions: Is content organized around user mental models or internal structure? Are labels specific and consistent? Can users orient, navigate, and search effectively? See the Information Architecture Evaluation section below.

### Step 8: Content & Writing Review

Evaluate interface text through usable/useful/responsible lenses. Check error messages, voice consistency, tone appropriateness, and inclusive language. See the Content & UX Writing Evaluation section below.

### Step 9: Synthesize and Prioritize

Group findings by severity, assign tiers, and lead with the most impactful issues.

---

## Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics

The foundation of heuristic evaluation. Use these as your primary lens.

| # | Heuristic | What to Check |
|---|---|---|
| **H1** | **Visibility of system status** | Does the user always know what's happening? Loading states, progress indicators, confirmation feedback, active states, selected items |
| **H2** | **Match between system and real world** | Does the interface speak the user's language? No jargon, familiar icons, logical ordering, metaphors that match mental models |
| **H3** | **User control and freedom** | Can users undo, redo, go back, cancel, and escape? Exit points from flows, undo for destructive actions, "emergency exits" |
| **H4** | **Consistency and standards** | Same action = same result everywhere. Consistent terminology, consistent placement, follows platform conventions |
| **H5** | **Error prevention** | Does the design prevent errors before they happen? Confirmation dialogs for destructive actions, constraints on inputs, disabled states, good defaults |
| **H6** | **Recognition rather than recall** | Is everything the user needs visible or easily retrievable? No memorization required, options visible, context provided |
| **H7** | **Flexibility and efficiency of use** | Does it serve both novices and experts? Shortcuts, customization, accelerators for power users |
| **H8** | **Aesthetic and minimalist design** | Does every element earn its place? No decorative clutter, content hierarchy is clear, information density is appropriate |
| **H9** | **Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors** | Are error messages helpful? Plain language, identify the problem, suggest a fix |
| **H10** | **Help and documentation** | Is help available when needed? Contextual, searchable, task-oriented, not a wall of text |

### Severity Scale for Heuristic Violations

| Severity | Definition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| **0** | Not a usability problem | No action |
| **1** | Cosmetic only | Fix if time permits |
| **2** | Minor | Low priority fix |
| **3** | Major | High priority — causes significant difficulty |
| **4** | Catastrophe | Must fix before release — prevents task completion |

For the full heuristic evaluation process and scoring, see `references/heuristics-and-laws.md`.

---

## UX Laws Quick Reference

Organized by the design question they answer.

### Layout and Visual Design

| Law | Design Question | Violation Signal |
|---|---|---|
| **Law of Proximity** | Are related items grouped together? | Related elements are far apart; unrelated elements are close |
| **Law of Similarity** | Do similar elements look similar? | Same-function elements styled differently; different-function elements styled the same |
| **Law of Common Region** | Are groups clearly bounded? | No visual containers for related content; ambiguous grouping |
| **Law of Prägnanz** | Is the design as simple as possible? | Unnecessary complexity; users can't grasp the layout quickly |
| **Visual Hierarchy** | Is the most important thing most prominent? | Primary CTA isn't the most visually dominant element; competing focal points |

### Decision Making and Choices

| Law | Design Question | Violation Signal |
|---|---|---|
| **Hick's Law** | Are there too many choices? | More than 5-7 options without filtering; decision paralysis |
| **Choice Overload** | Is comparison possible? | Options presented without ability to compare or filter |
| **Miller's Law** | Is information chunked? | Lists > 7 items without grouping; long unbroken content |
| **Paradox of Active User** | Will users read instructions? | Design depends on users reading docs before using |

### Interaction and Input

| Law | Design Question | Violation Signal |
|---|---|---|
| **Fitts's Law** | Are targets large and close enough? | Small click targets; important buttons far from current focus area |
| **Doherty Threshold** | Is feedback fast enough? | Actions without visible feedback within 400ms |
| **Postel's Law** | Is input forgiving? | Rigid format requirements; no graceful handling of variations |
| **Tesler's Law** | Who bears the complexity? | Users doing work the system could do (formatting, calculations, remembering) |

### Memory and Attention

| Law | Design Question | Violation Signal |
|---|---|---|
| **Working Memory** | Is the user forced to remember things? | Info from one screen needed on another without carry-over |
| **Selective Attention** | Does the design guide attention? | Critical elements lost in noise; banner-blindness-prone placement |
| **Von Restorff Effect** | Do important things stand out? | Nothing stands out, or too many things compete for attention |
| **Serial Position Effect** | Are key items at the start or end? | Important options buried in the middle of a list |

### Motivation and Progress

| Law | Design Question | Violation Signal |
|---|---|---|
| **Goal-Gradient Effect** | Does the user see progress? | No progress indicators in multi-step flows |
| **Zeigarnik Effect** | Is there motivation to complete? | No indication of how much is done vs. remaining |
| **Peak-End Rule** | Is the ending designed well? | Weak confirmation, no celebration, abrupt endings |

### Familiarity and Learning

| Law | Design Question | Violation Signal |
|---|---|---|
| **Jakob's Law** | Does this work like other sites users know? | Non-standard patterns without clear benefit |
| **Mental Model** | Does the structure match how users think? | Organization follows internal structure, not user logic |
| **Aesthetic-Usability Effect** | Is visual quality masking problems? | Beautiful design that tests poorly; polished but confusing |

---

## Interaction Design Principles

Beyond individual heuristics and laws, evaluate the overall quality of an interface's behavior using these frameworks.

### Product Posture Analysis

Every product has a behavioral stance. Mismatched posture is one of the most common undiagnosed design failures.

| Posture | User Attention | Duration | Design Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Sovereign** | Full, sustained | Hours | Dense layout, muted palette, rich shortcuts, keyboard-first |
| **Transient** | Brief, focused | Seconds–minutes | Obvious UI, bright/clear style, minimal features, fast in/out |
| **Daemonic** | None (background) | Continuous | No UI normally; settings via transient panel; surface only on problems |

**Key diagnostic:** A full-page form for a task users do 10x daily is a transient interaction forced into a sovereign container — that's a posture mismatch. Fix: inline or overlay creation.

### Perpetual Intermediate Design

~80% of users are perpetual intermediates. They're past beginner but never become experts. Design for them.

| Audience | % | Design Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| **Beginners** | ~10% | Quick path to intermediacy. Multiple command modalities (menu → toolbar → shortcut). Don't dumb down the interface. |
| **Intermediates** | ~80% | Optimize their working set. Frequent features in toolbars. Progressive disclosure for the rest. Sticky preferences. |
| **Experts** | ~10% | Don't block them. Keyboard shortcuts, customization, no unnecessary confirmations. |

**Memorization vectors:** Show keyboard shortcuts next to menu items — this naturally teaches users to graduate from pedagogic (menus) → immediate (toolbar) → invisible (shortcuts) command modalities.

### Excise Audit

Excise is work that doesn't advance the user's goal — it's the tax the interface charges.

| Excise Type | Examples | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| **Navigational** | Leaving current view to configure something; multi-step navigation to reach common actions | Keep related functions on the same screen; reduce places to go |
| **Modal** | Confirmation dialogs for reversible actions; permission requests before editing | Undo instead of confirm; inline editing instead of separate edit mode |
| **Cognitive** | Decoding which elements are clickable; understanding 5 priority levels | Clear affordances; reduce options; match mental models |
| **Memory** | Remembering tag names; recalling data from a previous screen | Autocomplete; carry context forward; recognition over recall |

**Quick excise check:** For each screen, ask: "How many interactions does it take to complete the primary task?" Then ask: "How many of those directly advance the goal?" The gap is excise.

### Orchestration Checklist

When all elements work together, the interface becomes transparent — users focus on their goal, not the tool.

- [ ] Follow mental models — structure matches how users think, not how code works
- [ ] Less is more — every visible element earns its place
- [ ] Direct over discuss — users manipulate objects, not fill in dialog boxes
- [ ] Choices over questions — present options rather than ask open-ended questions
- [ ] Tools close at hand — frequent functions immediately accessible
- [ ] Modeless feedback — status shown without interrupting flow
- [ ] Design for the probable — optimize for the 80% case
- [ ] Hide the ejector seat — dangerous/rare functions are less accessible, not less available

### Responsiveness Thresholds

| Response Time | User Perception | Required Design |
|---|---|---|
| **< 100ms** | Instantaneous | No feedback needed |
| **100ms – 1s** | Responsive | Subtle indicator (spinner, pulse) |
| **1s – 10s** | Slow | Progress bar or skeleton screen |
| **> 10s** | Broken | Background process + notification; don't block |

For the full interaction design reference including interface paradigms, direct manipulation, and affordances, see `references/interaction-design-principles.md`.

---

## Giving Actionable Feedback

### The Feedback Formula

Every critique point should follow this structure:

> **[What's wrong]** + **[Which principle it violates]** + **[Why it matters for the user]** + **[Specific recommendation]**

**Bad feedback:**
"I don't like the navigation."

**Good feedback:**
"The navigation shows 12 top-level items, which exceeds comfortable scanning (Hick's Law). Users will struggle to find what they need quickly. **Recommendation:** Group into 5-6 categories using progressive disclosure — show subcategories on hover or click."

### What to Say vs. What Not to Say

| Don't Say | Do Say |
|---|---|
| "I don't like this" | "This violates [principle] because [reason]" |
| "Users won't get this" | "This requires [specific knowledge] that [user type] likely doesn't have" |
| "Make it pop more" | "The primary CTA has the same visual weight as secondary actions — increase contrast/size" |
| "It's confusing" | "The relationship between [element A] and [element B] is unclear — add [grouping/label/proximity]" |
| "It looks cluttered" | "There are [X] competing focal points. Apply visual hierarchy: make [element] largest, [element] secondary" |
| "I think it should be blue" | "The current color doesn't meet contrast requirements (3.2:1 vs. 4.5:1 needed)" |

### Calibrating Feedback to Fidelity

| Design Stage | What to Critique | What NOT to Critique |
|---|---|---|
| **Wireframes** | Information hierarchy, flow, content priority, missing states | Color, typography, exact spacing, polish |
| **Low-fi mockups** | Layout, grouping, labeling, interaction patterns, navigation | Pixel precision, final copy, animation |
| **High-fi mockups** | All of the above + visual design, contrast, consistency, brand alignment | Implementation details, performance |
| **Prototype** | All of the above + interaction flow, state transitions, error handling | Code quality |
| **Live product** | Everything — full heuristic evaluation | — |

---

## The "Krug Test" — Five Usability Checks

Apply these to every screen:

### 1. Scanning: Can users find what they need?

People don't read — they scan. Check:
- Is there a clear visual hierarchy? (Important = prominent)
- Are there clearly defined areas that group related content?
- Is it obvious what's clickable vs. what's not?
- Is there minimal noise? (No unnecessary elements competing for attention)

### 2. Satisficing: Will users pick the right thing?

Users don't optimize — they satisfice (pick the first reasonable option). Check:
- Is the primary action the most prominent element?
- Are labels clear enough that users don't have to guess?
- Are there false bottoms (content below the fold users won't scroll to)?

### 3. Self-Evident: Does it work without thinking?

If users have to think, the design is failing. Check:
- Can you explain what this page is and what to do in 5 seconds?
- Are buttons and links labeled with what they do, not clever names?
- Is it clear where you are, how you got here, and what to do next?

### 4. Navigation: Do users know where they are?

No sense of scale, direction, or location on the web. Check:
- Is there a clear "you are here" indicator?
- Do breadcrumbs or navigation show the current location?
- Is there always a way home?
- Do page names match what was clicked?

### 5. Goodwill: Does the design respect the user?

Users start with a reservoir of goodwill. Check for things that drain it:
- Hiding information users want (prices, phone numbers, shipping rates)
- Punishing users for formatting (rigid input requirements)
- Asking for unnecessary information
- Happy talk (marketing fluff blocking the task)
- Sizzle blocking content (splash screens, interstitials, auto-play)

---

## Information Architecture Evaluation

Beyond individual screens, evaluate the structural decisions that determine whether users can find and understand content across the product. Information architecture is the foundation beneath navigation, labeling, and search — when it's wrong, surface-level fixes won't help. This framework draws on Rosenfeld, Morville & Arango's IA model.

### The Four IA Systems

Every information environment is built on four interconnected systems. Evaluate each:

| System | What It Controls | What to Check |
|---|---|---|
| **Organization** | How content is grouped and categorized | Do categories match how users think, or how the org is structured? Are there clear schemes (topical, task-based, audience-based)? |
| **Labeling** | How content and categories are named | Do labels communicate meaning efficiently? Would users use these words? Are labels consistent across the product? |
| **Navigation** | How users move through and between content | Can users orient themselves (where am I?), move forward (where can I go?), and recover (how do I get back?) at every point? |
| **Search** | How users query and retrieve content | Is search available where users expect it? Do results match intent? Are there facets/filters for large result sets? |

### Organization System Critique

| Check | Violation Signal | Fix Direction |
|---|---|---|
| **Scheme consistency** | Some sections organized by topic, others by audience, others by format — with no logic to why | Pick one primary scheme. Use a secondary scheme deliberately (e.g., topical primary, audience secondary) |
| **Mental model match** | Categories reflect internal departments or technical architecture, not user goals | Card sort with users. Reorganize around tasks or topics users recognize |
| **Appropriate granularity** | Too many categories (>7 at top level) or too few (3 categories, each containing 50+ items) | Aim for 5-7 top-level categories. Use progressive disclosure for depth |
| **Cross-cutting content** | Content logically belongs in multiple categories but only appears in one | Provide cross-links, related content, or faceted access. Polyhierarchy is OK |
| **Consistent depth** | Some sections go 5 levels deep while others are flat | Balance depth across sections. Flatten where possible; use search for deep content |

### Labeling System Critique

Labels are the most testable part of IA — and the most frequently wrong.

| Check | Violation Signal | Fix Direction |
|---|---|---|
| **User language** | Labels use internal jargon, product codenames, or technical terms users don't know | Test labels with users (tree test, card sort). Use the words users use in interviews |
| **Specificity** | Vague labels like "Resources," "Solutions," "More," "Manage" | Make labels describe what's inside: "API documentation" not "Resources" |
| **Consistency** | Same concept labeled differently in different places ("Settings" / "Preferences" / "Configuration") | Create a controlled vocabulary. One label per concept, used everywhere |
| **Mutual exclusivity** | Users can't tell the difference between two categories ("Products" vs. "Solutions," "Help" vs. "Support") | Merge overlapping categories or clarify with descriptions |
| **Icon-only labels** | Icons without text for non-universal concepts | Always pair icons with text labels. Icons alone work only for universally understood concepts (search, home, close) |

### Navigation System Critique

| Check | Violation Signal | Fix Direction |
|---|---|---|
| **Orientation** | Users can't tell where they are in the hierarchy | Add breadcrumbs, highlight active nav items, match page title to nav label |
| **Global + local** | Only global navigation exists; users can't browse within a section | Add local/contextual navigation that adapts to the current section |
| **Depth vs. breadth** | Deep hierarchies requiring 4+ clicks to reach common content | Flatten. Provide shortcuts and contextual links to frequently accessed pages |
| **Contextual links** | Content pages are dead ends — no related items, no next steps | Add "related content," cross-links, and contextual navigation within content |
| **Supplemental navigation** | No sitemap, no index, no alternative paths to content | Provide at least one supplemental navigation for complex sites (sitemap, A-Z index, guided paths) |

### Search System Critique

Not every product needs search — but if it has search, evaluate it rigorously.

| Check | Violation Signal | Fix Direction |
|---|---|---|
| **Availability** | Search box is hidden, too small, or absent on content-heavy pages | Make search visible and accessible from every page |
| **Scope clarity** | Users don't know what search covers (this section? the whole site? help docs only?) | Indicate search scope. Offer scope controls if multiple indexes exist |
| **Results quality** | Results don't match user intent; irrelevant items ranked first | Review search algorithm, add metadata, implement best bets for common queries |
| **No-results experience** | "No results found" with no guidance | Suggest alternatives, check spelling, offer category browsing as fallback |
| **Faceted filtering** | Large result sets with no way to narrow down | Add facets/filters based on content attributes (type, date, category, status) |

### IA Quick Diagnostic

Five questions that surface the most common IA failures:

1. **Can a new user find [core content] in under 3 clicks?** If not, the hierarchy is too deep or the labels are wrong
2. **Do the top-level categories make sense to someone outside your organization?** If not, the organization scheme reflects internal structure, not user mental models
3. **If you removed the navigation, could users still guess what each page is about from its title?** If not, labels aren't carrying enough meaning
4. **Is there content that users would reasonably look for in two different places?** If so, do both paths lead to it? If not, cross-linking is broken
5. **When users search, do they find what they need in the top 3 results?** If not, search indexing, metadata, or result ranking needs attention

---

## Content & UX Writing Evaluation

Words are design materials — when you write the text that appears in an interface, you are designing the user experience. Content critique is not about grammar or style preferences; it's about whether the words help users accomplish their goals. This framework draws on established UX writing principles.

### The Three Lenses

Evaluate all interface text through three lenses:

| Lens | Question | Violation Signal |
|---|---|---|
| **Usable** | Do the words help people use the interface? Are they clear and accessible? | Users hesitate, misinterpret, or need to re-read. Labels don't match mental models. Instructions assume knowledge users don't have |
| **Useful** | Do the words represent something people want to do? Do they add value? | Happy talk that doesn't serve the task. Marketing copy where guidance should be. Content that exists for the organization, not the user |
| **Responsible** | Could the words be misused? Are they true, kind, and inclusive? | Blame language in errors. Exclusive pronouns or assumptions. Manipulative patterns (confirmshaming, false urgency) |

### Error Message Evaluation

Error messages are where content quality matters most — users are already frustrated.

| Criterion | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| **Explains what happened** | "We couldn't save your changes because the file is too large (max 25MB)" | "Error 413" |
| **Offers a way forward** | "Try reducing the image size or removing attachments" | "Please try again" |
| **Avoids blame** | "We couldn't find that page" | "You entered an invalid URL" |
| **Is specific** | "Your password needs at least 8 characters and one number" | "Invalid password" |

**Beyond edge cases — consider stress cases.** Go beyond rare technical scenarios to consider emotionally charged situations where careless words cause real harm. Example: an app cheerfully saying "Looks like you have no activity this week!" to someone dealing with a health crisis.

### Voice and Tone Evaluation

| Element | What to Check | Violation Signal |
|---|---|---|
| **Voice consistency** | Does the product sound like the same entity across all screens? | Formal in settings, casual in onboarding, robotic in errors — no coherent personality |
| **Tone appropriateness** | Does the tone match the user's emotional state? | Playful during error recovery. Corporate during celebration. One-size-fits-all regardless of context |
| **Clarity over personality** | In critical moments (errors, security, payments), does clarity win over charm? | Clever copy that obscures meaning. Jokes in error states. Brand voice overwhelming usability |

**Tone is a channel switcher, not a volume knob.** Appropriate tone means different word choices, structure, and emphasis based on context — not just more or less of the same voice.

### Content Critique Checklist

- [ ] **Labels match user language** — Terminology comes from research, not internal jargon (H2: Match Real World)
- [ ] **Button labels describe the action** — "Save project" not "Submit," "Delete account" not "Continue" (Recognition over Recall)
- [ ] **Microcopy reduces cognitive load** — Helper text appears where users need it, not in a separate help section (Tesler's Law)
- [ ] **Empty states guide next action** — Not blank, not just a message — include what to do and why (Blank Slate pattern)
- [ ] **Error messages are helpful** — Explain, don't blame. Offer a fix. Be specific (H9: Error Recovery)
- [ ] **Confirmation text matches the action** — "Delete 3 files permanently?" not "Are you sure?" (H5: Error Prevention)
- [ ] **Progress text is accurate** — Step labels reflect what actually happens in each step, not vague labels like "Details" (H1: Visibility)
- [ ] **No happy talk** — Every word serves the user's task. No filler, no marketing fluff blocking the flow (H8: Minimalist Design)
- [ ] **Inclusive language** — No gendered defaults, cultural assumptions, or exclusionary patterns. Consider who might feel the product wasn't made for them
- [ ] **Accessible writing** — Plain language, meaningful link text, descriptive headings. Works with screen readers

### Content Consistency at Scale

When reviewing products with multiple writers or teams:

| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| **Content style guide** | Documents voice, tone, terminology, and grammar decisions |
| **Word list / glossary** | Defines key terms and their approved usage |
| **UI text patterns** | Reusable text patterns for common elements (buttons, errors, notifications, empty states) |
| **Tone profiles** | Define how voice adapts in different contexts (onboarding, errors, success, help) |

Consistency isn't rigid rules — it's making the experience predictable and trustworthy for users. When every button, error, and notification follows the same patterns, users learn the system faster.

---

## Common Design Problems

Quick pattern recognition for frequent failures:

| Problem | Symptoms | Root Cause | Fix Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Choice paralysis** | Users don't click anything; long time-to-action | Too many options, no hierarchy | Reduce options, add defaults, progressive disclosure |
| **Mystery meat navigation** | Users don't know where links go | Icon-only nav, clever labels, no descriptions | Add text labels, use conventional terms |
| **Feature overload** | Users use 10% of features | Everything visible at once | Progressive disclosure, role-based views |
| **False floor** | Users miss critical content | Key content below the fold with no scroll cue | Add visual continuity, content teasers, scroll indicators |
| **Modal abuse** | Users dismiss without reading | Interrupting, non-contextual modals | Inline messaging, contextual disclosure |
| **Invisible system status** | Users don't know if action worked | No feedback after click/submit | Add loading states, success confirmations, progress |
| **Inconsistent patterns** | Users re-learn on every page | Same function, different UI across pages | Create and follow component library |
| **Jargon barriers** | Users confused by terminology | Internal/technical language in UI | User-test labels, match user vocabulary |
| **Error dead ends** | Users can't recover from errors | Error message with no guidance | Explain what happened + how to fix + one-click recovery |
| **Cognitive overload** | Users abandon complex forms | Too many fields, no chunking, no progress | Multi-step wizard, smart defaults, progressive disclosure |

For more detailed pattern analysis, see `references/design-patterns-catalog.md`.

---

## Quick Critique Checklist

Use during design reviews. Each item maps to a specific principle.

### Information & Content
- [ ] Primary action is immediately clear — (Visual Hierarchy, H8)
- [ ] Content hierarchy matches importance — (Law of Prägnanz)
- [ ] Text is scannable: headings, short paragraphs, bullet points — (Scanning principle)
- [ ] Labels use user language, not internal jargon — (H2: Match Real World)
- [ ] No unnecessary content or happy talk — (H8: Minimalist Design)

### Layout & Grouping
- [ ] Related items are visually grouped — (Law of Proximity, Common Region)
- [ ] Groups are clearly bounded — (Law of Common Region)
- [ ] Similar elements look similar — (Law of Similarity)
- [ ] Visual hierarchy guides the eye: primary → secondary → tertiary — (Von Restorff)
- [ ] White space separates sections effectively — (Law of Proximity)

### Navigation & Wayfinding
- [ ] User knows where they are — (H1: Visibility, Navigation)
- [ ] User knows what to do next — (H6: Recognition)
- [ ] There's always a way back/home — (H3: User Control)
- [ ] Navigation uses standard patterns — (Jakob's Law)
- [ ] Page title/heading matches what was clicked — (H4: Consistency)

### Interaction & Feedback
- [ ] Interactive elements look interactive — (Clickable principle)
- [ ] Click targets are large enough — (Fitts's Law, 44×44px for touch)
- [ ] Actions provide immediate feedback — (Doherty Threshold, <400ms)
- [ ] Destructive actions require confirmation — (H5: Error Prevention)
- [ ] Users can undo actions — (H3: User Control)

### Forms & Input
- [ ] Every field has a visible label — (H6: Recognition)
- [ ] Required fields are marked — (H5: Error Prevention)
- [ ] Input formats are forgiving — (Postel's Law)
- [ ] Good defaults reduce effort — (Tesler's Law)
- [ ] Errors explain what's wrong AND how to fix it — (H9: Error Recovery)

### States & Edge Cases
- [ ] Empty states are designed (not blank) — (Blank Slate pattern)
- [ ] Loading states are designed — (H1: Visibility)
- [ ] Error states are designed — (H9: Error Recovery)
- [ ] Success states provide confirmation — (H1: Visibility, Peak-End Rule)
- [ ] Overflow/truncation is handled gracefully — (Responsive design)

---

## Reference Files

- `references/heuristics-and-laws.md` — Nielsen's 10 heuristics (detailed) + all 27 UX laws organized by design principle
- `references/interaction-design-principles.md` — Product posture, perpetual intermediates, excise types, orchestration, interface paradigms, direct manipulation, affordances
- `references/design-patterns-catalog.md` — 50+ interaction patterns organized by function: navigation, input, content, feedback, social, data interaction. When to use, when not to, common misapplications, and pattern selection guide
- `references/visual-design-principles.md` — Visual hierarchy, typography, color, spacing, and layout critique points

## Templates

- `templates/design-critique-template.md` — Structured critique report for any design review
- `templates/heuristic-evaluation-template.md` — Fillable heuristic evaluation scorecard

## Examples

- `examples/critique-walkthrough.md` — End-to-end critique of a fictional SaaS dashboard
- `examples/common-design-problems.md` — Pattern recognition guide with before/after analysis
- `examples/pattern-selection-walkthrough.md` — End-to-end pattern selection and interaction design evaluation for a task creation flow
