#heuristics evaluation

[caitlinkalafusdesign]

RE Design: Heuristics Evaluation of Archie Moores

By Caitlin Kalafus, Melinda Freund

Date 2/4/15

1. Visibility of system status

Too many links

2. Match between system and the real world

Multiple links that are misleading to the menu

The small print on the banner explains "Click Here" to access the menu

The "Click Here" button opens a new website: www.snapfinger.com

3. User Control and Freedom

Links on the main page do not access the Menu

It takes four different links before the menu is accessed

4. Consistency and Standard

The "Menu" button is misleading

"Click Here" menu link looks like an ad and is overlooked

5. Error Prevention

Not applicable

6. Recognition rather than recall

Directions are not direct

Menu is hard to find

Viewer may aimlessly click on anything to find the menu

The main page drop down menu is one link instead of four

7. Flexibility and efficiency of use

Experienced users may have difficulty

8. Aesthetic and minimalist design

Few colors do not obstruct the eye

Ads have a lot of movement that may be distracting

Links on the home page do not direct the user where they should

9. Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors

Have a separate drop down menu for “Location,” “Menu” and “Order Online”

Have one button that brings the viewer to the “Menu” page.

Menu should exist on www.archiemoores.com

Revise the “Merchandise” page by showing prices and where to purchase items

Include real photos of merchandise

10. Help and documentation

Links that bring you straight to your destination

Place all the links in one area

Update photos of the restaurant

Ads are too large

[uxdesignerhub]

Cognitive Walkthrough vs Heuristics Evaluation

I've been toying with the ideas of cognitive walkthroughs and heuristics evaluations. Obviously they work very well together, and often times I find myself naturally doing one as I'm doing the other. There is certainly value in both, as one ensures that it follows certain standards whilst the other is a way to ensure that you have put together a site that solves a user pain point. But thinking about whether or not these should be mutually exclusive or if there is value in a tiered approach, I am less certain. The evaluations I do require me to run through a site multiple times with multiple approaches and tasks, and the more I walk through the site, the less effective the walkthroughs become as I am no longer empathizing with the user with the same fresh look I would have initially had. However, in order to catalogue the entourage of usability issues, UI complexities, and even details such as the consistency of the use of H3 tags across the site, multiple sessions are required. 

Some things that have helped me get through these evaluations more quickly are (including the obvious ones):

1) A site map: a simple site map goes a long way in many ways - and can even surface site complexities. I almost always start by creating one if I haven't received one, so that I can identify duplicative pages and log formatting straight onto the site map. 

2) Use cases

3) User personas

4) A bright red marker 

5) Snag-it: 4 &5 are kind of optional, but I have been finding that using Snag-It to cleanly print out an entire webpage onto an 11x17 and a red marker do wonders for both evals. (NB: I still use the website, but jot down any usability questions on the paper here instead of on a list so I know that I've covered everything)

6) Existing style-guides, if any. 

Sometimes getting the list of items above answers a lot of questions and reduces the need for taking a lot of time on a site before understanding pain points.