ux-heuristics — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited ux-heuristics (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Practical usability principles for evaluating and improving user interfaces. Users don't read, they scan; they don't make optimal choices, they satisfice; they don't figure out how things work, they muddle through.
"Don't Make Me Think" — every page should be self-evident. If something requires thinking, it's a usability problem. Users have limited patience and cognitive bandwidth, so design for the scanning, satisficing, and muddling-through behavior described above.
Goal: 10/10. Audit the interface, rate every issue on the severity scale below, then score the interface from its Quick Diagnostic results: start at 10 and subtract per failed diagnostic row, weighted by the worst severity it triggers (catastrophic/major rows cost ~2, minor/cosmetic ~1). Bands: 9-10 = no severity-3+ issues and ≤1 failed diagnostic row; 6-8 = some major issues or several failed rows; 3-5 = a catastrophic issue or many failed rows; ≤2 = core tasks blocked. Always state the current score, the highest-severity issues, and the specific fixes needed to reach 10/10.
Laws 1-3 are Krug's Three Laws of Usability; #4, the Trunk Test, is his navigation orientation check.
Core concept: Every question mark that pops into a user's head adds cognitive load and distracts from the task.
Why it works: Users are on a mission — they don't want to puzzle over labels or decode clever marketing language. The less thinking required, the more likely they complete the task.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Navigation labels | Self-evident names | "Get directions" not "Calculate route to destination" |
| CTAs | Action verbs users understand | "Sign in" not "Access your account portal" |
| Error states | Tell users what to do next | "Check your email format" not "Validation error" |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Clarity should serve users — never use plain language as a veneer to hide unfavorable terms.
See: references/krug-principles.md when you need the full Krug method — scanning/satisficing/muddling psychology, the goodwill reservoir, homepage and tagline guidance, and the $0 usability-testing protocol (how many users, the test script).
Core concept: The myth says "users leave after 3 clicks." In reality users don't mind clicks if each one is painless, obvious, and confidence-building.
Why it works: Cognitive effort per click matters more than click count. Users abandon when they lose confidence, not when they run out of patience for clicking.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Checkout flows | Make each step obvious | Clear step indicators with descriptive labels |
| Settings | Clear categories over flat lists | "Account > Security > Change password" (3 confident clicks) |
| Onboarding | Small, clear steps | Wizard with one clear action per step |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Never use extra steps to bury cancellation flows — every click should move users toward their goal, not away from it.
Core concept: Remove half the words on each page, then half of what's left. Brevity makes useful content prominent and respects the user's time.
Key insights:
Product applications:
| Context | Application | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Landing pages | Cut welcome copy, lead with value | Remove "Welcome to..." paragraphs |
| Error messages | State problem and fix, nothing more | "Password too short (min 8 chars)" |
| Empty states | Action-oriented, minimal | "No results. Try a different search." |
Copy patterns:
Ethical boundary: Brevity must not omit critical information — concise disclosures for pricing, terms, and data usage are a user right.
Core concept: Drop a user on any random page (like being released from a car trunk at a random spot) — they should instantly answer six orientation questions: What site is this? What page? What are the major sections? What are my options here? Where am I in the hierarchy? Where's search?
Why it works: Good navigation gives constant orientation. Users who can't tell where they are feel lost and leave.
Apply it as the navigation check: page titles must match the link the user clicked, a "you are here" indicator (highlighted nav item, bold breadcrumb) must be present, and section headings must orient ("Your Account > Billing" not just "Settings").
Ethical boundary: Navigation labels must honestly represent site structure — never use misleading labels to funnel users into marketing pages.
See: references/krug-principles.md when running the Trunk Test or designing navigation — it maps each of the six questions to the page element that answers it, plus breadcrumb and permanent-navigation rules.
Keep users informed through timely feedback. Every action needs acknowledgment — progress bars for uploads, confirmations for submissions, skeleton screens for loading. Silent failures destroy trust. Copy pattern: "Saving..." → "Saved".
Speak users' language: "Sign in" not "Authenticate", "Search" not "Query." Follow real-world metaphors (trash bin, shopping cart) and natural ordering (street → city → state → zip).
Provide clear "emergency exits." Undo beats "Are you sure?" dialogs — users click through confirmations without reading. Every flow needs cancel/exit, and back buttons must never break.
Same words, styles, and behaviors mean the same thing throughout. Internal consistency (your app) plus external consistency (platform conventions: logo top-left, search top-right). One term per concept — "Projects" everywhere, never mixed with "Workspaces."
Prevent problems before they occur: constrained inputs (date pickers over text fields), autocomplete, sensible defaults, "unsaved changes" warnings. Slips (accidental wrong action) and mistakes (wrong intention) need different prevention.
Minimize memory load — show options, don't require memorization. Breadcrumbs, recent searches, pre-filled fields, dropdowns with decoded values. Working memory holds ~7 items; recognition is far easier than recall.
Serve both novices and experts: keyboard shortcuts, bulk actions, saved searches, command palettes (Cmd+K). Progressive disclosure keeps it simple for beginners while experts access full power.
Every element must earn its place — when everything screams for attention, nothing stands out. Show what matters now, hide what doesn't. One primary CTA per page.
Error messages need three parts: what happened, why, and how to fix it. Plain language ("Connection failed" not "ECONNREFUSED"), specific ("Password must be 8+ characters" not "Invalid"), never blame the user, preserve their input.
Help should be searchable, task-focused ("How to..." not technical reference), and contextual (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours).
See: references/nielsen-heuristics.md when auditing against a specific heuristic — it expands each of the 10 into good-implementation / common-violation / severity tables with copy patterns and ethical boundaries.
Rate each issue found in an audit:
| Severity | Rating | Description | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Not a problem | Disagreement, not usability issue | Ignore |
| 1 | Cosmetic | Minor annoyance, low impact | Fix if time |
| 2 | Minor | Causes delay or frustration | Schedule fix |
| 3 | Major | Significant task failure | Fix soon |
| 4 | Catastrophic | Prevents task completion | Fix immediately |
Weigh three factors: frequency (how often it occurs), impact (how severe when it occurs), persistence (one-time or ongoing).
See: references/audit-template.md when running a full heuristic evaluation — a structured per-screen template that captures issues, severity, and recommended fixes in a consistent format.
| Mistake | Why It Fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Mystery meat navigation | Icons without labels force guessing | Add text labels alongside icons |
| Too many choices | Decision paralysis slows users | Reduce to 7 plus/minus 2 items |
| No "you are here" indicator | Users feel lost in the hierarchy | Highlight current section in nav and breadcrumbs |
| No inline validation | Submit, error, scroll cycle frustrates | Validate on blur with specific messages |
| Unclear required fields | Users confused about what's mandatory | Mark optional fields, not required |
| Wall of text | Nobody reads dense paragraphs | Break up with headings, bullets, whitespace |
| Jargon in labels | Users don't speak your internal language | User-test all labels, use plain language |
| No loading indicators | Users think the system is broken | Show spinner, progress bar, or skeleton screen |
| Tiny tap targets | Mobile users misclick constantly | Minimum 44x44 px touch targets |
| Hover-only information | Mobile and keyboard users miss it | Don't hide critical info behind hover |
| No undo | Users afraid to take any action | Provide undo for all non-destructive actions |
| Poor error messages | "Invalid input" tells users nothing | Explain what's wrong and how to fix it |
| Low contrast text | Unreadable for many users | WCAG AA minimum (4.5:1 contrast) |
| Inconsistent nav location | Users can't find navigation | Fixed position, same place on every page |
| Broken back button | Violates the browser contract | Never hijack or break browser history |
See: references/wcag-checklist.md when auditing accessibility (contrast, keyboard, screen-reader, focus) — a complete WCAG 2.1 AA checklist with testing tools. See references/cultural-ux.md when designing for global audiences — RTL layouts, color meanings, form/name/date conventions, and localization pitfalls.
| Question | If No | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Can I tell what site/page this is immediately? | Users are lost | Add clear logo, page title, breadcrumbs |
| Is the main action obvious? | Users don't know what to do | Visual hierarchy, single primary CTA |
| Is the navigation clear? | Users can't find their way | Apply the Trunk Test, add "you are here" indicators |
| Can I find the search? | Goal-driven users are blocked | Visible search box in header |
| Does the system show what's happening? | Users lose trust and re-click | Loading states, confirmations, progress |
| Are error messages helpful? | Users get stuck | Plain language with a specific fix |
| Can users undo or go back? | Users are afraid to act | Undo, cancel, and back options everywhere |
| Does it work without hover? | Mobile/keyboard users excluded | Visible alternatives to hover interactions |
| Are all interactive elements labeled? | Users guess at icons | Text labels or descriptive tooltips |
| Does anything make me stop and think "huh?" | Cognitive load too high | Simplify — if it needs explanation, redesign it |
Heuristics sometimes contradict each other. When they do:
See: references/heuristic-conflicts.md when two heuristics pull in opposite directions and the four rules above don't settle it — resolution frameworks with worked trade-off examples.
Dark patterns violate heuristics deliberately to manipulate users: forced continuity (hard to cancel), roach motel (easy in, hard out), confirmshaming (guilt-based options), hidden costs (surprise fees at checkout).
See: references/dark-patterns.md when you suspect a design manipulates rather than serves users — the complete taxonomy, ethical alternatives, and relevant regulations.
| Method | When | Time | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Heuristic evaluation | Before user testing | 1-2 hours | Major violations |
| User testing | After heuristic fixes | 2-4 hours | Real behavior |
| A/B testing | When optimizing | Days-weeks | Statistical validation |
| Analytics review | Ongoing | 30 min | Patterns and problems |
Based on usability principles developed by Steve Krug and Jakob Nielsen:
Steve Krug is a usability consultant whose Don't Make Me Think (2000, revised 2014) is the most widely read book on web usability. He demonstrated that usability testing doesn't require a lab or large budget — just watching a few real users try to accomplish tasks.
Jakob Nielsen, PhD is co-founder of the Nielsen Norman Group and author of the 10 Usability Heuristics (1994), still the most-used framework for heuristic evaluation worldwide. The New York Times called him "the guru of Web page usability."
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.