review-web-design

Review Web Design

Evaluate a web design for visual quality, consistency, and effectiveness across devices.

When to Use

• Reviewing a design mockup or prototype before development
• Assessing an implemented website or web application for design quality
• Providing feedback on visual design during a design review session
• Evaluating brand consistency across multiple pages or sections
• Checking responsive design behaviour across breakpoints

Inputs

• Required: Design to review (URL, mockup files, screenshots, or source code)
• Optional: Brand guidelines or design system documentation
• Optional: Target audience description
• Optional: Reference designs or competitor examples
• Optional: Specific areas of concern

Procedure

Step 1: Assess Visual Hierarchy

Visual hierarchy guides the user's eye through content in order of importance.

• Clear focal point: Is there an obvious entry point on each page/screen?
• Heading hierarchy: Do headings descend logically (H1 → H2 → H3)?
• Size contrast: Are important elements larger than supporting elements?
• Colour contrast: Are CTAs and key actions visually prominent?
• Whitespace: Does spacing separate logical groups effectively?
• Reading flow: Does the layout follow a natural reading pattern (F-pattern, Z-pattern)?

## Visual Hierarchy Assessment
| Page/Section | Focal Point | Hierarchy Clear? | Issues |
|-------------|-------------|-----------------|--------|
| Homepage | Hero section CTA | Yes | Secondary CTA competes with primary |
| Product page | Product image | Mostly | Price not prominent enough |
| Contact form | Submit button | No | Form title same size as body text |

Expected: Each major page/section assessed for clear visual hierarchy. On failure: If mockups are unavailable, assess from live code using browser dev tools.

Step 2: Evaluate Typography

• Font selection: Are fonts appropriate for the brand and content type?
• Font pairing: Do heading and body fonts complement each other (max 2-3 families)?
• Type scale: Is there a consistent scale (e.g., 1.25 major second, 1.333 perfect fourth)?
• Line height: Body text has 1.4-1.6 line height; headings have 1.1-1.3
• Line length: Body text line length is 45-75 characters (optimal ~66)
• Font weight: Weight variations used consistently to indicate hierarchy
• Font size: Base font size is at least 16px for body text

/* Example well-structured type scale (1.25 ratio) */
:root {
  --text-xs: 0.64rem;    /* 10.24px */
  --text-sm: 0.8rem;     /* 12.8px */
  --text-base: 1rem;     /* 16px */
  --text-lg: 1.25rem;    /* 20px */
  --text-xl: 1.563rem;   /* 25px */
  --text-2xl: 1.953rem;  /* 31.25px */
  --text-3xl: 2.441rem;  /* 39.06px */
}

Expected: Typography assessed for consistency, readability, and hierarchy. On failure: If the design uses more than 3 font families, recommend consolidation.

Step 3: Review Colour Usage

• Palette coherence: Is the colour palette intentional and limited (typically 3-5 colours + neutrals)?
• Brand alignment: Do colours match brand guidelines?
• Contrast ratios: Text meets WCAG AA (4.5:1 for normal text, 3:1 for large text)
• Semantic colour: Are colours used consistently for meaning (red=error, green=success)?
• Colour blindness: Is information conveyed by more than colour alone?
• Dark/light mode: If supported, both modes maintain readability and brand consistency

## Colour Assessment
| Usage | Colour | Contrast Ratio | WCAG AA | Notes |
|-------|--------|----------------|---------|-------|
| Body text on white | #333333 | 12.6:1 | Pass | Good |
| Link text on white | #2563eb | 5.2:1 | Pass | Good |
| Muted text on light gray | #9ca3af on #f3f4f6 | 2.1:1 | FAIL | Increase contrast |
| CTA button text | #ffffff on #22c55e | 3.1:1 | FAIL for small text | Use darker green or larger text |

Expected: Colour palette reviewed for coherence, accessibility, and semantic consistency. On failure: Use a contrast checker tool (WebAIM) to verify exact ratios.

Step 4: Assess Layout and Spacing

• Grid system: Is a consistent grid used (12-column, auto-layout, or custom)?
• Spacing scale: Is spacing systematic (4px/8px base, or Tailwind-like scale)?
• Alignment: Are elements aligned to the grid (no "almost aligned" items)?
• Density: Is information density appropriate for the content type (data-heavy vs. marketing)?
• Whitespace: Is whitespace used intentionally to group and separate?
• Consistency: Are similar sections spaced identically?

Spacing audit:

## Spacing Consistency Check
| Element Pair | Expected Gap | Actual Gap | Consistent? |
|-------------|-------------|------------|-------------|
| Section title to content | 24px | 24px | Yes |
| Card to card | 16px | 16px/24px | No — inconsistent |
| Form label to input | 8px | 4px/8px/12px | No — varies |

Expected: Layout uses a systematic grid and spacing scale consistently. On failure: If spacing is inconsistent, recommend adopting a spacing scale (e.g., Tailwind's space-*).

Step 5: Evaluate Responsive Design

Test across key breakpoints:

Breakpoint	Width	Represents
Mobile	375px	iPhone SE / small phones
Mobile L	428px	iPhone 14 / large phones
Tablet	768px	iPad portrait
Desktop	1280px	Standard laptop
Wide	1536px+	Desktop monitor

Check at each breakpoint:

• Layout adaptation: Does the layout reflow appropriately (stack on mobile, side-by-side on desktop)?
• Touch targets: Are interactive elements at least 44x44px on mobile?
• Text readability: Is font size appropriate for the viewport?
• Image scaling: Do images resize without distortion or overflow?
• Navigation: Is mobile navigation accessible (hamburger, bottom nav, etc.)?
• No horizontal scroll: Content doesn't overflow the viewport horizontally

## Responsive Review
| Breakpoint | Layout | Touch Targets | Text | Images | Navigation | Issues |
|-----------|--------|---------------|------|--------|------------|--------|
| 375px | OK | OK | OK | Overflow on hero | Hamburger | Hero image clips |
| 768px | OK | OK | OK | OK | Hamburger | None |
| 1280px | OK | N/A | OK | OK | Full nav | None |
| 1536px | OK | N/A | Line length too long | OK | Full nav | Add max-width to content |

Expected: Design tested at all key breakpoints with issues documented. On failure: If responsive testing tools are unavailable, review CSS media queries for coverage.

Step 6: Check Brand Consistency

• Logo usage: Logo rendered correctly (size, spacing, clear zone)
• Colour accuracy: Brand colours match spec (hex values, not "close enough")
• Typography match: Fonts match brand guidelines
• Tone/voice: UI copy matches brand personality
• Iconography: Icons are from a consistent set (style, weight, grid)
• Photography style: Images match brand guidelines (if applicable)

Expected: Brand elements verified against guidelines with specific deviations noted. On failure: If brand guidelines don't exist, note this as a recommendation and assess internal consistency instead.

Step 7: Write the Design Review

## Web Design Review

### Overall Impression
[2-3 sentences: overall quality, strongest and weakest aspects]

### Visual Hierarchy: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Typography: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Colour: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Layout & Spacing: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Responsive Design: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Brand Consistency: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Priority Improvements
1. [Most impactful change — specific and actionable]
2. [Second priority]
3. [Third priority]

### Positive Notes
1. [What works well and should be preserved]

Expected: Review provides specific, visual-reference feedback with prioritized improvements. On failure: If scoring feels arbitrary, use a simpler pass/concern/fail system instead.

Validation

• Visual hierarchy assessed for all major pages/sections
• Typography evaluated for readability, consistency, and scale
• Colour contrast verified against WCAG AA minimums
• Layout and spacing checked for grid consistency
• Responsive design tested at 3+ breakpoints
• Brand consistency verified against guidelines (or internal consistency assessed)
• Feedback is specific with visual references (page, section, element)

Common Pitfalls

• Subjective without reasoning: "I don't like the colour" is not actionable. Explain why (contrast, brand mismatch, accessibility).
• Ignoring accessibility: Visual design review must include WCAG contrast checks. Beautiful designs that exclude users are not good designs.
• Reviewing mockups only: Test responsive behaviour, hover states, and transitions — not just static layouts.
• Prescribing solutions: Describe the problem ("text is hard to read on this background") rather than dictating a specific fix ("use #333").
• Forgetting context: A banking app and a gaming site have different design standards. Review against the appropriate context.

Related Skills

• review-ux-ui — usability, interaction patterns, and accessibility (complementary to visual design)
• setup-tailwind-typescript — Tailwind CSS implementation for design systems
• scaffold-nextjs-app — Next.js application scaffolding