ux-audit-framework

UX Audit Framework

This skill provides a structured methodology for evaluating user interfaces against established usability heuristics, accessibility standards, and UX best practices. It equips the practitioner with severity rating scales, a multi-dimensional scoring rubric, prioritization frameworks, and a complete report template to deliver actionable, evidence-based audit findings.

Audit Methodology Overview

A UX audit is a systematic evaluation of a digital product's user experience. Unlike usability testing (which observes real users), a heuristic audit is conducted by an evaluator who measures the interface against codified principles — primarily Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics, WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidelines, and domain-specific best practices for the product category (SaaS dashboard, landing page, admin portal, etc.).

The output of a UX audit is a prioritized list of findings, each rated by severity, accompanied by specific recommendations and an overall UX health score. This skill covers the full lifecycle: scoping the audit, conducting the analysis, scoring findings, generating the report, and prioritizing fixes.

Severity Scale Quick Reference (Nielsen 0-4)

Use this scale to classify every issue discovered during the audit:

Rating	Label	Description	Required Action
0	Not a problem	Heuristic violation detected but no real user impact	Document only
1	Cosmetic	Minor visual inconsistency; does not affect task completion	Fix if time allows
2	Minor	Users are slowed down but can still complete tasks	Schedule for next sprint
3	Major	Users frequently fail or get stuck; significant frustration	Fix before next release
4	Catastrophic	Users cannot complete critical tasks; data loss risk; security issue	Fix immediately

Three factors determine severity:

1. Frequency — How often does the problem occur? (Every time, occasionally, rarely)
2. Impact — How difficult is it for users to overcome? (Impossible, difficult, easy)
3. Persistence — Is it a one-time problem or does it recur every time the user encounters the situation?

Refer to references/severity-scoring.md for the full severity and prioritization framework, including the Severity x Frequency matrix, RICE scoring, Impact-Effort matrix, and MoSCoW method.

10-Dimension UX Scoring Rubric (/100)

Score each dimension from 1 (Poor) to 10 (Excellent). The sum produces a Global UX Score out of 100.

#	Dimension	1-3 (Poor)	4-6 (Adequate)	7-10 (Excellent)
1	Navigation	Users cannot find core features	Users find features with some searching	Users find everything instantly
2	Clarity	Users do not understand what to do	Users figure it out with effort	Intent is immediately clear
3	Feedback	No response to user actions	Basic loading/success states	Rich, contextual feedback for every action
4	Error Handling	Errors cause data loss or dead ends	Errors caught with generic messages	Errors prevented; specific recovery guidance
5	Consistency	Every page feels like a different app	Most patterns are consistent	Complete pattern consistency
6	Accessibility	Keyboard unusable, no alt text	Partial WCAG compliance	Full WCAG 2.2 AA compliance
7	Performance	LCP > 5s, significant CLS	LCP 2.5-4s, some layout shift	LCP < 2.5s, CLS < 0.1, FID < 100ms
8	Mobile	Broken on mobile	Functional but awkward on mobile	Native-quality mobile experience
9	Visual Design	Cluttered, no hierarchy	Clean with some hierarchy issues	Clear hierarchy, purposeful whitespace, polished
10	Content	Jargon-heavy, unclear	Mostly clear, some jargon	Scannable, user-centered, helpful

Interpreting the score:

• Below 60/100 — Critical attention needed. The product has fundamental usability problems that likely cause user drop-off, support tickets, and low satisfaction.
• 60-80/100 — Solid foundation with room for improvement. Core flows work but friction points exist that reduce efficiency and satisfaction.
• Above 80/100 — Strong UX. The product demonstrates mature design thinking. Focus shifts to polish, edge cases, and competitive differentiation.

Audit Process Steps

Follow these five phases to conduct a thorough, repeatable UX audit.

Phase 1: Scope

Define the boundaries of the audit before beginning any evaluation.

• Identify the product type (SaaS dashboard, landing page, admin portal, marketing site, mobile app).
• Determine which user flows to evaluate. Prioritize critical paths: sign-up, onboarding, core value action, settings, and error/edge cases.
• Establish the device and browser matrix. At minimum, test the latest Chrome on desktop and Safari on iOS.
• Confirm which heuristics and standards apply: Nielsen's 10 heuristics, WCAG 2.2 Level AA, and any domain-specific checklists.
• Agree on deliverables: report format, scoring method, and timeline.

Phase 2: Analyze

Walk through each user flow methodically, screen by screen.

• Evaluate every screen against the audit checklist in references/audit-checklist.md. This checklist covers 10 categories: Navigation, Visual Design, Content/Messaging, Forms/Input, Performance, Accessibility, Mobile/Responsive, Error Handling, Loading/Feedback, and Conversion.
• For each issue found, document: the screen or component where it occurs, which heuristic or guideline it violates, a description of the problem, and a screenshot or reference.
• Apply Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics to each flow. Score each heuristic 1-5 and note specific violations.
• Check Core Web Vitals (LCP, FID/INP, CLS) using Lighthouse, PageSpeed Insights, or Chrome DevTools.
• Test keyboard navigation end-to-end. Verify focus order, visible focus indicators, and the absence of keyboard traps.
• Test with a screen reader (VoiceOver on macOS, NVDA on Windows) for critical flows.

Phase 3: Score

Apply structured scoring to every finding.

• Assign a severity rating (0-4) to each issue using the three-factor model (frequency, impact, persistence).
• Score each of the 10 dimensions on the 1-10 rubric to produce the Global UX Score (/100).
• Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics individually (1-5) for a heuristic compliance profile.
• Categorize findings by severity tier: Critical (severity 4), Major (severity 3), Minor (severity 1-2), Cosmetic (severity 0-1).
• Use the Severity x Frequency matrix to assign priority codes (P0 through P4).

Phase 4: Report

Assemble findings into a structured, actionable report.

• Use the report template in references/report-template.md as the starting structure.
• Write an executive summary with the overall score, count of critical issues, and the top three findings.
• Present the 10-dimension score table with color-coded severity indicators.
• List all issues grouped by severity tier (Critical first, then Major, then Minor). For each issue, include: title, description, location, heuristic violated, severity rating, and specific recommendation.
• Include the Nielsen Heuristics evaluation table with per-heuristic scores and comments.
• Build the prioritized recommendations table using impact, effort, and priority columns.

Phase 5: Prioritize

Translate findings into an actionable plan.

• Apply the Impact-Effort matrix to sort recommendations into four quadrants: Quick Wins (high impact, low effort — do first), Major Projects (high impact, high effort — plan carefully), Fill-ins (low impact, low effort — do if spare time), and Avoid (low impact, high effort — deprioritize).
• For complex prioritization, use RICE scoring: Score = (Reach x Impact x Confidence) / Effort.
• Apply MoSCoW categorization: Must have (critical failures, accessibility violations, broken flows), Should have (significant improvements with clear ROI), Could have (polish enhancements), Won't have (deferred to future iterations).
• Create a three-tier action plan: Immediate (fix within 1 week — P0 and quick wins), Short-term (fix within 1 month — P1 and P2 items), Medium-term (fix within 1 quarter — P3 items and major projects).

Reference Materials

This skill includes three reference documents for detailed application:

• references/audit-checklist.md — Comprehensive checklist organized into 10 categories (Navigation, Visual Design, Content/Messaging, Forms/Input, Performance, Accessibility, Mobile/Responsive, Error Handling, Loading/Feedback, Conversion). Use this as the primary evaluation instrument during Phase 2.

• references/severity-scoring.md — Complete scoring systems including Nielsen's severity scale, the three-factor severity model, the Severity x Frequency prioritization matrix, RICE formula, Impact-Effort 2x2 matrix, MoSCoW method, and the full 10-dimension scoring rubric with detailed descriptions for scores of 1, 3, and 5.

• references/report-template.md — Ready-to-fill audit report template with sections for Executive Summary, Methodology, Scores by Category, Issues by Severity, Nielsen Heuristics Evaluation, Prioritized Recommendations, and Action Plan.

Common UX Anti-Patterns to Watch For

During the audit, watch for these frequently encountered anti-patterns:

• Navigation: Icon-only navigation without labels, mega-menus that close unexpectedly, breadcrumbs that do not reflect the actual hierarchy, inconsistent back button behavior.
• Forms: Placeholder text used as labels (disappears on input), form resets on validation error, validation only on submit rather than inline, ambiguous required-field marking.
• Content: Walls of text without headings, "click here" link text, content that shifts as the page loads (CLS), auto-playing media with sound.
• Interaction: Confirm/deny dialogs with unclear labels ("OK"/"Cancel" for destructive actions), disabled back button, pagination that resets position, hover-only interactions with no mobile equivalent, toast notifications that disappear in under 4 seconds.
• Dark Patterns: Confirmshaming, hidden costs at checkout, forced continuity after trial, roach motel (easy sign-up, hard cancellation), fake urgency timers, misdirection, trick questions with double negatives, privacy zuckering.

Flag any dark pattern as a severity 4 (Catastrophic) finding. Dark patterns erode trust and may violate regulations (FTC guidelines, EU Digital Services Act).

When to Recommend a Full Usability Test

A heuristic audit identifies likely problems based on principles. Recommend supplementing with usability testing when:

• The product serves a specialized domain where expert evaluation may miss domain-specific user mental models.
• Findings are ambiguous — a pattern could be problematic or acceptable depending on user expectations.
• Stakeholders need quantitative evidence (task completion rates, time-on-task, System Usability Scale scores) to justify investment.
• The product is pre-launch and no user data exists yet.

A combined approach — heuristic audit for breadth, usability testing for depth — produces the most reliable results.