ux-heuristic
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChineseHeuristic Evaluation (Nielsen's 10 Principles)
启发式评估（Nielsen's 10 Principles）
Overview
概述
Heuristic evaluation is an expert review method that assesses a user interface against established usability principles. It's fast (2-4 hours), cheap (no user recruitment), and finds 40-60% of usability issues. Use it as a complement to, not replacement for, user testing.
启发式评估是一种专家评审方法，依据既定的可用性原则对用户界面进行评估。该方法耗时短（2-4小时）、成本低（无需招募用户），能发现40%-60%的可用性问题。可将其作为用户测试的补充，而非替代方案。
Framework
框架
IRON LAW: Every Violation Gets a Severity Rating
Finding a violation is half the work. Rating its severity is the other half.
A cosmetic inconsistency and a critical workflow blocker are both "violations"
but require completely different response urgency.
0 = Not a usability problem
1 = Cosmetic only — fix if time permits
2 = Minor — low priority
3 = Major — important to fix, high priority
4 = Catastrophe — must fix before releaseIRON LAW: Every Violation Gets a Severity Rating
Finding a violation is half the work. Rating its severity is the other half.
A cosmetic inconsistency and a critical workflow blocker are both "violations"
but require completely different response urgency.
0 = Not a usability problem
1 = Cosmetic only — fix if time permits
2 = Minor — low priority
3 = Major — important to fix, high priority
4 = Catastrophe — must fix before releaseNielsen's 10 Heuristics
尼尔森10条启发式原则
| # | Heuristic | Question to Ask |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Visibility of system status | Does the user always know what's happening? (loading indicators, progress bars, confirmations) |
| 2 | Match between system and real world | Does it use the user's language, not system jargon? Are conventions familiar? |
| 3 | User control and freedom | Can users undo, redo, go back, cancel? Is there an emergency exit? |
| 4 | Consistency and standards | Are the same actions/words used consistently? Does it follow platform conventions? |
| 5 | Error prevention | Does the design prevent errors before they happen? (confirmations, constraints, defaults) |
| 6 | Recognition rather than recall | Are options visible? Can users recognize rather than remember? |
| 7 | Flexibility and efficiency of use | Are there shortcuts for experts? Can users customize frequent actions? |
| 8 | Aesthetic and minimalist design | Is every element necessary? Does extra information compete with relevant info? |
| 9 | Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors | Are error messages helpful? Do they explain what went wrong and how to fix it? |
| 10 | Help and documentation | Is help available? Is it searchable, task-oriented, and concise? |
| 序号 | 启发式原则 | 需询问的问题 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 系统状态可见性 | 用户是否始终了解当前状态？（加载指示器、进度条、确认提示） |
| 2 | 系统与真实世界的匹配性 | 是否使用用户的语言而非系统术语？是否遵循用户熟悉的惯例？ |
| 3 | 用户控制与自由度 | 用户能否撤销、重做、返回或取消操作？是否有紧急退出途径？ |
| 4 | 一致性与标准性 | 相同的操作/表述是否保持一致？是否遵循平台惯例？ |
| 5 | 错误预防 | 设计能否在错误发生前进行预防？（确认提示、约束限制、默认设置） |
| 6 | 识别而非回忆 | 选项是否可见？用户能否通过识别而非回忆来操作？ |
| 7 | 使用灵活性与效率 | 是否为专家用户提供快捷方式？用户能否自定义常用操作？ |
| 8 | 美观与极简设计 | 每个元素是否必要？额外信息是否会干扰关键信息的呈现？ |
| 9 | 帮助用户识别、诊断并从错误中恢复 | 错误提示是否有用？是否说明问题所在及修复方法？ |
| 10 | 帮助与文档 | 是否提供帮助？帮助内容是否可搜索、面向任务且简洁？ |
Evaluation Process
评估流程
- Define scope: Which screens/flows to evaluate
- Walk through the interface 2-3 times with different user tasks
- Flag violations: Note each violation with heuristic #, location, description
- Rate severity: 0-4 scale for each violation
- Prioritize: Fix severity 4 and 3 first
- Report: Organize findings by severity, not by heuristic number
- 定义范围：确定要评估的界面/流程
- 走查界面：结合不同用户任务对界面进行2-3次走查
- 标记违规项：记录每个违规项的启发式原则编号、位置和描述
- 评级严重程度：为每个违规项评定0-4级的严重程度
- 确定优先级：优先修复严重程度为4和3的问题
- 撰写报告：按严重程度而非启发式原则编号整理发现的问题
Output Format
输出格式
markdown
undefinedmarkdown
undefinedHeuristic Evaluation: {Product/Feature}
Heuristic Evaluation: {Product/Feature}
Summary
Summary
- Total violations found: {N}
- Severity 4 (catastrophe): {N}
- Severity 3 (major): {N}
- Severity 2 (minor): {N}
- Severity 1 (cosmetic): {N}
- Total violations found: {N}
- Severity 4 (catastrophe): {N}
- Severity 3 (major): {N}
- Severity 2 (minor): {N}
- Severity 1 (cosmetic): {N}
Critical Issues (Severity 3-4)
Critical Issues (Severity 3-4)
| # | Location | Heuristic | Issue | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | {screen/element} | {#N: name} | {description} | 3/4 | {fix} |
| # | Location | Heuristic | Issue | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | {screen/element} | {#N: name} | {description} | 3/4 | {fix} |
Other Issues (Severity 1-2)
Other Issues (Severity 1-2)
| # | Location | Heuristic | Issue | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
undefined| # | Location | Heuristic | Issue | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
undefinedExamples
示例
Correct Application
正确应用场景
Scenario: Evaluating a food delivery app checkout flow
| Location | Heuristic | Issue | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cart page | #1 Visibility | No loading indicator when adding items — user taps multiple times | 3 |
| Payment | #5 Error prevention | No confirmation before placing order — accidental orders happen | 4 |
| Error screen | #9 Error recovery | "Error 500" with no explanation or retry button | 4 |
| Address form | #6 Recognition | User must type full address instead of selecting from saved addresses | 2 |
Priority: Fix #5 and #9 immediately (severity 4) ✓
场景： 评估外卖应用的结账流程
| 位置 | 启发式原则 | 问题 | 严重程度 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 购物车页面 | #1 系统状态可见性 | 添加商品时无加载指示器，导致用户重复点击 | 3 |
| 支付环节 | #5 错误预防 | 下单前无确认提示，易产生误下单 | 4 |
| 错误页面 | #9 错误恢复 | 仅显示“Error 500”，无说明或重试按钮 | 4 |
| 地址表单 | #6 识别而非回忆 | 用户必须手动输入完整地址，无法选择已保存地址 | 2 |
优先级：立即修复#5和#9（严重程度4）✓
Incorrect Application
错误应用示例
- "The app looks ugly" → Not a heuristic violation. "Aesthetic and minimalist design" (#8) is about information hierarchy, not visual attractiveness. A specific violation would be: "Product page shows 15 data fields simultaneously, burying the price and 'Add to Cart' button."
- “这款应用看起来很丑” → 不属于启发式原则违规。“美观与极简设计”（#8）关注的是信息层级，而非视觉吸引力。具体的违规表述应为：“商品页面同时显示15个数据字段，掩盖了价格和‘加入购物车’按钮。”
Gotchas
注意事项
- 3-5 evaluators find 75% of issues: One evaluator finds ~35%. Diminishing returns after 5. If possible, have multiple evaluators work independently then merge findings.
- Heuristic evaluation finds problems, not solutions: It tells you what's wrong, not how to fix it. Solution design is a separate step.
- Not a substitute for user testing: Experts predict user behavior imperfectly. Some "violations" that experts flag don't bother real users, and some real problems experts miss.
- Mobile vs desktop: Apply heuristics separately for each platform. Touch targets, screen real estate, and interaction patterns differ significantly.
- Accessibility is not a heuristic: Nielsen's 10 don't explicitly cover accessibility (color contrast, screen reader support, keyboard navigation). Add WCAG checks separately.
- 3-5名评估者可发现75%的问题：单名评估者约能发现35%的问题。超过5名评估者后收益递减。若条件允许，可安排多名评估者独立工作，再合并评估结果。
- 启发式评估仅发现问题，不提供解决方案：它能指出问题所在，但不涉及修复方案的设计，方案设计是独立的环节。
- 不能替代用户测试：专家对用户行为的预测存在局限性。专家标记的部分“违规项”可能不会对真实用户造成困扰，而部分真实存在的问题也可能被专家遗漏。
- 移动端与桌面端需区分评估：需针对不同平台分别应用启发式原则。触控目标、屏幕空间和交互模式存在显著差异。
- 无障碍访问性不属于启发式原则范畴：尼尔森10条原则未明确涵盖无障碍访问性（色彩对比度、屏幕阅读器支持、键盘导航）。需单独添加WCAG检查。
References
参考资料
- For WCAG accessibility checklist, see
references/wcag-checklist.md
- 如需WCAG无障碍访问性检查清单，请查看
references/wcag-checklist.md