Heuristic Evaluation based on Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics

Copyright © Sebbe Isaac Kurian
Heuristic Evaluation
of edX Website’s Discussion Forum
(based on Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics)
Heuristic Evaluation to identify usability issues in the edX website’s
(www.edx.org) Discussion Forum – based on Jakob Nielsen's 10 Usability
Heuristics for User Interface Design.
Sebbe Isaac Kurian, January 2018.

Copyright © Sebbe Isaac Kurian - Page 2
Contents
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 4
Findings and Recommendations 6
Conclusion 26
Reference: Nielsen’s Usability Heuristics 28
Appendix: List of Usability Issues 30

Executive Summary
edX (www.edx.org) is a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) provider, serving
learners worldwide. Each course on edX has a Discussion Forum. This Heuristic
Evaluation was done to determine the usability of edX's Discussion Forum.
The Discussion Forum was evaluated against Nielsen's “10 Usability Heuristics for
User Interface Design”. 15 usability issues were identified, and each of their severity
assessed on a 1 to 4 scale.
The 10 most severe of these usability issues were examined in detail.
They are:
1. Absence of an in-place text editor for creating and editing Posts, Responses,
and Comments.
2. Error handling of the mandatory input fields when adding a new Post is not
optimal.
3. While entering text, cannot start a new line or paragraph by pressing the
“Enter” key.
4. Cannot cancel the process of adding a Response or Comment, once started.
5. Date/Time of editing is not shown in the Posts, Responses, or Comments.
6. When inserting an image in the Posts, Responses, or Comments, the error
handling is not optimal.
7. The process of setting a topic when adding a Post, is not optimal.
8. There is no optimum character limit set for the Title of a Post.
9. Error handling when submitting a new Response or Comment, is not optimal.
10. The More button in a published Comment may overlap with the Comment’s
content.
For each of these issues, suggestions to improve the usability are recommended.
Lastly, the results are summarized, and the limitations of this evaluation clarified.

Introduction
About edX
edX (www.edx.org) is a MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) provider, offering
high-quality courses from top universities and institutions, to learners all over the
world. Founded by Harvard University and MIT in 2012, edX is non-profit and open-
source. Open edX is the open-source platform that powers edX courses.
Each course on edX has a Discussion Forum associated with it. Being fully online,
this Discussion Forum is important for an interactive student experience. On the
Discussion Forum, the learners, course staff, and community teaching assistants
interact with each other. They can browse and contribute (ask/answer/share) to
course discussions.
Why Evaluate?
Efficient and effective learning are key goals of edX. As the core element facilitating
interaction in a course, the usability of the Discussion Forum is crucial for efficient
and effective learning.
Heuristic Evaluation is a cost effective and easy-to-use UX research method, that
can identify usability issues in a user interface. It is a usability inspection technique
which involves evaluating the user interface against a set of recognized usability
principles (also known as heuristics).

Evaluation Procedure
For this evaluation, the “10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design”, formulated
by Jakob Nielsen (Nielsen 1994a) was used. They are:
1. Visibility of System Status.
2. Match between System and the Real World.
3. User Control and Freedom.
4. Consistency and Standards.
5. Error Prevention.
6. Recognition rather than Recall.
7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use.
8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design.
9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors.
10. Help and Documentation.
An overview of these Heuristics is given in the Reference section of this document.
15 usability issues were identified. The evaluation determined usability issues in
terms of, which heuristic(s) from the above list is(are) being violated, and the severity
of violation. The severity was assessed according to the following scale:
1 = Cosmetic Problem. No real usability impact. (It is just annoying).
2 = Minor Usability Problem. Fix it, if there is time.
3 = Major Usability Problem. Important to fix.
4 = Usability Catastrophe. Must fix. (Prevents Users from completing the task).
These 15 issues were compiled into a prioritized list, ranked in decreasing order
of severity (Refer Appendix).
The top 10 usability issues in this list were examined in detail. These, along with
the suggestions for improvement for each, are given in the following section,
Findings and Recommendations.

Findings and Recommendations
Finding-1
Absence of an in-place text editor for creating and editing Posts, Responses, and
Comments.
Severity: 3.
Heuristics Violated: 4. Consistency and Standards.
Description:
This relates to the “Add a post/response/comment”, and “Editing
post/response/comment” interactions. For adding and editing “Posts”, “Responses”,
or “Comments” the Users enter/edit/format text in a Text Entry Box.
The resulting formatted text that will be published, is displayed in a separate
“Preview” box under it.
Figure 1.1: Action and Result happening in Different Places.

This violates Heuristic 4 - Consistency and Standards (Nielsen 1994a), according
to which, conforming to universally followed conventions increase the usability of an
interface – by taking advantage of the Users’ previous experience and existing
knowledge. The common practice in most text editors is, in-place editing and
formatting of text – where the action and result happens in the same place. Making
the User switch attention between the separate areas – do the action in one place,
then view the result in another place – increase the perceived complexity of the
interface. Many Users would find this back-and-forth switching confusing.
Suggestions for Improvement:
Provide an in-place text editing interface, like in Windows WordPad, Mac TextEdit,
MS-Word, etc.
Figure 1.2: In-Place text editing in Windows WordPad.

Finding-2
Error handling of the mandatory input fields when adding a new Post is not optimal.
Severity: 3.
Heuristics Violated: 1. Visibility of System Status.
Description:
This pertains to the “Add a Post” screen. The field labelled “Title”, and the text box
labelled “Your question or idea” are required to be filled by the User. The
“(Required)” note appended to the labels, is not highlighted enough visually to get
Users’ attention, and so could easily be overlooked. This violates Heuristic 1 -
Visibility of System Status (Nielsen 1994a), according to which, the interface
should support discoverability of the actions that Users are supposed to take, by
informing them appropriately.
Figure 2.1: Error Handling of required fields in the "Add a Post" screen.

Users can skip either one or both fields without getting any feedback, until they click
the “Submit” button. This again violates Heuristic 1 - Visibility of System Status,
which advocates appropriate and timely feedback to Users. This also violates
Heuristic 5 - Error Prevention (Nielsen 1994a), because the interface is not
designed in such a way, so as to “prevent the problem from occurring in the first
place” – here the required fields can be skipped without immediate warning.
When error does occur, the Error Notification is not sufficiently highlighted, and does
not effectively direct the Users’ attention to the place(s) where the error occurred.
Also, if the User skips the text box, the Error Message says – “Body can’t be empty”
– a language usage that some Users may not understand. This violates Heuristic 9 -
Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors (Nielsen 1994a),
according to which, “error messages should be expressed in plain language”, and
should help the Users by clearly indicating why, where, and how to solve it.
The required fields should be indicated more strikingly. There should be in-process
checking and feedback, to prevent errors before the “Submit” button is clicked. The
Error Notification should help the Users to solve the problem easily. An example of
this is the “Create an account” interaction in the www.facebook.com landing page.
Figure 2.2: The "Create an account" interaction of Facebook.

Finding-3
While entering text, cannot start a new line or paragraph by pressing the “Enter” key.
Severity: 3.
Heuristics Violated: 4. Consistency and Standards.
10. Help and Documentation.
Description:
In the text entry box used for adding and editing Posts, Responses, and Comments,
it is not possible for Users to start a new line or new paragraph, by pressing the
“Enter” key. Pressing the “Enter” key gives a blank space.
Figure 3.1: Pressing "Enter" key in the text box.
This behavior violates Heuristic 4 - Consistency and Standards (Nielsen 1994a),
because the common standard practice of pressing the “Enter” key for a new
line/paragraph is not followed.

On the other hand, pressing the “Enter” key twice in a row, starts a new paragraph.
And for starting a new line, the User must press the “Space” bar twice followed by
the “Enter” key. These are not standard behavior in text editors – again a violation of
Heuristic 4 - Consistency and Standards. Also, these key combinations are not
communicated to the Users – a violation of Heuristic 10 - Help and Documentation
(Nielsen 1994a), which advocates providing help focused on the User’s task.
It would be ideal to support the standard text-entry practice, of pressing the “Enter”
key once for a new line/paragraph. If for any specific reason, uncommon key
combinations are required for this, that information should be communicated to the
User via a help option. For example, like the help provided in the Notepad++ editor.
Figure 3.2: Help option in the Notepad++ editor.

Finding-4
Cannot cancel the process of adding a Response or Comment, once started.
Severity: 3.
Heuristics Violated: 3. User Control and Freedom.
Description:
When Users are viewing a “Post”, the can give a “Response” to it, as well as
“Comment” on any “Response” already given. If the Users click to add a Response
or Comment, and then decide not to save and publish it – they cannot cancel it.
There is only a “Submit” button for saving and publishing Responses and Comments
– No “Cancel” button is provided. This is a violation of Heuristic 3 - User Control
and Freedom (Nielsen 1994a), which advocates the need to provide a clearly
marked “Emergency Exit” to leave an unwanted state, and support Undo.
Figure 4.1: There is no "Cancel" button when adding a Response or Comment.
On the other hand, while adding a Post (in the “Add a Post” screen), there is a
“Cancel” button along with the “Submit” button. So, not providing a “Cancel” button
for Responses and Comments, also violates Heuristic 4 - Consistency and
Standards (Nielsen 1994a), because the interface is not consistent within the
system, and may confuse some Users.

Figure 4.2: There is a "Cancel" button when adding a Post.
Provide a “Cancel” button when adding Responses and Comments – like the one
given when adding a Post. This would give Users the freedom to exit the process if
so desired.

Finding-5
Date/Time of editing is not shown in the Posts, Responses, or Comments.
Severity: 3.
Description:
When Users submit a new Post, Response to a Post, or Comment to a Response,
the duration of time elapsed since submission is displayed with the
post/response/comment – in minutes, hours, days, months, etc.
Figure 5.1: Time elapsed since submission of a Post, Response, and Comment.

If Users edit their post/response/comment later on, this displayed time period is not
updated to show the time when editing was done. So, there is no way of knowing if
any Post, Response, or Comment is the original version, or an edited version.
This could compromise the integrity of the information displayed, when a Post having
Response(s), or a Response with Comment(s) is edited. Because, then the
Response(s) and Comment(s) will pertain to the respective original Post or
Response, and not to the edited content – and the Users who are viewing/reading it
will not know about this.
This violates Heuristic 1 - Visibility of System Status (Nielsen 1994a), according
to which, the Users should be informed about the current system state – which in this
case, is the time of editing of the post/response/comment.
Ideally, both the date and time of submission (not the duration of time elapsed since
submission), and the date and time of editing (if done), should be given in the Posts,
Responses, and Comments.

Finding-6
When inserting an image in the Posts, Responses, or Comments, the error handling
is not optimal.
Severity: 3.
2. Match between System and the Real World.
Description:
When adding or editing a Post, Response, or Comment, Users can insert images in
it. Clicking the button for inserting image in the tool bar of the text box (or pressing
Ctrl-G), pops-up an “Insert Image” dialog box. Users can upload an image from their
computer, or give the URL of an image.
Figure 6.1: Dialog box for inserting Image.

The two different use cases were evaluated – uploading an image, and giving the
URL of an image.
1. Trying to upload a big sized image file – gives a terse pop-up error message.
Figure 6.2: Error message pop-up on trying to upload a big image file.
This violates Heuristic 1 - Visibility of System Status (Nielsen 1994a), because
the interface does not inform the Users beforehand, about the maximum file size
limit. This violates Heuristic 5 - Error Prevention (Nielsen 1994a), because the
system does not try to prevent this problem from occurring, before initiating the
upload. This violates Heuristic 2 - Match between System and the Real World
(Nielsen 1994a), because the error message uses system-oriented terms, instead of
communicating the problem in User understandable language. This violates
Heuristic 9 - Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
(Nielsen 1994a), because the error message is not in plain language, and does not
suggest a constructive solution for the Users.
2. Entering an invalid URL of an image file that does not exist – gives no error.
This violates Heuristic 1 - Visibility of System Status, because the interface does
not inform the User about what is happening, through appropriate feedback. This
violates Heuristic 9 - Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from
Errors, because the interface does not give any error – so, the Users cannot
recognize, or diagnose, or recover from this error.

Inform the Users beforehand, about the file size limit for uploads. Check the file size
on file selection, and notify the User in case of exceeding the size limit, before
initiating the upload process.
If the User enters an image URL, check its availability, and inform the User about
any problems.
In both the above cases, give enough information in plain language, so that Users
can understand what is happening, and know what to do. Figure 6.3, shows an
example of a good error message “expressed in plain language”, that “precisely
indicate the problem”, and “constructively suggest a solution”.
Figure 6.3: An example of a good error message.

Finding-7
The process of setting a topic when adding a Post, is not optimal.
Severity: 2.
Description:
In the “Add a Post” screen, the “Topic area” field of the Post is set as “General” by
default. As the input field is shown as already filled-up, the User may not pay
attention to it and overlook it – causing the Post to be submitted under the “General”
topic area by default. This may not be what the User intended.
Figure 7.1: Topic area of a Post set as "General" by default.

This violates Heuristic 1 - Visibility of System Status (Nielsen 1994a), because it
conveys potentially misleading information about the system to the User – seeing an
input field as already filled, the User who is scanning the interface may assume that
there is nothing more to do, and skip it. This also violates Heuristic 5 - Error
Prevention (Nielsen 1994a), because instead of preventing a problem from
occurring in the first place, this could cause an error to happen.
Use a dummy placeholder like “Select a Topic”, to indicate the drop-down list of
available Topic areas. This will prevent the Post from being submitted under an
unintended Topic area.
Also, follow the Suggestions for Improvement given for Finding-2, on how to
effectively present the required input fields. This will prevent the Users from skipping
the “Topic area” field.

Finding-8
There is no optimum character limit set for the Title of a Post.
Severity: 2.
Heuristics Violated: 5. Error Prevention.
Description:
When adding or editing a Post, the User can enter a whole page of characters in the
“Title” field of a Post. If the Post is then submitted/updated, this full title is displayed
in the Post’s thumbnail view on the left panel. This causes all previous Post
thumbnails to scroll out of view.
Figure 8.1: Abnormally long Title in the Post's thumbnail view.
This violates Heuristic 5 - Error Prevention (Nielsen 1994a), because the interface
does not prevent this problem from occurring in the first place.
Set an optimum character limit for the Title, inform the Users about this limit, and
prevent them from exceeding it.
Long Title

Finding-9
Error handling when submitting a new Response or Comment, is not optimal.
Severity: 2.
Description:
If the Users submit a new Response or Comment, without any content in the text
box, nothing happens – No feedback, No error.
Figure 9.1: Adding a new Response or Comment without content.

the interface does not give any feedback to the Users, informing them about what is
happening. This violates Heuristic 5 - Error Prevention (Nielsen 1994a), because
the interface does nothing to prevent this problem from occurring. This violates
Heuristic 9 - Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
(Nielsen 1994a), because the interface does not give an error message – so, the
Users cannot recognize, or diagnose, or recover from this error.
Follow the Suggestions for Improvement given for Finding-2, on how to effectively
present the required input fields. This would clearly indicate to the Users that the text
box should not be blank.
Also, follow the Suggestions for Improvement given for Finding-4, by providing a
“Cancel” button. This would give Users the freedom to exit the process if so desired.

Finding-10
The More button in a published Comment may overlap with the Comment’s content.
Severity: 2.
Description:
When viewing a published Post with Response(s) and their Comment(s), the
collapsed “More” button in a Comment may overlap with the Comment’s content. If
this happens, the Users may not notice this button at all. The content does not
overlap the button in Posts or Responses – this happens only in Comments.
Figure 10.1: Collapsed More buttons in Post, Response, and Comment.

the interface does not clearly inform the Users about available actions, when the
button and content overlap.
This also violates Heuristic 4 - Consistency and Standards (Nielsen 1994a),
because this is an instance of inconsistency within the system. This possibility of
overlapping is not there in Posts or Responses, as illustrated in Figure 10.1. This
could happen only in Comments.
Keep the content of the Comment clear from its collapsed “More” button – like it is
being done in Posts and Responses (as shown in Figure 10.1).

Conclusion
The Heuristic Evaluation uncovered quite a few usability issues in the edX website's
Discussion Forum.
The most severe of them are:
1. Absence of an in-place text editor for creating and editing Posts, Responses,
and Comments.
2. Error handling of the mandatory input fields when adding a new Post is not
optimal.
3. While entering text, cannot start a new line or paragraph by pressing the
“Enter” key.
4. Cannot cancel the process of adding a Response or Comment, once started.
5. Date/Time of editing is not shown in the Posts, Responses, or Comments.
6. When inserting an image in the Posts, Responses, or Comments, the error
handling is not optimal.
7. The process of setting a topic when adding a Post, is not optimal.
8. There is no optimum character limit set for the Title of a Post.
9. Error handling when submitting a new Response or Comment, is not optimal.
10. The More button in a published Comment may overlap with the Comment’s
content.
Suggestions for improvement have been recommended to address these interface
problems.
By implementing these suggestions, the usability of the Discussion Forum would
improve. This should significantly enhance the learning experience of students, and
in turn help edX meet the key goals of efficient and effective learning.

Limitations
This Heuristic Evaluation was done by a single evaluator.
According to Jakob Nielsen, single evaluators find on an average only 35 percent of
the usability problems in interfaces.
(Refer: “How to Conduct a Heuristic Evaluation” by Jakob Nielsen, January 1, 1995.
URL: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-conduct-a-heuristic-evaluation).
He points out that, since different evaluators tend to find different problems, better
results are achieved by combining the evaluations from several evaluators.
Considering the ratio of the benefits to the costs, he recommends 3 to 5 evaluators
for the best, cost effective results.

Reference
10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design
Nielsen, J. (1994a). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Proc.
ACM CHI'94 Conf. (Boston, MA, April 24-28), 152-158.
Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
Copyright © 2005 by Jakob Nielsen. ISSN 1548-5552
Jakob Nielsen's 10 general principles for interaction design are called "heuristics"
because they are broad rules of thumb and not specific usability guidelines.
1. Visibility of System Status
The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through
appropriate feedback within reasonable time.
2. Match between System and the Real World
The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases, and
concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-
world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order.
3. User Control and Freedom
Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked
"emergency exit" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an
extended dialogue. Support undo and redo.
4. Consistency and Standards
Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions
mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.

5. Error Prevention
Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a
problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions
or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they
commit to the action.
6. Recognition rather than Recall
Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options
visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the
dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or
easily retrievable whenever appropriate.
7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
Accelerators — unseen by the novice user — may often speed up the
interaction for the expert user such that the system can cater to both
inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions.
8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed.
Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of
information and diminishes their relative visibility.
9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
Error messages should be expressed in plain language (no codes), precisely
indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
10. Help and Documentation
Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may
be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should
be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried
out, and not be too large.

Appendix: List of Usability Issues
Table 1: List of Usability Issues found in the edX website’s Discussion Board.
Issue
#
Description
System
Location
Heuristics
Violated
Severity
1. For adding and editing “Posts”, “Responses”,
or “Comments” the Users enter/edit/format
text in a Text Entry Box. The resulting
formatted text that will be published, is
displayed in a separate “Preview” box under
it. This could be confusing for many Users, as
the common practice in most text editors is
that, the result of editing and formatting is
visible where it is done.
“Add a post/
response/
comment”,
and “Editing
post/
response/
comment”
interactions.
4. Consistency
and Standards.
3
2. Error handling of the input field labelled
“Title”, and the Text Entry Box labelled “Your
question or idea” is not optimal. Both are
“required” fields that cannot be left blank.
The “(Required)” note appended to the labels
is not highlighted enough to get Users’
attention, and so could easily be overlooked.
Users can skip either one or both of these
fields without getting any feedback, until they
click the “Submit” button. Also, the error
messages are not sufficiently highlighted, and
does not effectively direct the Users’ attention
to the place(s) where the error occurred.
“Add a Post”
screen.
1. Visibility of
System Status.
5. Error
Prevention.
9. Help Users
Recognize,
Diagnose, and
Recover from
Errors.
3

Issue
#
Description
System
Location
Heuristics
Violated
Severity
3. In the Text Entry Box, it is not possible for
Users to start a new line, or new paragraph,
using the common practice of pressing the
“Enter” key. Pressing the “Enter” key once,
gives a blank space.
Pressing the “Enter” key twice in a row starts
a new paragraph. This is not common
practice in text entry. Also, this feature is not
communicated to the User.
“Add a post/
response/
comment”,
and “Editing
post/
response/
comment”
interactions.
4. Consistency
and Standards.
10. Help and
Documentation.
3
4. There is a “Submit” button for saving and
publishing “Responses” and “Comments”, but
there is no “Cancel” button. So, if Users click
to add a “Response” or “Comment”, and then
decide not to proceed, they are stuck. They
cannot undo. Meanwhile, for “Posts”, both
“Submit” and “Cancel” buttons are provided.
“Add a
response” and
“Add a
comment”
interactions.
3. User Control
and Freedom.
4. Consistency
and Standards.
3
5. If Users edit their “Posts”, “Responses”, or
“Comments”, the date/time of editing is not
shown in the post/ response/ comment. Only
the period of time elapsed since the creation
of the post/ response/ comment is shown.
So, there is no way of knowing if any post,
response, or comment is the original version,
or an edited version.
“Editing post/
response/
comment”
interactions.
1. Visibility of
System Status.
3

Issue
#
Description
System
Location
Heuristics
Violated
Severity
6. The “Insert Image” dialog box’s interface and
error messages use system-oriented
language that may confuse most of the
Users.
Also, if the User gives the URL of an image
file that does not exist, or an invalid URL,
there is no error or any other feedback.
“Insert Image”
pop-up Dialog
box.
1. Visibility of
System Status.
2. Match
between
System and the
Real World.
9. Help Users
Recognize,
Diagnose, and
Recover from
Errors.
3
7. While adding a “Post”, the “Topic area” field is
set as “General” by default. As the input field
is shown as already filled-up, the Users may
overlook it and skip it – causing the “Post” to
be submitted under the “General” topic area
by default.
“Add a Post”
screen.
1. Visibility of
System Status.
5. Error
Prevention.
2
8. The User can enter a whole page of text in
the “Title” field of a “Post”. If the “Post” is then
submitted, this entire title is displayed in the
post’s thumbnail view on the left panel. This
causes the thumbnails of previous posts to
scroll out of view.
“Add a Post”
and “Editing
post” screens.
5. Error
Prevention.
2

Issue
#
Description
System
Location
Heuristics
Violated
Severity
9. If the User clicks the “Submit” button for a
“Response” or “Comment”, without entering
any text in the corresponding Text Entry Box,
nothing happens. There is no error, or any
other feedback.
“Add a
response” and
“Add a
comment”
interactions.
1. Visibility of
System Status.
5. Error
Prevention.
9. Help Users
Recognize,
Diagnose, and
Recover from
Errors.
2
10. The collapsed “More” button in a published
“Comment” could overlap with the comment’s
content.
So, Users may not notice the button, if
overlapping happens.
This overlap issue in not there for “Posts” or
“Responses”.
Viewing a
“Post” with
“Response(s)”
and
“Comment(s)”.
1. Visibility of
System Status.
4. Consistency
and Standards.
2
11. Users can “Vote” for other User’s “Posts” and
“Responses”. The “Vote” button is displayed
while viewing their own “Posts” and
“Comments”, but does not work. This may
confuse some Users.
Viewing a
“Post” with
“Response(s)”.
1. Visibility of
System Status.
2

Issue
#
Description
System
Location
Heuristics
Violated
Severity
12. The clickable buttons used in the adding and
editing of “Posts”, “Responses”, and
“Comments” are not consistently styled.
For example, the “Submit” button for adding a
“Response” is white with blue text, which
becomes blue with white text on mouse
hover.
Meanwhile, the “Submit” buttons for adding a
“Post”, and for adding a “Comment” is blue
with white text, which becomes darker blue
with white text on mouse hover.
This inconsistent styling may confuse some
Users.
“Add a post/
response/
comment”,
and “Editing
post/
response/
comment”
interactions.
4. Consistency
and Standards.
2
13. The icon for inserting a hyperlink, shown in
the formatting toolbar of the Text Entry Box –
a globe with an arrow – is not a commonly
used representation. The “linked-chain” icon
is more universally used for this, which also
invokes the “link” metaphor. So, some Users
may not interpret the globe icon correctly.
“Add a post/
response/
comment”,
and “Editing
post/
response/
comment”
interactions.
2. Match
between
System and the
Real World.
4. Consistency
and Standards.
2

Issue
#
Description
System
Location
Heuristics
Violated
Severity
14. In the thumbnail view of the “Posts” on the left
panel, the title and the beginning of the first
line of each post is shown. This first line of
the post is displayed in the raw format with all
the formatting characters. This may make it
difficult for the Users to quickly scan it, if lots
of formatting has been applied in the
beginning.
The “Post”
thumbnails
view on the
left panel.
2. Match
between
System and the
Real World.
1
15. When adding a “Post”, there is a line – “This
post will be visible to everyone” – shown
between the input fields “Topic area” and
“Title”. The relevance and context of this
information at this particular position on the
screen is not clear. This may not make sense
to some Users.
“Add a Post”
screen.
8. Aesthetic
and Minimalist
Design.
1

Heuristic Evaluation based on Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Heuristic Evaluation based on Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Heuristic Evaluation based on Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics