Iteration and Refinement

Overview

In this assignment, you will improve your interactive prototype by applying structured UX evaluation methods and using your findings to make evidence-based revisions in Figma. The goal is to show that your design decisions are grounded in observed usability issues, task breakdowns, and user reasoning rather than personal preference alone.

You are required to complete a Heuristic Evaluation, a Cognitive Walkthrough, and at least one additional evaluation method.

Based on your findings, you will revise your prototype and document at least 3 major UX improvements using before/after comparisons, hypotheses, and written rationale.

Your submission should demonstrate not only what you changed, but why those changes improved the experience.

Learning Goals

By completing this assignment, you will:

• apply multiple UX evaluation methods to a prototype

• identify meaningful usability and interaction issues

• translate findings into high-impact design improvements

• justify revisions using evidence and UX reasoning

• document iteration in a clear, portfolio-ready format

Assignment Requirements

You must complete all of the following:

• 1 Heuristic Evaluation

• 1 Cognitive Walkthrough

• At least 1 additional evaluation method from the approved list below

• At least 3 major UX improvements implemented in your Figma prototype

• A written report that documents findings, hypotheses, revisions, and reflection

You may complete additional optional methods if you want stronger evidence and deeper iteration.

Who Performs the Evaluation?

The two required methods are designer-led evaluation methods, which means you complete them yourself:

• Heuristic Evaluation = you inspect your prototype using usability principles

• Cognitive Walkthrough = you step through a key task as if you were a first-time user and analyze where breakdowns may occur

Your 5 participants are used for the participant-based method(s) you choose, such as:

• Think-Aloud Lite

• First-Click Test

• 5-Second Test

• A/B Preference Test

Participants are not expected to perform a formal Heuristic Evaluation or conduct a formal Cognitive Walkthrough.

Participant Expectations

Recruit 5 participants total for this assignment.

You do not need to run every method with every participant. Instead, distribute participants strategically across your selected participant-based method(s) in ways that make sense for the type of feedback you are collecting.

Your work should show enough input and observation to support meaningful design decisions.

What Counts as a Major UX Improvement?

A major improvement is a design revision that meaningfully improves usability, comprehension, task flow, clarity, confidence, or decision-making.

Strong examples

• reorganizing navigation or information hierarchy

• redesigning a confusing component or interaction pattern

• improving the logic or clarity of a multi-step task flow

• revising labels, calls to action, or system feedback to reduce confusion

• fixing a recurring breakdown found across multiple evaluation methods

Weak examples on their own

• changing a color only

• adjusting spacing only

• making minor visual polish changes without usability impact

Minor cosmetic changes may support a stronger redesign, but they do not count as a major improvement by themselves.

Required Evaluation Methods

1. Heuristic Evaluation

Use recognized usability principles to identify issues related to clarity, consistency, feedback, error prevention, and user control.

Include:

• 3–5 meaningful usability issues

• screenshots of the relevant screens

• the heuristic being violated

• a brief explanation of why it matters

• a proposed design fix

2. Cognitive Walkthrough

Evaluate one or more key tasks from the perspective of a first-time user.

Include:

• the task being evaluated

• the user goal at each step

• where users may hesitate, misinterpret, or fail

• where feedback, labels, affordances, or action logic break down

Choose at Least 1 Additional Evaluation Method

Think-Aloud

Ask users to verbalize what they think is happening as they interact with the prototype.

Useful for: confusion points, hesitations, mental models

First-Click Test

Observe where users click first when trying to complete a task.

Useful for: navigation clarity, labeling, hierarchy, action discoverability

5-Second Test

Show a screen briefly, then ask what the participant remembers or thinks the page is for.

Useful for: purpose clarity, information hierarchy, trust, first impressions

A/B Preference Test

Present two design options and ask participants to choose one and explain why.

Useful for: perceived clarity, trust, preference, visual communication

Hypotheses

Write one UX hypothesis for each evaluation method you perform, including the two required methods. These are UX hypotheses, not statistical hypotheses. Qualitative reasoning and observed patterns are appropriate.

Use this format

If [design condition changes], then [user behavior or understanding will improve], because [UX rationale].

Example

If the primary action button becomes more visually prominent, then users will identify the next step more quickly because the interface will better signal action hierarchy and task priority.

When to Write Your Hypotheses

Write each hypothesis before running the evaluation method. The hypothesis should reflect a reasoned prediction about where users may struggle or what design condition may affect usability.

After completing the method, compare your findings to your hypothesis and explain whether the evidence supported, challenged, or refined it.

Writing Method-Specific Hypotheses

Your hypothesis should match the kind of evidence the method is designed to produce. Examples will be covered in class.

• Heuristic Evaluation: focus on usability principles such as consistency, feedback, error prevention, recognition, or clarity

• Cognitive Walkthrough: focus on task logic, next-step visibility, and where a first-time user might get stuck

• Think-Aloud Lite: focus on confusion, hesitation, or interpretation

• First-Click Test: focus on where users will click first

• 5-Second Test: focus on what users will understand immediately

• A/B Preference Test: focus on perceived clarity, trust, or preference

  
  

Additional Examples

• Heuristic Evaluation If navigation labels are more consistent across screens, then users will make fewer navigation errors because the interface will better align with consistency and standards.

• Cognitive Walkthrough If the primary next step is more visually prominent, then first-time users will complete the task with less hesitation because the correct action will be easier to identify.

• Think-Aloud If form labels are more specific, then users will verbalize less confusion because they will not need to infer what information is being requested.

Standards of Evidence

Not all findings are equally important. Strong submissions prioritize issues that:

• recur across multiple methods or participants

• block or slow down key tasks

• affect comprehension, trust, confidence, or task completion

• reveal structural problems rather than isolated preferences

Your goal is to identify the problems that matter most and respond with meaningful revisions.

Deliverables

1. Report (PDF or Google Doc)

Your report should include the following sections:

A. Project Context

Briefly explain:

• what your prototype is

• who it is for

• what primary task or flow is being evaluated

B. Evaluation Methods Used

For each method, include:

• method name

• purpose of the test

• your hypothesis

• how the method was conducted

• participant notes or setup details, if applicable

• key findings

• screenshots or evidence where relevant

C. Design Improvements

Document at least 3 major UX improvements.

For each improvement, include:

• the issue identified

• which method(s) revealed it

• a before image

• an after image

• a short rationale explaining why the revision improves the experience

D. Cross-Method Synthesis

Write a short paragraph explaining:

• which patterns appeared across methods

• which issues were most important

• how those patterns influenced your design priorities

E. Reflection

Briefly explain:

• what changed most significantly in your design

• which improvement had the strongest impact

• what you would test next if you had more time

Write clearly and concisely. This report should be strong enough to adapt into a portfolio case study later.

2. Updated Figma Prototype

Submit a working Figma link with view access enabled.

Your updated prototype should:

• include the revised screens or flows discussed in your report

• support the key interactions being evaluated

• be coherent enough to demonstrate how the revised experience works

Submission Checklist

Before submitting, make sure you have:

• completed both required methods

• completed at least one additional method

• written one hypothesis per method

• recruited 5 participants total

• implemented at least 3 major UX improvements in Figma

• included before/after comparisons

• written a cross-method synthesis paragraph

• included a reflection

• submitted both your report and working Figma link

Recommended Workflow

• choose your evaluation methods

• write one hypothesis for each method

• capture “before” screenshots of the current prototype

• run your evaluation methods

• review findings and identify recurring issues

• prioritize the highest-impact problems

• revise your prototype in Figma

• capture “after” screenshots of your revisions

• write your report and reflection

• submit your report and Figma link

What Strong Work Looks Like

Strong submissions:

• identify meaningful issues rather than surface-level complaints

• connect findings clearly to design decisions

• show evidence for each major change

• distinguish structural improvements from cosmetic edits

• present revisions in a clear, professional, portfolio-ready way

What Weak Work Looks Like

Weak submissions often:

• treat cosmetic changes as major UX improvements

• list findings without evidence or screenshots

• write vague hypotheses

• fail to connect testing results to design revisions

• describe changes without explaining why they improve the experience

Rubric (100 Points)

1. Heuristic Evaluation — 20 points

• meaningful usability issues identified

• issues connected to clear usability principles

• screenshots support the analysis

• proposed fixes are concrete and relevant

2. Cognitive Walkthrough — 20 points

• task flow is clearly defined

• breakdowns in user goals, actions, or feedback are identified

• analysis demonstrates understanding of task logic and discoverability

3. Additional Evaluation Method(s) — 20 points

• selected method is used appropriately

• hypothesis is clear and relevant

• findings generate usable insight

• documentation is clear and useful

4. Prototype Revisions in Figma — 25 points

• at least 3 major UX improvements are implemented

• revisions are clearly tied to evidence

• before/after comparisons are strong

• changes improve usability, clarity, or task flow

5. Design Rationale, Synthesis, and Reflection — 15 points

• reasoning is evidence-based

• synthesis identifies patterns across methods

• reflection shows thoughtful evaluation of impact and next steps

• writing is clear, concise, and professional

Total: 100 points