Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Table of Contents
Resource Download
Empty Headspace PURE
.
XLSX
Version 2.0
20
KB
Download

PURE / Expert Review

Definitions

Heuristic Evaluation

A heuristic evaluation or expert review is a type of study where a usability expert uses his/her knowledge and experience of testing websites with users to walk through a website with the goal of uncovering potential usability issues with a product from the perspective of a target user. Once the expert identifies the problems, then recommends changes to improve usability. This happens in two scenarios:

  1. When budgets and timescales don’t allow for user research.
  2. As a first step to validate issues with real users.

There are many frameworks to get started with a heuristic evaluation:

  • Nielsen’s 10 usability heuristics
  • ISO’s 7 dialogue principles
  • Shniederman’s 8 golden rules of dialog design
  • Gerhardt-Powals’ 10 cognitive engineering principles for enhancing human-computer performance
  • Tog’s 16 principles of interaction design
  • Weinschenk and Barker classification
  • Cognitive Walkthrough

The template has been adapted to use the Cognitive Walkthrough and Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics, however you can adapt it to the framework you are most familiar with.

PURE

At its core PURE is a lightweight implementation of the frameworks above that helps UX practitioners perform heuristic reviews.

Pure stands for Pragmatic Usability Rating by Experts, and it is a method devised by Christian Rohrer and Jeff Sauro et. al. in this publication:

A free article can be found in the link below:

Both articles are worth the read and were used as the foundation of this template.

Template

I have used this template to do the Heuristic Evaluation at News Corp for a product they had. And since then I have also used as part of my Mentoring program with junior UXers.

Definitions

As discussed in the articles above. PURE requires you to assess all different steps to perform a given task with a range of 3 values:

The step can be accomplished easily by the target user, due to low cognitive load or because it’s a known pattern, such as the acceptance of a terms-of-service agreement.
The step can be accomplished easily by the target user, due to low cognitive load or because it’s a known pattern, such as the acceptance of a terms-of-service agreement.
The step requires a notable degree of cognitive load (or physical effort) by the target user, but can generally be accomplished with some effort.
The step requires a notable degree of cognitive load (or physical effort) by the target user, but can generally be accomplished with some effort.
The step is difficult for the target user, due to significant cognitive load or confusion; some target users would likely fail or abandon the task at this point.
The step is difficult for the target user, due to significant cognitive load or confusion; some target users would likely fail or abandon the task at this point.

For example:

A hypothetical software has 4 different tasks that can be performed in it. Task 1 has 3 Steps; Task 2, 5 Steps; Task 3, 4 Steps and Task 4, 5 Steps.

Each of the steps are assigned a value based on the criteria above.

Only steps graded

The sum of all the values then goes to the task, with the most frictionful task providing the colour:

Added step values at the task level

Then the system as a whole receives a score based on the sum of the friction of all the tasks and the most frictionful task providing the overall colour.

Added the task values at the system level.

The template provided in this article then provides you with a dashboard that handles all colours and additions by using the values provided to the tasks.

Template in Action

Results from the dashboard then can be used to track:

  • System evolution through time
  • System performance against competitors in the same space
Versioning Overview Friction Score per Task
Versioning Overview per Task-set Total Friction Score

So far we have explained how a PURE review works. But the real magic of this template is only possible from its structure, which is explained below.

Template Structure

And as discussed, before filling up the template make sure that you have:

  1. Identified and prioritised the key tasks that are preformed by your users in the golden path.
  2. Split those tasks into steps as intended originally by the design team.
  3. Adapt the task list in the Evaluation sheet to reflect the tasks and steps that can be performed in the system.

The file has two sheets:

  1. PURE Dashboard – Almost read only. It draws all the values from the Evaluation sheet.
  2. Evaluation – page where you input all the values.

So how does it work? You just need to fill the evaluation sheet, using some of the prompts.

Evaluation sheet columns A to E:

Columns A to E of the spreadsheet.
  • Task No | Task Number. Fill it with numbers (integers). You can add and remove numbers as long as they are ordered consecutively from top to bottom. A task has multiple steps.
  • Step No | Step Number. Fill it with numbers (integers). You can add extra steps per task as long as they are ordered consecutively from top to bottom.
  • TS | Task-Step Id. Read Only – This is used by the sheet to update the dashboard. For it to work properly, both Task Number and Step Number columns need to have numbers.
  • Step Description | Step Description. Optional – Fill it with text. A note describing the step being assessed.
  • Grade | Grade. – A number from 1 to 3 describing the friction level as defined above.

Evaluation sheet columns F to I – Cognitive Walkthrough:

Cognitive Walkthrough columns.

When in doubt you can easily just hover the cells and get the description of what to look for.

Example of notes in the columns in the file.
💡
It is also important to remember that you are not required to fill all the spaces in the table based on your observations. The whole idea is for these prompts to provide the expert with cues on what to look for while evaluating products.
It is also important to remember that you are not required to fill all the spaces in the table based on your observations. The whole idea is for these prompts to provide the expert with cues on what to look for while evaluating products.

For more insights on where all this comes from, make sure to look at this article by David Travis on how to perform a cognitive walkthrough.

Evaluation sheet columns J to S – Heuristic Evaluation:

These columns prompt the user to perform a Heuristic Evaluation with Jakob Nielsen's 10 Heuristics.

10 Usability Heuristic columns.

You can see an article with the 10 heuristics in the link below.

💡
Just as with the cognitive walkthrough, you are not supposed to fill all the spaces in the table based on your observations. Just add notes to those steps that have problems.
Just as with the cognitive walkthrough, you are not supposed to fill all the spaces in the table based on your observations. Just add notes to those steps that have problems.

Template Example

The following template was filled by a study group I lead. The point of the exercise was to look at how the application Headspace could be improved at the time of performing 4 tasks.

  • Sign-up + Log in
  • Doing first Meditation
  • Exploring Meditations
  • Switching between meditations

As you can see, Headspace has some work to do in its app.

💡
The authors of the analysis performed to Headspace above, were not paid or associated with Headspace at the time of performing the analysis.
The authors of the analysis performed to Headspace above, were not paid or associated with Headspace at the time of performing the analysis.

Activity Outline

Activity
When
How Long
Type
Business Involved
Tech Involved
Design Involved
Requires
Prepwork

About the Author

Edgar is a Design Thinker especialising in Design Strategy, User Research, Service and Product Design based in Sydney, Australia. His works extend a wide variety of company sizes, industries and sectors. You can check his Eddy's Portfolio, contact him for Mentoring or just to talk shop.

Reach out

Edgar Anzaldúa-Moreno
Design thinker especialising in Design Strategy, User Research, Service and Product Design based in Sydney, NSW.
This portfolio showcases my individual contributions to projects and includes both original content and designs developed by me in from 2015 to 2024. Copyright © 2024 Edgar Anzaldua-Moreno. All Rights Reserved. Wherever company-specific designs are featured, such designs remain the intellectual property of their respective companies and are displayed here solely for the purpose of demonstrating my professional experience and skills. This portfolio is intended for demonstration purposes only and does not imply ownership of company copyrighted designs.