Product Name:
Date of Audit:
Auditor:
Product Usability Score (out of 100):
Total Issues Identified:
High Criticality Alerts:
Evaluate the interface against the 10 Jakob Nielsen Heuristics. Use the formula:Issue Criticality = Severity * Complexity
Heuristic | Status | Severity (1-4) | Complexity (1-5) | Issue Criticality | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Visibility of System Status | 0 | ||||
2. Match: System & Real World | 0 | ||||
3. User Control and Freedom | 0 | ||||
4. Consistency and Standards | 0 | ||||
5. Error Protection | 0 | ||||
6. Recognition vs. Recall | 0 | ||||
7. Flexibility & Efficiency of Use | 0 | ||||
8. Aesthetic & Minimalist Design | 0 | ||||
9. Error Recovery (Help / Diagnose) | 0 | ||||
10. Help and Documentation | 0 |
Note: Use this section to document the most critical failure identified in Section 1. If multiple heuristics failed, list the primary blocker here.
Target Heuristic:
Observation & Path:
User Impact Analysis:
Evidence Attachment (Upload Screenshot Proof):
Describe what the screenshot highlights:
To ensure consistency across different auditors, use the following scales:
Severity Scale (Impact on User):
Complexity Scale (Effort to Fix):
Severity:
Complexity:
Instructions: Group the failed heuristics from Section 1 into the following categories based on their Criticality Scores.
Priority 1: Critical Blockers (Score 16–20)
High impact, often high effort. These are non-negotiable fixes.
Issue | Required Action | Owner | |
|---|---|---|---|
Priority 2: "Quick Wins" (High Severity, Low Complexity)
The best ROI. These fix major pain points with minimal coding effort.
Issue | Required Action | Owner | |
|---|---|---|---|
Priority 3: Technical Debt / Backlog (Low Severity, High Complexity)
Issues that are annoying but difficult to fix. Schedule for future sprints.
Issue | Required Action | Owner | |
|---|---|---|---|
General Impressions:
Accessibility Note:
Suggested Next Steps:
Form Template Insights
Please remove this form template insights section before publishing.
This UX Audit Form is a structured diagnostic tool designed to evaluate a digital product's usability through the lens of Nielsen’s 10 Heuristics. Unlike a general feedback survey, this form provides a quantitative and qualitative framework to identify design flaws, calculate their business impact, and prioritize engineering efforts.
The form acts as a bridge between User Experience Design and Project Management, turning subjective observations into actionable data.
The core of this form is the Criticality Formula (Severity * Complexity). This ensures that the audit doesn't just list "what is broken," but also "how hard it is to fix."
The form is designed with relational dependencies. Each "Fail" marked in the initial evaluation matrix triggers a requirement for evidence in the detailed log section.
By including a mandatory Screenshot Proof and User Impact section, the form moves beyond opinion. It requires the auditor to demonstrate the "Path to Failure," providing developers with a visual reference to reproduce the issue. The "User Impact" field forces the auditor to justify the severity by explaining the psychological or functional cost to the end-user (e.g., cognitive load, frustration, or task abandonment).
The form's final output is a Categorized Roadmap. It automatically segments findings into three tiers:
The final section provides a "Human Layer" to the data. While the scores provide the "What," the Auditor’s Qualitative Assessment provides the "Why." This section captures nuances like brand trust, aesthetic cohesion, and accessibility—elements that are sometimes too subjective for a strict 1–4 scale but are vital for a premium product experience.
Summary of Purpose:
This form is built to transform a standard design review into a prioritized backlog. It allows Product Managers to see at a glance where the product stands, what the most "expensive" UX debts are, and which fixes will yield the highest return on investment for the next release cycle.