Organizing the UX Checklist and How-to material

Paul Zablosky Paul.Zablosky at
Thu Oct 25 18:32:12 UTC 2007

I have been doing a lot of editing and wordsmithing on the UX Checklist 
which also contains a lot of guidelines for prospective reviewers and 
evaluators. The page suggests that there are four methods or approaches:

   1. Heuristic Evaluation
   2. Cognitive Walkthrough
   3. Accessibility Walkthrough (very similar to the Cognitive Walkthrough)
   4. Code inspection

In going over the reference material however, I'm not sure this is the 
right breakdown.  Looking at the reference documents, it seems to me 
that we really only have three methods, which can each address both 
accessibility and usability.  That is: 3 methods and 2 targets.  So it 
makes more sense to me (as a non-expert) to organize the checklists 
something like this::

   1. Heuristic Evaluation
          * Addressing usability with the Nielsen and Molich heuristics
          * Addressing accessibility with the Paddison and Englefield
          * Addressing accessibility with the IBM Web Accessibility
   2. Cognitive Walkthrough
          * Goal and persona based, with usability questions at each step
          * Goal and persona based, with accessibility questions at each
   3. Code Inspection
          * Addressing usability with the questions listed in our "under
            the covers" section
          * Addressing accessibility with the IBM Web Accessibility

Of course we  want to encourage  reviewers to keep all of the principles 
in mind, whatever their method of approach.  As we have discussed, it is 
theoretically possible to do an heuristic evaluation or cognitive 
walkthrough, addressing both usability and accessibility in a single pass.

Before I go to the trouble of reorganizing the material under this 
scheme, I want to ask the experts if my suggested structure makes sense. 

Also, while I have the feeling we should keep our list of primary 
reference documents short ("If you're only going to read one thing, read 
this.") and we can certainly include a section with "If you want to read 
more about this, here is a whole list of useful material", I'd like to 
be sure that we're in general agreement that the three sources I mention 
are the ones we want to suggest.

So.  Are people comfortable or uncomfortable with:

   1. The proposed organization?
   2. The primary references?

I look forward to hearing what people think.


   1. Does it make sense to organize the material as I suggest:
   2. Are the references I have mention

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the fluid-work mailing list