Use when the problem and requirements are understood and you are ready to design, validate, and build.
Scope Known16 methods
The typical sequence — adjust based on your context and existing evidence.
Non-linear by design. These activities represent recommended paths, not a rigid waterfall. Move backward when new uncertainty emerges, skip steps when sufficient evidence exists, or move between tracks as your understanding evolves.
Structured ideation and sequencing sessions that generate varied solutions and align the team on what to build. Crazy 8s produces rapid sketches, How Might We (HMW) reframes problems as opportunities, and Story Mapping sequences the user's workflow.
ImplementationSimplified wireframes, sketches, or clickable mockups outlining core workflows without visual detail, to communicate and test flows quickly.
ImplementationModerated or unmoderated sessions in which representative users attempt tasks with a low-fidelity prototype, to surface fundamental usability problems before visual design.
ImplementationRefining the prototype with detailed interactions, visual design, realistic content, and design system components, to approximate the final experience.
ImplementationTesting high-fidelity prototypes with representative users against success criteria set in advance, to see how the refined solution performs before development.
ImplementationStructured reviews that iterate designs using usability findings, stakeholder input, and engineering feasibility, to reach an approved, development-ready state.
ImplementationWorking with engineering during the build to keep design fidelity, resolve edge cases as they appear, and answer design questions in real time.
ImplementationEvaluating the live product or feature against success metrics defined beforehand, to see whether it did what they said it should. It can include moderated sessions with live users, task completion studies, or CSAT.
ImplementationUsing analytics tools (such as LogRocket, Pendo, FullStory, or Amplitude) to measure adoption, usage, and drop-off after launch against metrics defined beforehand.
ImplementationA collaborative technique that arranges user stories along the user's journey to visualize scope, find gaps, sequence priorities, and plan delivery slices.
ImplementationDefining, before design and build, how the team will know the work succeeded. Goals-Signals-Metrics moves from a goal, to the behavior that would signal it, to a measurable metric. HEART (Happiness, Engagement, Adoption, Retention, Task success) is a menu, not a checklist.
ImplementationTwo information architecture studies. Card sorting has participants group and label content, showing how they expect it organized. Tree testing has them find items in a text-only proposed hierarchy, before visual design. Card sorting helps create a structure; tree testing evaluates one.
ImplementationTwo expert reviews needing no participants. In a heuristic evaluation, several evaluators independently inspect an interface against recognized principles, such as Nielsen's ten heuristics, then combine and rate findings. A cognitive walkthrough asks, at each task step, whether a new user would know what to do. Both predict problems; neither observes users.
ImplementationEvaluating a design or build against an accessibility standard such as WCAG, and testing with assistive technology: screen readers, keyboard-only use, magnification, voice control. An audit finds unmet requirements; testing with people who use assistive technology shows how it works. Automated checkers find only some issues.
ImplementationA controlled online experiment that randomly assigns users to versions of an experience and compares a predefined metric between groups. A/B tests compare two versions; multivariate tests vary several elements at once and need far more traffic. They can show that a change caused a difference in behavior, not why.
ImplementationMeasuring perceived usability with a standardized questionnaire, repeated over time or across versions or alternatives. The System Usability Scale (SUS) has ten statements on a five-point scale, scored 0 to 100. UMUX-Lite has two statements and was developed with a seven-point scale (five-point variants exist, so state which). They are different instruments and their results should not be treated as interchangeable; a SUS-equivalent converted from UMUX-Lite is an estimate, not a measured SUS score. Both measure perception only, not task success, time, or behavior, which can disagree with perception.
Implementation