UI Consistency
Audit
system thinking
A platform-wide heuristic audit identifying inconsistencies across Myzel modules — producing prioritised recommendations adopted directly into the product backlog.
One platform, inconsistent experience
As Myzel grew into a multi-module platform, inconsistencies in UI patterns — navigation, table behaviour, interaction conventions — began drawing stakeholder complaints and creating friction for users switching between modules.
The audit was commissioned to understand the full extent of the problem, prioritise what needed fixing, and produce actionable recommendations that could be absorbed into the active development backlog.
Fast growth without design consistency
Multiple development teams building different modules simultaneously meant UI decisions were made independently and inconsistently. Small divergences in navigation, table sorting, icon style, and interaction feedback compounded across modules — creating a fragmented experience for users who work across the platform daily.
Sole designer, full ownership
I planned and executed the audit independently — defining the scope, selecting the evaluation framework, reviewing all modules, and producing the final prioritised output. Working alongside the PO to ensure recommendations were realistic and backlog-ready.
- Audit scope and framework design
- Heuristic evaluation across all modules
- Industry benchmarking
- Prioritised recommendations
- Stakeholder presentation and sign-off
- Heuristic evaluation (NNG)
- Industry standards benchmarking
- OOUX framework
- Figma
Methodology
The audit used Nielsen's heuristics as the primary evaluation framework, supplemented by industry standards benchmarking to ensure recommendations were grounded in established best practice — not just personal preference.
Reviewed every public-facing module in the platform — evaluating navigation patterns, table behaviour, interaction feedback, visual hierarchy, icon usage, and component consistency.
Each finding was categorised as High, Medium, or Low impact — with a concrete recommendation attached, not just a problem description. High-impact items were written to be actionable immediately by development teams.
All recommendations had to account for the forthcoming migration to the shared component library — solutions needed to work both now and be consistent with the future system.
From audit to action
The audit output went beyond a list of issues — it was a structured, prioritised deliverable designed to be used directly by the product and development team.
The primary navigation pattern differed significantly between modules — position, labelling, and hierarchy varied in ways that created confusion when users moved between tools.
Identical data tables behaved differently depending on which module they appeared in — sorted differently by default, with inconsistent filter interactions and no shared conventions.
Icons across modules came from different sets, with different weights, sizes, and metaphors — reducing visual coherence and occasionally causing confusion about meaning.
Error states, success feedback, and validation messaging used different visual treatments across modules — creating unpredictable feedback for users making input errors.
What zero-to-one requires
"Audit work is easy to do superficially and hard to do usefully. The difference is whether your findings come with a clear path to action."
The most important decision in this audit was to write recommendations, not just findings. A list of problems without solutions gets filed away. A prioritised, actionable deliverable gets into the backlog. All high-priority items from this audit made it into the MEP within one sprint of presentation.