Part IA Easter Term
Cognitive Walkthrough (CW)
What Is a Cognitive Walkthrough?
Cognitive Walkthrough is an analytical inspection method that simulates a (novice) user’s problem-solving process, step by step through a specific task, to identify learnability issues. It is grounded in the theory that novice users learn largely through unassisted exploration — “user interaction as search” (a first-wave HCI, goal-based model).
Unlike HE (which audits broadly), CW is task-specific and learnability-focused. It asks: “can a first-time user figure out how to complete this task without training or documentation?”
The Four Questions
At each step in the action sequence, the evaluator asks:
- Will the user try to achieve the right effect? — Do they know what they are trying to do at this point? Is the goal clear?
- Will the user notice that the correct action is available? — Is the required control visible and salient, not buried, hidden, or off-screen?
- Will the user associate the correct action with the desired effect? — Is the label, icon, or position meaningful given their current goal? Does the label match the user’s vocabulary?
- If the action is performed correctly, will the user see that progress is being made? — Is feedback adequate and unambiguous? Does the system confirm that the step was successful?
CW Procedure
- Define the target user population and their assumed prior knowledge (e.g. “a first-year student who has never used a career-guidance app before”).
- Choose a representative, concrete task (e.g. “create a new CV using the Resume Builder”).
- Decompose the task into an action sequence — the same HTA decomposition used for task analysis.
- For each action, answer all four questions. Record Success or Fail with a brief justification for each.
- Every Fail identifies a specific usability problem — document it precisely.
- Convert each failure into a concrete redesign suggestion — do not just identify the problem; propose a fix.
Worked Example: CW of a Weather App
Task: View detailed weather forecast for “Field Day” event
| Action | CW Analysis |
|---|---|
| 1. Locate “Field Day” event on the main screen list. | Q1 OK — the user knows they need to find the event. Q2 Possible fail — is the event clearly visible and distinguishable from others (contrast, ordering, proximity)? |
| 2. Tap “Field Day” to open its details. | Q3 Possible fail — no clear affordance cue (e.g. a chevron ›) signals the row is tappable. The user may not associate tapping the name with “open details.” Q4 OK if a smooth screen transition confirms the action. |
| 3. Find the “Weather Forecast” section within event details. | Q2 Possible fail if the forecast is not prominently labelled or sits below the fold (requires scrolling). Q3 Possible fail if the label wording (“Weather” vs “Forecast”) is ambiguous relative to the user’s mental goal wording. |
| 4. Read the detailed forecast data. | Q4 OK once the data is visibly rendered. |
From CW Failures to Redesign Suggestions
- No affordance cue on a tappable row → add a chevron icon (›) or subtle underline to signal interactivity.
- Ambiguous label “Weather” → rename to “Detailed Forecast” and add a weather glyph icon.
- No loading feedback → add a progress spinner while data is fetched (Nielsen #1).
- Input accepts an impossible value → add input validation with a sensible maximum (Nielsen #5, Error Prevention).
HE vs CW: When to Use Which
| Criterion | Heuristic Evaluation | Cognitive Walkthrough |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Broad usability audit across the whole interface | Focused, task-by-task learnability analysis |
| Expertise required | Usability experts familiar with the heuristics | Evaluators who understand the target users’ goals (less specialist training needed) |
| Output | List of violations, each tagged to a heuristic and severity | Step-by-step trace of task success/failure with named causes |
| Best for novel/unconventional systems | Weaker — no established conventions to compare against the heuristics | Stronger — CW needs no prior convention, just a task and a user model (e.g. a colour-to-sound wearable, 2020 paper) |
| Best for a fast general survey | Stronger — broad coverage relatively quickly | Weaker — CW only covers the specific task(s) chosen |
| Fidelity required | Works even on a rough prototype | Needs the action sequence to be walkable; benefits from at least a clickable prototype |
Expected Learning
- State the four CW questions and explain what each reveals about the interface.
- Perform a CW on a described task, decomposing it into actions and answering all four questions for each, recording Success/Fail with justification.
- Convert CW failures into specific, actionable redesign suggestions.
- Compare HE and CW: when is each the stronger method, and why?
- Explain why CW is stronger than HE for novel, unconventional interaction paradigms where no established conventions exist.
Past Paper Questions
CW appears in: 2025 Q5 (CW on own career-guidance design + redesign), 2022 Q5 (CW instruction sheet), 2021 Q6 (CW on weather app — 5 tasks + redesign), 2020 Q5d (HE vs CW for a sensory-substitution device), 2019 Q5b (HE vs CW choice criteria). The Supervision 2 material includes a worked CW of the ikea.com purchase flow.