What a heuristic evaluation can’t do?
It’s worth being honest about the boundaries. A heuristic evaluation is an expert-led assessment, and while it’s powerful, it has limits. It can’t tell you what users actually do in practice, it can’t replace behavioural research or usability testing, it won’t answer preference or desirability questions, and it may uncover symptoms rather than root causes.
That’s why we see heuristic evaluations as a starting point, not the full picture. They’re best paired with user research, analytics and testing to build a complete evidence base. The heuristic evaluation gives you the sharp, structured view; research fills in the human story behind it.
Why you shouldn’t get AI to do the bulk of a heuristic review.
Now we get to AI. As mentioned, there are tools that can scan a site holistically, and they’re great for pulling out specific, repeated issues. But using AI to do the entire evaluation is not recommended.
Actually doing the review yourself is what gets you deeply integrated into the site. You understand the pages, the flows, how a user thinks and feels as they move through the experience. A heuristic evaluation is fundamentally an exercise in empathy. Thinking like someone else, noticing what frustrates or confuses, catching the things that only a human would catch. AI isn’t a human so unsurprisingly, it’s nowhere near as good at making judgements from the perspective of a real person navigating a real experience.
Bringing it to life: a recent case study.
To bring this to life, in a recent project we completed a heuristic evaluation for a well-known organisation with a site that looked polished and professional on the surface. You’d assume it was doing its job well. Our evaluation told a different story. Every heuristic we assessed came back as either a partial or a fail. Common user scenarios also landed at partial or fail. Secondary sites needed consolidation or significant enhancement, and the overall digital ecosystem was more fragmented than anyone had realised.
What really stood out, though, was what happened once we read and acted on the actual content as part of the evaluation. At first glance, the UI suggested everything was working. But once we stepped through real tasks and followed the copy as a user would, a series of issues surfaced, inconsistent instructions, unclear pathways and missing or duplicated information. These weren’t immediately visible until we engaged with the content layer, and the evaluation made those problems impossible to ignore.
While those findings can be confronting, that’s exactly what makes a heuristic evaluation so valuable. It turns assumptions into evidence. It gives teams something tangible to act on, rather than debating opinions about what might or might not be working. And the good news is that a lot of what we uncovered were relatively simple changes, the kind of fixes that could turn a fail into a pass without a massive overhaul. The organisation now has a clear, prioritised path forward, grounded in real evidence.
Doing heuristic reviews with Avian.
None of this is especially hard to do but it does take care, structure and genuine expertise to do well. If you’re looking at a website or digital service and wondering whether it’s really working for your users, a heuristic evaluation is one of the best places to start. It’s fast, it’s evidence-based, and it gives you a clear picture of what to fix and where to focus.
We’d love to help. Whether you need a quick review or a comprehensive evaluation as part of a broader discovery, we’ll bring the rigour, the empathy and the practical recommendations to set you up for success.
Sound like the kind of help you could use? Get in touch.