Data as of Aug 25, 2026 · Based on 337 AI responses from ChatGPT Search and Google AI Mode · See how Parse measures this
To run an effective UX site audit, use a combination of quantitative analytics to identify problematic user paths, behavioral tracking tools to see how users interact with pages, and digital whiteboarding tools to document findings and collaborate on team strategy.
Brands AI recommends here
Use for gathering quantitative data, such as traffic metrics, bounce rates, and conversion funnels, to define the initial goals and scope of your UX site audit.
Best for collaborative documentation and visualizing audit findings. Teams use it to map user journeys and prioritize fixes, making it essential for team alignment during the audit process.
Recommended for capturing behavioral insights. It provides heatmaps and session recordings that reveal how users physically navigate pages, helping you confirm friction points found in analytics.
Google AnalyticsSource | Citation share |
|---|---|
 UX audit checklist: 7 Steps to better UX | Mazehttps://maze.co/collections/ux-ui-design/ux-audit/ | 8.0% |
 Website UX Audit - Steps, Checklist and Best Toolshttps://uxcam.com/blog/website-ux-audit/ | 6.0% |
 UX Audit 101: A step by step guide for conducting a UX review with checklist and tipshttps://medium.com/design-bootcamp/ux-audit-101-a-step-by-step-guide-for-conducting-a-ux-review-with-checklist-and-tips-246f176845b8 | 3.3% |
 How to create impactful UX audits with direct customer insightshttps://www.usertesting.com/blog/how-to-create-ux-audit | 2.8% |
 How to do a UX audit? Steps, benefits and mistakeshttps://www.future-processing.com/blog/how-to-conduct-a-ux-audit/ | 2.5% |
 UI UX Audit Process - How to Stop Skipping Them [Free UX Audit Checklist] - YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch | 2.3% |
 How to conduct a UX audit: Steps, tips, & best practiceshttps://blog.hubspot.com/website/ux-audit | 2.2% |
UX audit checklist: 10 steps to better UXhttps://magicflux.co/blog/ux-audit-checklist-10-steps-to-better-ux | 2.1% |
 How to Conduct a UX Audit: Checklist, Benefits & Step-by-Step Guide (2026) | UXPinhttps://www.uxpin.com/studio/blog/ux-audit/ | 2.0% |
UX Audit - How to Conduct One (Steps, Templates & Checklist)https://uxcam.com/blog/ux-audit/ | 1.8% |
Running an effective UX site audit is all about combining data-driven insights with human empathy. Here is a step-by-step framework to uncover friction points and optimize your user experience:
Determine objectives (e.g., improve checkout conversion, reduce bounce rate on mobile, or streamline navigation).
Identify key user journeys and primary conversion funnels you want to prioritize.
Analyze analytics using tools like Google Analytics to track drop-off rates, bounce rates, and traffic flows.
Review heatmaps and session recordings using platforms like Hotjar or Microsoft Clarity to see where users actually click, scroll, and rage-click.
Review customer support tickets and chat logs to find recurring pain points or confusing features.
Run user testing sessions or surveys to capture direct feedback from real visitors.
Assess usability principles (like Jakob Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics) checking for system visibility, error prevention, and cognitive overload.
Test accessibility standards using tools like the WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool to ensure WCAG compliance.
Check page speed and Core Web Vitals using Google PageSpeed Insights or GTmetrix.
Verify mobile responsiveness across various devices, screen sizes, and operating systems.
Catalog issues in a centralized matrix or spreadsheet.
Score severity vs. effort to create a high-impact roadmap for your development and design teams.
If you'd like to dive deeper, tell me:
I can help you tailor a specific checklist or metric framework for your project.
No sources cited
The best UX site audit is not a page-by-page checklist. It’s a structured investigation of whether real users can accomplish the site’s most important tasks—and why they might fail.
A strong audit combines analytics + heuristic review + accessibility + content/IA + competitive patterns + lightweight user validation. Heuristic evaluation is especially useful for finding obvious usability problems quickly, but it shouldn't replace testing with actual users.
Before looking at the UI, define:
For example, instead of auditing "the website," define:
User: First-time prospective customer Task: Understand the product → evaluate whether it's right for them → request a demo That gives you something meaningful to evaluate.
Pick perhaps 3–5 key journeys, such as:
Walk through each journey as if you've never seen the site before.
Document every moment where you think:
This task-based approach is much more useful than simply saying "the navigation could be better."
Use Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics as your baseline—for example:
NN/g recommends evaluating independently before consolidating findings, and suggests roughly 3–5 evaluators when you have a team.
For each problem, capture:
| Finding | Evidence | Impact | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTA hierarchy is unclear | 4 competing buttons above fold | Users may not know next step | High | Establish one primary CTA |
| Pricing is difficult to find | Requires 3 navigation steps | Creates uncertainty | High | Surface pricing earlier |
| Form errors appear only after submit | User discovers errors late | Friction/abandonment | Medium | Validate inline |
Important: Don't write recommendations like "make it more intuitive." Make them actionable.
I'd structure the actual audit around these:
Ask:
Ask:
Ask:
Forms deserve their own audit because they're often where UX problems become measurable.
Check:
Don't treat accessibility as a separate "technical audit." Consider it throughout the UX review.
Check keyboard navigation, focus visibility, semantic structure, labels, contrast, text resizing, alternative text, error handling, and screen-reader behavior. Automated accessibility tools are useful for finding some issues, but they don't replace evaluation with users or assistive technology.
This is where a UX audit becomes much more persuasive.
Look at:
Then connect qualitative findings to quantitative evidence.
For example:
Finding: Users have difficulty finding pricing. UX evidence: Pricing is buried under a secondary navigation item. Behavioral evidence: Pricing page receives very little traffic despite being a key evaluation step. Hypothesis: Prospects are either failing to find pricing or abandoning before reaching it. Recommendation: Test surfacing pricing directly in primary navigation and relevant CTAs. That's considerably stronger than "pricing UX is bad."
Don't copy competitors. Look for patterns users may already understand.
Compare 3–5 competitors on things like:
A competitive usability review can help identify patterns and inform where UX investment might be worthwhile.
This is probably the most important part of the audit.
Don't deliver 87 UX issues with equal weight.
I'd score each finding on:
Impact × frequency × confidence ÷ effort
Or simply use:
Then identify the Top 10 opportunities.
Your executive summary should ideally say:
"We found 42 issues. 8 are responsible for the majority of the experience risk. Fixing these should be the priority." That's much more useful than a giant audit spreadsheet.
I'd make the report roughly:
For each finding:
Problem → Evidence → User impact → Business impact → Recommendation → Priority
Include screenshots and annotate the exact problem.
Key WCAG-related findings and usability implications.
Patterns, gaps, and opportunities.
| Priority | Problem | Impact | Effort | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | Checkout error recovery | Very high | Medium | Redesign validation/error flow |
| P1 | Weak homepage value proposition | High | Low | Clarify messaging hierarchy |
| P1 | Difficult product discovery | High | High | Rework IA/navigation |
| P2 | Inconsistent CTA language | Medium | Low | Establish CTA conventions |
This is the piece people often skip.
Take your 5–10 highest-confidence/highest-impact findings and test the proposed solutions with users.
A heuristic audit tells you "this looks problematic."
User research tells you "users actually struggle with it, and here's how."
NN/g explicitly recommends treating heuristic evaluation as complementary to—not a replacement for—user research.
If I were doing an audit from scratch, I'd use:
Kickoff → analytics review → critical journeys → heuristic evaluation → accessibility → content/IA → competitive review → prioritize → user-test top findings → roadmap
And I'd spend less time cataloguing tiny UI inconsistencies and more time investigating the handful of things that prevent users from accomplishing important goals.
If you give me the URL of the site, I can also walk you through what I'd look at and give you a UX audit template/checklist you can use directly in Notion, Sheets, or FigJam.
A heuristic audit tells you "this looks problematic."
User research tells you "users actually struggle with it, and here's how."
NN/g explicitly recommends treating heuristic evaluation as complementary to—not a replacement for—user research.
If I were doing an audit from scratch, I'd use:
Kickoff → analytics review → critical journeys → heuristic evaluation → accessibility → content/IA → competitive review → prioritize → user-test top findings → roadmap
Running a successful UX site audit requires a blend of quantitative data (what users are doing) and qualitative insights (why they are doing it).
Here is a step-by-step framework to run a thorough and actionable UX audit:
Tab key).Would you like help setting up a priority matrix for your findings, or do you need recommendations for specific testing tools based on your budget?
No sources cited
The best way to run a UX site audit is to treat it as a diagnostic tied to user and business outcomes, not as a giant list of design opinions.
A strong audit combines heuristic review + real user behavior + accessibility + conversion/content analysis, then turns the findings into a prioritized action plan. A heuristic evaluation is just one component of the broader audit.
Before opening the site, establish:
This prevents the audit from becoming “here are 73 things I don't like.”
Look at three kinds of evidence:
Behavioral
Qualitative
Expert inspection
The important distinction: analytics tells you where something is happening; UX evaluation helps explain why.
Don't start with individual UI components. Start with tasks.
For example:
“I'm a first-time visitor. I want to understand what this company does, determine whether it's right for me, and contact them.” Then literally perform that journey.
Pay attention to:
Use a consistent framework rather than relying on intuition. Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics are a good starting point.
For each issue, capture:
| Finding | Evidence | User impact | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTA is ambiguous | “Learn more” appears 4 times | User doesn't know where it leads | High | Use action-specific labels |
| Pricing buried | Requires 3 clicks to find | Creates uncertainty | High | Surface pricing earlier |
| Form asks for unnecessary data | 9 fields | Increases friction | Medium | Remove nonessential fields |
A particularly useful rule: describe the problem before proposing the solution.
Instead of:
“Make the button blue.” Write:
“The primary action doesn't visually stand out from secondary actions, making the next step difficult to identify.” That makes the finding durable even if the eventual design solution changes.
This is often more important than visual polish.
Ask:
I'd also test the site's hierarchy at the page level:
Page → section → component → detail
A user should generally be able to understand the hierarchy without reading every word.
For each important journey, identify:
Entry → comprehension → trust → decision → action → confirmation
Then look for friction at every stage.
For a SaaS site, for example:
Ad/Google → landing page → understand product → see proof → evaluate fit → pricing → signup/demo → confirmation
Ask at each step:
“What question does the user have right now, and does the page answer it?” That's usually more valuable than simply evaluating whether the page “looks good.”
Don't treat accessibility as an optional add-on.
Current w3.org covers areas including perceivability, keyboard operation, understandable interfaces, focus visibility, target sizes, authentication, and more.
Check at minimum:
Don't rely exclusively on automated accessibility scanners. W3C explicitly notes that tools can't determine accessibility by themselves; knowledgeable human evaluation is required.
This is where an audit gets much stronger.
Take the 3–5 most important user tasks and ask representative users to complete them.
Don't explain the interface.
Watch for:
You don't need a massive research project to uncover obvious usability problems.
This is arguably the most important part.
I like a simple model:
Priority = User impact × Frequency × Business impact
Then separately estimate implementation effort.
Your final prioritization becomes something like:
P0 — Fix immediately
P1 — High impact
P2 — Medium
P3 — Polish
Don't let 30 tiny UI issues obscure the five things that actually matter.
The final deliverable shouldn't be a 60-page PDF that nobody opens again.
I'd structure it as:
W3C's own accessibility-report template similarly emphasizes scope, methodology, results, and recommended actions rather than simply dumping findings.
If I were doing one from scratch, I'd divide the work roughly like this:
20% — Understand
30% — Experience
20% — Interface
15% — Accessibility
15% — Synthesis
The key is that the audit should end with decisions, not observations.
A mediocre audit says:
“The homepage has too much content.” A useful audit says:
“New visitors struggle to identify the product's primary value proposition because three competing messages appear above the primary CTA. This is particularly problematic for paid traffic landing directly on the homepage. Recommend testing a single value proposition + proof point + primary CTA structure.” That's the level of specificity I'd aim for.
Running a comprehensive UX site audit helps you uncover hidden friction points, conversion blockers, and usability issues that frustrate users.
Here is a step-by-step framework to run an effective UX audit, combining both quantitative data and qualitative insights.
Use analytics and tracking tools to see where users are dropping off or struggling:
Numbers tell you what is happening, but user behavior data tells you why:
Walk through the site yourself using established usability principles (Nielsen Norman Group's heuristics):
Don't try to fix everything at once. Categorize your findings into a matrix based on impact (how much it hurts the user/business) versus effort (how hard it is to fix):
Quick Wins : High impact, low effort (fix these immediately).
Major Projects : High impact, high effort (plan into your roadmap).
Fill-ins : Low impact, low effort (fix when time permits).
Thankless Tasks : Low impact, high effort (ignore for now).
Create the Action Plan & Recommendations
If you want, tell me:
I can give you a more tailored checklist or recommend specific tools for your stack.
The best UX site audit is not just a heuristic checklist. It’s a structured investigation that combines business goals + real user behavior + expert review + accessibility + performance, then turns the findings into a prioritized action plan. That approach is consistent with current UX-audit guidance from Baymard, W3C, and Google.
1. Define the business objective first
Before looking at the UI, answer:
“Improve UX” is too vague. Something like “identify the biggest sources of friction preventing visitors from requesting a demo” gives you a useful audit boundary.
2. Map the critical journeys
Pick 3–5 representative tasks, for example:
Landing page → understand offering → evaluate credibility → choose solution → CTA → form → confirmation
For ecommerce, that might be:
Homepage → category/search → product → cart → checkout
Audit the journey end-to-end, rather than reviewing pages independently. A UX problem often only becomes obvious when you follow the whole flow.
3. Review actual user data
If you have access, look at:
This is where an audit becomes much more than someone's subjective opinion about the design. Current UX guidance recommends combining expert evaluation with behavioral/quantitative evidence where possible.
4. Run a systematic heuristic review
Evaluate each journey against a consistent framework rather than “does this feel good?”
I'd use categories such as:
Heuristic evaluation is particularly useful because it is relatively fast and produces a concrete issue list, but it shouldn't be treated as a substitute for observing actual users.
5. Do a dedicated accessibility pass
Don't bury accessibility inside the general UX review.
Check things like:
Use WCAG as the standard, but don't assume an automated scanner proves accessibility. W3C explicitly notes that automated tools can't determine accessibility on their own; knowledgeable human evaluation is required.
6. Check performance as part of UX
Look at real-world Core Web Vitals:
Google recommends evaluating these at the 75th percentile and across mobile/desktop rather than relying on a single lab score.
Also look at things UX audits sometimes miss: slow forms, delayed interactions, layout jumps, heavy images, intrusive popups, and poor mobile performance.
Don't deliver “37 UX issues.”
I'd score every finding on something like:
| Factor | Question |
|---|---|
| Impact | How badly does this affect users/business outcomes? |
| Frequency | How many users encounter it? |
| Confidence | How strong is the evidence? |
| Effort | How difficult is it to fix? |
Then classify findings:
P0 — Critical
Blocks users or seriously damages conversion/accessibility.
P1 — High
Significant friction affecting an important journey.
P2 — Medium
Meaningful usability improvement but not urgent.
P3 — Low
Polish, consistency, or optimization.
This prevents the classic audit failure where a minor spacing inconsistency gets the same attention as a broken checkout flow.
I would structure the deliverable roughly like this:
1. Executive summary
2. User journeys
3. Findings For each issue:
Problem
What is happening?
Evidence
Screenshot + analytics/user evidence where available.
Why it matters
User/business consequence.
Recommendation
Specific change, not “improve UX.”
Priority
P0–P3.
4. Quick wins Things the team can fix immediately.
5. Strategic improvements Larger IA, content, interaction, or flow changes.
6. Measurement plan What metrics should improve after implementation?
That last section is important: an audit shouldn't end when the report is delivered. The best audits create a backlog that can be implemented and then measured.
If you're doing this yourself, I'd use:
Business goals → critical journeys → analytics → heuristic review → accessibility → mobile/performance → competitive/contextual review → prioritize → recommendations → measure
And if the site is important enough to justify the effort, add 5–8 usability tests with representative users after the expert audit. A heuristic audit tells you what appears to be wrong; usability testing is much better at telling you how real users experience the problem and why.
If you give me the URL of the site, I can also walk through this methodology on the actual site and produce a prioritized UX audit with screenshots/evidence and recommended fixes.
The best way to run a UX site audit is to treat it as a diagnostic exercise, not a design critique. You’re trying to answer: “Where are users getting confused, blocked, or unconvinced—and which problems are worth fixing first?”
A strong audit combines heuristic review + real user behavior + accessibility/performance checks + business goals. Automated tools like Lighthouse are useful, but they shouldn’t be the audit itself.
Before looking at a single page, define:
For example:
Goal: Increase demo requests
Primary user: B2B prospects evaluating the product
Key journey: Landing page → Product page → Pricing → Demo form → Confirmation
This prevents the audit from becoming “I don't like this button.”
Don't review every page with equal attention.
Pick perhaps 3–5 important journeys, such as:
Walk each journey as if you've never seen the site before.
At every step ask:
Use a consistent framework rather than relying on taste. Nielsen's usability heuristics are a good foundation—for example, visibility of system status, consistency, user control, error prevention, and recognition rather than recall.
For each problem, capture:
Problem → Evidence → Impact → Recommendation
For example:
Problem: The primary CTA says “Learn More.”
Evidence: The user has already read the product overview, so the next action is unclear.
Impact: Weakens the conversion path.
Recommendation: Change CTA to “See Pricing” or “Book a Demo,” depending on the intended journey.
That's much more useful than:
❌ “CTA isn't compelling.”
I'd use roughly this framework:
| Area | Questions |
|---|---|
| Value proposition | Can I understand what you offer within seconds? |
| Information architecture | Can I predict where things are? |
| Navigation | Are labels obvious? Can I recover when lost? |
| Content | Is the copy scannable and relevant? |
| Visual hierarchy | Does the design tell me what matters first? |
| CTAs | Is the next action obvious? |
| Forms | Are fields necessary? Are errors understandable? |
| Trust | Do I have enough evidence to believe you? |
| Accessibility | Can people with different abilities use it? |
| Mobile | Does the experience actually work on small screens? |
| Performance | Does the site feel fast and responsive? |
| Consistency | Do components and interactions behave predictably? |
| Conversion | Where does unnecessary friction exist? |
This is where a decent audit becomes a great audit.
Look at:
If analytics says 65% of mobile users abandon a form after the third field, that's much stronger evidence than an auditor simply saying “the form feels long.”
Run the site through Lighthouse/PageSpeed and check accessibility, performance, SEO, and best practices. Lighthouse explicitly covers these categories, while PageSpeed Insights combines lab testing with real-world Chrome UX data.
Pay particular attention to Core Web Vitals:
Google's current “good” targets are LCP ≤ 2.5s, INP < 200ms, and CLS < 0.1.
But don't fall into the trap of treating a Lighthouse score as a UX score. A 95 doesn't mean the site is easy to use.
Don't just shrink the desktop browser.
Actually walk through the key journeys on a phone and look for:
I'd avoid a giant list of 73 “issues.”
Instead, prioritize them.
A simple framework:
Severity
Then add Impact × Effort.
For example:
| Finding | Severity | Impact | Effort | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demo form asks for 12 fields | P1 | High | Low | 🔴 Fix now |
| Primary CTA unclear | P1 | High | Low | 🔴 Fix now |
| Mobile nav difficult to use | P1 | High | Medium | 🔴 Fix now |
| Inconsistent button radius | P3 | Low | Low | 🟢 Later |
| Paragraphs too dense | P2 | Medium | Low | 🟡 Next |
The ideal audit finding looks like this:
Finding #07 — Users don't know what to do next
Severity: High
Location: Homepage hero
Evidence: Two competing CTAs have equal visual weight.
Why it matters: New visitors don't have a clear primary path.
Recommendation: Establish one primary CTA and make the secondary action visually subordinate.
Expected outcome: Clearer first-step navigation and potentially higher CTA engagement.
A screenshot with the problematic area highlighted makes this dramatically easier for stakeholders to understand.
The final deliverable shouldn't be a 60-page UX encyclopedia.
I'd structure it as:
Executive summary
Journey analysis
Detailed findings
Prioritized roadmap
Measurement plan
Don't audit the site based solely on what you, the designer, think looks good.
A good UX audit triangulates:
Business goals + user behavior + usability principles + accessibility + technical performance.
If those four sources point to the same problem, you've got a very strong finding.
And if you're doing this for a real client, I'd make the final output less “here are 47 things wrong with your website” and more “here are the 8 changes most likely to improve the user's experience and the business outcome.” That distinction is what makes an audit valuable rather than merely thorough.
If you give me the site URL, I can also walk you through how I'd audit that specific site, including the pages and UX dimensions I'd prioritize.
Running a comprehensive UX site audit helps you uncover usability bottlenecks, conversion blockers, and friction points that frustrate users.
Here is a step-by-step framework to run an effective UX site audit:
Tab and Enter keys?alt text and interactive elements have proper ARIA labels.If you'd like, tell me:
I can give you a more tailored checklist or recommend specific tools for your stack.
The best UX site audit is not “go through every page and point out what looks bad.” It’s a structured review of the site against real user goals, business goals, usability principles, accessibility, and conversion friction.
I’d use this workflow:
Before opening Figma or taking screenshots, define:
For example:
User goal: Understand whether this product is right for me.
Business goal: Get qualified visitors to start a trial.
That changes what you look for dramatically.
Don't audit pages in isolation. Walk through the experiences users actually have.
For a typical marketing site:
Landing → Understand value → Explore proof → Evaluate → CTA → Signup → Confirmation
For ecommerce:
Landing → Category/search → Product → Cart → Checkout → Confirmation
For SaaS:
Landing → Pricing → Signup → Onboarding → First meaningful action
At each step ask:
This tends to produce much more valuable findings than reviewing “the navbar” or “the hero section” independently.
Use Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics as your backbone rather than relying purely on taste. They cover things like visibility of system status, consistency, error prevention, user control, and matching the interface to the real world.
But I'd add several website-specific lenses:
| Lens | What you're looking for |
|---|---|
| Clarity | Can users understand the offer quickly? |
| Navigation | Can they predict where to go next? |
| Information architecture | Is content organized around user mental models? |
| Content | Is the copy answering the questions users actually have? |
| Trust | Are credibility, proof, pricing, policies, etc. easy to find? |
| Conversion | Is there unnecessary friction between intent and action? |
| Forms | Are fields, errors, requirements and progress clear? |
| Mobile | Does the experience still work naturally on small screens? |
| Accessibility | Can people with different abilities actually use it? |
| Performance | Does speed/friction undermine the experience? |
For accessibility, use WCAG 2.2 as the formal reference point. Importantly, automated tools alone aren't enough; W3C explicitly recommends human evaluation as part of accessibility assessment.
For every issue, record:
Problem → Evidence → Impact → Recommendation → Severity
For example:
Problem: The pricing page has three CTAs with equal visual prominence.
Evidence: All three use the same button treatment and appear above the fold.
Impact: Users aren't given a clear primary action.
Recommendation: Establish one primary CTA and demote secondary actions.
Severity: High.
That is much more useful than:
“The CTA hierarchy could be improved.”
This is one of the biggest differences between a professional audit and a subjective design critique.
Bad:
“The hero feels cluttered.”
Better:
“The hero contains four competing visual elements and two primary-looking actions before the user reaches the product explanation. This increases the amount of information the user must parse before understanding the intended next step.”
You want the audit to be defensible, not merely aesthetically convincing.
I'd use a simple four-level system:
P0 — Critical
Blocks a core task or creates serious risk.
P1 — High
Significant friction affecting an important journey.
P2 — Medium
Noticeable usability problem but users can recover.
P3 — Low
Polish, consistency, or minor improvement.
Then prioritize by:
User impact × frequency × business impact
Don't give every problem a “7/10.” If everything is important, nothing is.
This is crucial.
A heuristic audit tells you:
“This looks like a usability problem.”
User testing tells you:
“Actual users experience this as a problem.”
Heuristic evaluation is valuable, but it isn't a replacement for usability testing.
Even 5 users doing the 1–2 most important tasks can dramatically improve confidence in your findings.
Don't deliver 73 screenshots and call it an audit.
The final output should make it obvious what to do next:
Top 5 UX problems
Then:
Quick wins
Medium-term
Strategic
If I were doing one for a real client, I'd roughly spend the time like this:
15% — Context & analytics
Understand users, business objectives, traffic and conversion data.
25% — Core journey walkthroughs
Experience the site as different users.
25% — Heuristic + interaction audit
Systematically inspect the interface.
15% — Content, trust & conversion
Look specifically at persuasion and decision-making.
10% — Accessibility + responsive behavior
Keyboard, focus, contrast, semantics, mobile, etc.
10% — Synthesis & prioritization
Turn dozens of observations into a small number of actionable themes.
The biggest mistake is spending 80% of the time screenshotting problems and 20% figuring out which ones actually matter.
A good UX audit should ultimately answer one question:
“What are the biggest things preventing users from accomplishing their goals, why are they happening, and what should we fix first?”
If you give me the site URL, I can also walk you through how I'd audit that specific site and show you what the finished audit structure would look like.
Running a comprehensive UX site audit helps you uncover usability bottlenecks, conversion blockers, and accessibility issues. The most effective approach blends quantitative data with qualitative insights.
Here is a structured, step-by-step framework to run a thorough UX audit:
If you want to tailor this process, tell me:
I can help you build a custom checklist or recommend specific tools for your exact project.
