plenarius
f39f1d818b
Replace hand-rolled LSP client (lspClient.ts, useLspClient.ts) with monaco-languageclient v10 extended mode using @typefox/monaco-editor-react. NWScript TextMate grammar from the LSP submodule provides syntax highlighting. Full LSP features: completion, hover, diagnostics, go-to-definition, signature help — all wired through WebSocket to the nwscript-language-server. LSP server patches: fix workspaceFolders null assertion crash, handle missing workspace/configuration gracefully, derive rootPath from rootUri when null, guard tokenizer getRawTokenContent against undefined tokens. Backend fixes: WebSocket routing changed to noServer mode so /ws, /ws/lsp, and /ws/terminal/* don't conflict. TLK index loaded at startup (41,927 entries from nwn-haks/layonara.tlk.json). Workspace routes get proper try/catch. writeConfig creates parent directories. setupClone ensures workspace structure. Frontend: GffEditor and AreaEditor rewritten with inline styles and TLK resolution for CExoLocString fields. EditorTabs rewritten with lucide icons. Tab content hydrates from API on refresh. Setup wizard gets friendly error messages. SimpleEditor/SimpleDiffEditor for non-LSP editor uses. Vite config updated for monaco-vscode-api compatibility.
8.7 KiB
8.7 KiB
Heuristics Scoring Guide
Score each of Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics on a 0–4 scale. Be honest — a 4 means genuinely excellent, not "good enough."
Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
1. Visibility of System Status
Keep users informed about what's happening through timely, appropriate feedback.
Check for:
- Loading indicators during async operations
- Confirmation of user actions (save, submit, delete)
- Progress indicators for multi-step processes
- Current location in navigation (breadcrumbs, active states)
- Form validation feedback (inline, not just on submit)
Scoring:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | No feedback — user is guessing what happened |
| 1 | Rare feedback — most actions produce no visible response |
| 2 | Partial — some states communicated, major gaps remain |
| 3 | Good — most operations give clear feedback, minor gaps |
| 4 | Excellent — every action confirms, progress is always visible |
2. Match Between System and Real World
Speak the user's language. Follow real-world conventions. Information appears in natural, logical order.
Check for:
- Familiar terminology (no unexplained jargon)
- Logical information order matching user expectations
- Recognizable icons and metaphors
- Domain-appropriate language for the target audience
- Natural reading flow (left-to-right, top-to-bottom priority)
Scoring:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | Pure tech jargon, alien to users |
| 1 | Mostly confusing — requires domain expertise to navigate |
| 2 | Mixed — some plain language, some jargon leaks through |
| 3 | Mostly natural — occasional term needs context |
| 4 | Speaks the user's language fluently throughout |
3. User Control and Freedom
Users need a clear "emergency exit" from unwanted states without extended dialogue.
Check for:
- Undo/redo functionality
- Cancel buttons on forms and modals
- Clear navigation back to safety (home, previous)
- Easy way to clear filters, search, selections
- Escape from long or multi-step processes
Scoring:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | Users get trapped — no way out without refreshing |
| 1 | Difficult exits — must find obscure paths to escape |
| 2 | Some exits — main flows have escape, edge cases don't |
| 3 | Good control — users can exit and undo most actions |
| 4 | Full control — undo, cancel, back, and escape everywhere |
4. Consistency and Standards
Users shouldn't wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing.
Check for:
- Consistent terminology throughout the interface
- Same actions produce same results everywhere
- Platform conventions followed (standard UI patterns)
- Visual consistency (colors, typography, spacing, components)
- Consistent interaction patterns (same gesture = same behavior)
Scoring:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | Inconsistent everywhere — feels like different products stitched together |
| 1 | Many inconsistencies — similar things look/behave differently |
| 2 | Partially consistent — main flows match, details diverge |
| 3 | Mostly consistent — occasional deviation, nothing confusing |
| 4 | Fully consistent — cohesive system, predictable behavior |
5. Error Prevention
Better than good error messages is a design that prevents problems in the first place.
Check for:
- Confirmation before destructive actions (delete, overwrite)
- Constraints preventing invalid input (date pickers, dropdowns)
- Smart defaults that reduce errors
- Clear labels that prevent misunderstanding
- Autosave and draft recovery
Scoring:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | Errors easy to make — no guardrails anywhere |
| 1 | Few safeguards — some inputs validated, most aren't |
| 2 | Partial prevention — common errors caught, edge cases slip |
| 3 | Good prevention — most error paths blocked proactively |
| 4 | Excellent — errors nearly impossible through smart constraints |
6. Recognition Rather Than Recall
Minimize memory load. Make objects, actions, and options visible or easily retrievable.
Check for:
- Visible options (not buried in hidden menus)
- Contextual help when needed (tooltips, inline hints)
- Recent items and history
- Autocomplete and suggestions
- Labels on icons (not icon-only navigation)
Scoring:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | Heavy memorization — users must remember paths and commands |
| 1 | Mostly recall — many hidden features, few visible cues |
| 2 | Some aids — main actions visible, secondary features hidden |
| 3 | Good recognition — most things discoverable, few memory demands |
| 4 | Everything discoverable — users never need to memorize |
7. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use
Accelerators — invisible to novices — speed up expert interaction.
Check for:
- Keyboard shortcuts for common actions
- Customizable interface elements
- Recent items and favorites
- Bulk/batch actions
- Power user features that don't complicate the basics
Scoring:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | One rigid path — no shortcuts or alternatives |
| 1 | Limited flexibility — few alternatives to the main path |
| 2 | Some shortcuts — basic keyboard support, limited bulk actions |
| 3 | Good accelerators — keyboard nav, some customization |
| 4 | Highly flexible — multiple paths, power features, customizable |
8. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design
Interfaces should not contain irrelevant or rarely needed information. Every element should serve a purpose.
Check for:
- Only necessary information visible at each step
- Clear visual hierarchy directing attention
- Purposeful use of color and emphasis
- No decorative clutter competing for attention
- Focused, uncluttered layouts
Scoring:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | Overwhelming — everything competes for attention equally |
| 1 | Cluttered — too much noise, hard to find what matters |
| 2 | Some clutter — main content clear, periphery noisy |
| 3 | Mostly clean — focused design, minor visual noise |
| 4 | Perfectly minimal — every element earns its pixel |
9. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors
Error messages should use plain language, precisely indicate the problem, and constructively suggest a solution.
Check for:
- Plain language error messages (no error codes for users)
- Specific problem identification ("Email is missing @" not "Invalid input")
- Actionable recovery suggestions
- Errors displayed near the source of the problem
- Non-blocking error handling (don't wipe the form)
Scoring:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | Cryptic errors — codes, jargon, or no message at all |
| 1 | Vague errors — "Something went wrong" with no guidance |
| 2 | Clear but unhelpful — names the problem but not the fix |
| 3 | Clear with suggestions — identifies problem and offers next steps |
| 4 | Perfect recovery — pinpoints issue, suggests fix, preserves user work |
10. Help and Documentation
Even if the system is usable without docs, help should be easy to find, task-focused, and concise.
Check for:
- Searchable help or documentation
- Contextual help (tooltips, inline hints, guided tours)
- Task-focused organization (not feature-organized)
- Concise, scannable content
- Easy access without leaving current context
Scoring:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | No help available anywhere |
| 1 | Help exists but hard to find or irrelevant |
| 2 | Basic help — FAQ or docs exist, not contextual |
| 3 | Good documentation — searchable, mostly task-focused |
| 4 | Excellent contextual help — right info at the right moment |
Score Summary
Total possible: 40 points (10 heuristics × 4 max)
| Score Range | Rating | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| 36–40 | Excellent | Minor polish only — ship it |
| 28–35 | Good | Address weak areas, solid foundation |
| 20–27 | Acceptable | Significant improvements needed before users are happy |
| 12–19 | Poor | Major UX overhaul required — core experience broken |
| 0–11 | Critical | Redesign needed — unusable in current state |
Issue Severity (P0–P3)
Tag each individual issue found during scoring with a priority level:
| Priority | Name | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | Blocking | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately — this is a showstopper |
| P1 | Major | Causes significant difficulty or confusion | Fix before release |
| P2 | Minor | Annoyance, but workaround exists | Fix in next pass |
| P3 | Polish | Nice-to-fix, no real user impact | Fix if time permits |
Tip: If you're unsure between two levels, ask: "Would a user contact support about this?" If yes, it's at least P1.