review-web-design

# Review Web Design

Evaluate a web design for visual quality, consistency, and effectiveness across devices.

## When to Use

- Reviewing a design mockup or prototype before development
- Assessing an implemented site for design quality
- Design review feedback session
- Brand consistency across pages or sections
- Responsive design behaviour across breakpoints

## Inputs

- **Required**: Design to review (URL, mockup, screenshots, or source)
- **Optional**: Brand guidelines or design system docs
- **Optional**: Target audience description
- **Optional**: Reference designs or competitor examples
- **Optional**: Specific areas of concern

## Procedure

### Step 1: Assess Visual Hierarchy

Visual hierarchy guides the user's eye through content by importance.

- [ ] **Clear focal point**: Obvious entry point on each page?
- [ ] **Heading hierarchy**: Headings descend logically (H1 → H2 → H3)?
- [ ] **Size contrast**: Important elements larger than supporting elements?
- [ ] **Colour contrast**: CTAs and key actions visually prominent?
- [ ] **Whitespace**: Spacing separates logical groups effectively?
- [ ] **Reading flow**: Layout follows natural reading pattern (F-pattern, Z-pattern)?

```markdown
## Visual Hierarchy Assessment
| Page/Section | Focal Point | Hierarchy Clear? | Issues |
|-------------|-------------|-----------------|--------|
| Homepage | Hero section CTA | Yes | Secondary CTA competes with primary |
| Product page | Product image | Mostly | Price not prominent enough |
| Contact form | Submit button | No | Form title same size as body text |
```

**Got:** Each major page/section assessed for clear visual hierarchy.
**If fail:** Without mockups, assess from live code using browser dev tools.

### Step 2: Evaluate Typography

- [ ] **Font selection**: Fonts appropriate for brand and content?
- [ ] **Font pairing**: Heading and body fonts complement (max 2-3 families)?
- [ ] **Type scale**: Consistent scale (e.g., 1.25 major second, 1.333 perfect fourth)?
- [ ] **Line height**: Body 1.4-1.6; headings 1.1-1.3
- [ ] **Line length**: Body 45-75 characters (optimal ~66)
- [ ] **Font weight**: Weight variations consistent for hierarchy
- [ ] **Font size**: Base ≥ 16px for body text

```css
/* Example well-structured type scale (1.25 ratio) */
:root {
  --text-xs: 0.64rem;    /* 10.24px */
  --text-sm: 0.8rem;     /* 12.8px */
  --text-base: 1rem;     /* 16px */
  --text-lg: 1.25rem;    /* 20px */
  --text-xl: 1.563rem;   /* 25px */
  --text-2xl: 1.953rem;  /* 31.25px */
  --text-3xl: 2.441rem;  /* 39.06px */
}
```

**Got:** Typography assessed for consistency, readability, and hierarchy.
**If fail:** With more than 3 font families, recommend consolidation.

### Step 3: Review Colour Usage

- [ ] **Palette coherence**: Intentional and limited (3-5 colours + neutrals)?
- [ ] **Brand alignment**: Colours match brand guidelines?
- [ ] **Contrast ratios**: Text meets WCAG AA (4.5:1 normal, 3:1 large)
- [ ] **Semantic colour**: Colours used consistently for meaning (red=error, green=success)?
- [ ] **Colour blindness**: Information conveyed by more than colour alone?
- [ ] **Dark/light mode**: Both modes maintain readability and brand

```markdown
## Colour Assessment
| Usage | Colour | Contrast Ratio | WCAG AA | Notes |
|-------|--------|----------------|---------|-------|
| Body text on white | #333333 | 12.6:1 | Pass | Good |
| Link text on white | #2563eb | 5.2:1 | Pass | Good |
| Muted text on light gray | #9ca3af on #f3f4f6 | 2.1:1 | FAIL | Increase contrast |
| CTA button text | #ffffff on #22c55e | 3.1:1 | FAIL for small text | Use darker green or larger text |
```

**Got:** Colour palette reviewed for coherence, accessibility, and semantic consistency.
**If fail:** Use a contrast checker (WebAIM) to verify exact ratios.

### Step 4: Assess Layout and Spacing

- [ ] **Grid system**: Consistent grid (12-column, auto-layout, custom)?
- [ ] **Spacing scale**: Systematic (4px/8px base, or Tailwind-like scale)?
- [ ] **Alignment**: Elements aligned to the grid (no "almost aligned" items)?
- [ ] **Density**: Appropriate for content type (data-heavy vs. marketing)?
- [ ] **Whitespace**: Used intentionally to group and separate?
- [ ] **Consistency**: Similar sections spaced identically?

Spacing audit:

```markdown
## Spacing Consistency Check
| Element Pair | Expected Gap | Actual Gap | Consistent? |
|-------------|-------------|------------|-------------|
| Section title to content | 24px | 24px | Yes |
| Card to card | 16px | 16px/24px | No — inconsistent |
| Form label to input | 8px | 4px/8px/12px | No — varies |
```

**Got:** Layout uses systematic grid and spacing scale consistently.
**If fail:** With inconsistent spacing, recommend a spacing scale (e.g., Tailwind's `space-*`).

### Step 5: Evaluate Responsive Design

Test across key breakpoints:

| Breakpoint | Width | Represents |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| Mobile | 375px | iPhone SE / small phones |
| Mobile L | 428px | iPhone 14 / large phones |
| Tablet | 768px | iPad portrait |
| Desktop | 1280px | Standard laptop |
| Wide | 1536px+ | Desktop monitor |

At each breakpoint, check:
- [ ] **Layout adaptation**: Layout reflows (stack on mobile, side-by-side on desktop)?
- [ ] **Touch targets**: Interactive elements ≥ 44x44px on mobile?
- [ ] **Text readability**: Font size appropriate for viewport?
- [ ] **Image scaling**: Images resize without distortion or overflow?
- [ ] **Navigation**: Mobile nav accessible (hamburger, bottom nav)?
- [ ] **No horizontal scroll**: Content does not overflow viewport horizontally

```markdown
## Responsive Review
| Breakpoint | Layout | Touch Targets | Text | Images | Navigation | Issues |
|-----------|--------|---------------|------|--------|------------|--------|
| 375px | OK | OK | OK | Overflow on hero | Hamburger | Hero image clips |
| 768px | OK | OK | OK | OK | Hamburger | None |
| 1280px | OK | N/A | OK | OK | Full nav | None |
| 1536px | OK | N/A | Line length too long | OK | Full nav | Add max-width to content |
```

**Got:** Design tested at all key breakpoints with issues documented.
**If fail:** Without responsive testing tools, review CSS media queries for coverage.

### Step 6: Check Brand Consistency

- [ ] **Logo usage**: Logo rendered correctly (size, spacing, clear zone)
- [ ] **Colour accuracy**: Brand colours match spec (hex values, not "close enough")
- [ ] **Typography match**: Fonts match brand guidelines
- [ ] **Tone/voice**: UI copy matches brand personality
- [ ] **Iconography**: Icons from a consistent set (style, weight, grid)
- [ ] **Photography style**: Images match brand guidelines (if applicable)

**Got:** Brand elements verified against guidelines with deviations noted.
**If fail:** Without brand guidelines, note this as a recommendation and assess internal consistency instead.

### Step 7: Write the Design Review

```markdown
## Web Design Review

### Overall Impression
[2-3 sentences: overall quality, strongest and weakest aspects]

### Visual Hierarchy: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Typography: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Colour: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Layout & Spacing: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Responsive Design: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Brand Consistency: [Score/5]
[Key findings with specific references]

### Priority Improvements
1. [Most impactful change — specific and actionable]
2. [Second priority]
3. [Third priority]

### Positive Notes
1. [What works well and should be preserved]
```

**Got:** Review provides specific, visual-reference feedback with prioritized improvements.
**If fail:** If scoring feels arbitrary, use a simpler pass/concern/fail system.

## Validation

- [ ] Visual hierarchy assessed for all major pages/sections
- [ ] Typography evaluated for readability, consistency, and scale
- [ ] Colour contrast verified against WCAG AA minimums
- [ ] Layout and spacing checked for grid consistency
- [ ] Responsive design tested at 3+ breakpoints
- [ ] Brand consistency verified against guidelines (or internal consistency assessed)
- [ ] Feedback is specific with visual references (page, section, element)

## Pitfalls

- **Subjective without reasoning**: "I don't like the colour" is not actionable. Explain why (contrast, brand mismatch, accessibility).
- **Ignoring accessibility**: Visual design review must include WCAG contrast checks. Beautiful designs that exclude users are not good designs.
- **Reviewing mockups only**: Test responsive behaviour, hover states, and transitions — not just static layouts.
- **Prescribing solutions**: Describe the problem ("text is hard to read on this background") rather than dictating a fix ("use #333").
- **Forgetting context**: A banking app and a gaming site have different design standards. Review against the appropriate context.

## Related Skills

- `review-ux-ui` — usability, interaction patterns, accessibility
- `setup-tailwind-typescript` — Tailwind CSS for design systems
- `scaffold-nextjs-app` — Next.js application scaffolding