Usability for Developers: Identify, Evaluate and Prioritize
Published on
·
February 23, 2026
Last updated on
·
February 16, 2026
Time to read
·
12
Pablo Manzoni
UX Lead & Product Designer
Usability isn't just a designer's jergon. For developers, understanding usability can make a big difference. It makes it easier to work independently and effectively collaborate with designers and users. This understanding cuts down on the back-and-forth between design, development, and product owners, saving you time.
In this blog post, we'll show you how to understand, evaluate, and prioritize usability using practical tools. These tips will empower you to work more independently and improve your development process.
What is Usability?
First, we should start by defining usability. Usability is all about making it easy for users to interact with a product and achieve their goals efficiently and effectively. It’s not just a vague concept—there are universal rules and guidelines we can follow, and even adapt to our specific product.
When we talk about usability, we focus on three main aspects:
Efficiency: How fast can users complete their tasks?
Effectiveness: How accurately can users achieve their goals?
Satisfaction: How enjoyable is the overall experience?
These aspects are measurable. For example, reducing the time it takes a user to complete a task by 20%, not only improves usability but also translates into quantifiable costs savings and user satisfaction.
Why Usability is Important in Software Projects?
Boosts user satisfaction: Easy-to-use products keep users happy.
Reduces errors: Clear instructions and feedback help users make fewer mistakes and recover quickly when they do.
Makes learning easy: Consistent design elements make it easy for users to understand and remember how to use your product.
Cuts support costs: User-friendly products lead to fewer support calls, saving money.
Boosts efficiency: Familiar interfaces help users navigate and complete tasks more quickly.
Increases user retention: Satisfied users are more likely to stick around.
Improves accessibility: Usable products work well for everyone, including those with disabilities.
Drives conversions: A smooth and enjoyable process turns visitors into customers.
Why Developers Should Care About Usability?
Usability it's a fundamental part of the development process that can streamline workflows and reduce the need for revisions. Here's why it's essential for developers:
Improve Cross-Functional Collaboration
Understanding usability allows developers to connect more effectively with other departments such as user experience (UX) designers, product owners, and users. This common ground promotes better communication and ensures everyone is focused on user-centric goals.
Reduce Hand-Offs
When developers have a good grasp of usability, the transition between design and development becomes smoother. Early involvement in usability discussions can cut down on extensive revisions and ensure features are well-planned from the start.
Minimize Rework
Planning features with usability in mind prevents costly back-and-forth adjustments after launch. Addressing usability issues early not only guarantees functionality but also improves the user experience of the final product.
Increase Development Efficiency
Consider usability as a part of the big picture, not just an add-on. This perspective allows developers to anticipate user needs, streamline their development processes, and deliver more efficient solutions.
Prioritization
Usability evaluations equip developers with tangible metrics to identify and prioritize issues effectively. This clarity prevents unnecessary changes based on subjective opinions and focuses efforts on addressing critical user experience challenges.
How to Evaluate Usability?
There is no single way to evaluate usability, and there’s no definitive rulebook that applies to every single situation. That said, in this article we’ll be focusing on different heuristic lists. These lists provide general rules or guidelines for identifying usability problems in user interface design.
Some common examples include Nielsen's Usability Heuristics, Gerhardt-Powals' Cognitive Engineering Principles, Shneiderman's Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design, Bastien and Scapin's Ergonomic Criteria, Don Norman's Design Principles, and the ISO 9241-110 Dialogue Principles.
The great thing about these lists is that they’re not set in stone. You can adapt them to fit your unique business needs. For example, if you’re in the business of selling light switches, the height and position of the switch would be pretty crucial parameters in terms of usability.
So, grab a list, understand it, and start evaluating whether you’re meeting usability standards. Remember, customizing the list to your own specific situation and business context is a must.
Some examples of Usability Heuristics
Help Users Recognize, Diagnose & Recover From Errors
Match Between System and the Real World
Prioritizing Usability Issues
When prioritizing usability issues, it's important to have a systematic approach to ensure that we address the most critical problems first. One effective method is to use formulas that assign a specific weight to each issue. These formulas can consider several criteria to determine the priority level.
For example, we can rate the business impact on a scale from 1 to 5.
We can also categorize the criticality of the usability problem, ranging from blocker to suggestion, including moderate and serious levels.
Additionally, the duration of the issue's existence can be part of this formula, gaining more weight over time.
It's important not to rush to address the first piece of feedback, especially when it comes from someone influential like a CEO or Product Owner. We often tend to over-prioritize such feedback, but even well-intentioned suggestions can sometimes cause more harm than good.
So, what should we do? We need to learn how to assign a weight to each usability issue to focus on those that will have the most significant impact. By doing so, we ensure that we address the most critical usability issues first, allocate resources effectively, minimize costs, and achieve significant improvements in usability, leading to a higher return on investment.
Generating Solutions
When generating solutions, it's ideal to have multiple options to bring to the table for discussion. Having various solutions allows us to evaluate different complexities with different levels of effort.
Sometimes, putting a lot of effort into a small problem doesn't make sense, just as solving a big problem with minimal effort might not be effective. By considering multiple solutions, we can weigh the pros and cons of each and choose the most appropriate approach for the situation.
Conclusion
Understanding usability is crucial for developers. It enhances collaboration, reduces rework, and ensures features are user-friendly from the start. By focusing on efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction, you can create products that not only function well but also delight users.
Next time you’re planning a feature, think about usability and see the difference it makes.
Usability isn't just a designer's jergon. For developers, understanding usability can make a big difference. It makes it easier to work independently and effectively collaborate with designers and users. This understanding cuts down on the back-and-forth between design, development, and product owners, saving you time.
In this blog post, we'll show you how to understand, evaluate, and prioritize usability using practical tools. These tips will empower you to work more independently and improve your development process.
What is Usability?
First, we should start by defining usability. Usability is all about making it easy for users to interact with a product and achieve their goals efficiently and effectively. It’s not just a vague concept—there are universal rules and guidelines we can follow, and even adapt to our specific product.
When we talk about usability, we focus on three main aspects:
Efficiency: How fast can users complete their tasks?
Effectiveness: How accurately can users achieve their goals?
Satisfaction: How enjoyable is the overall experience?
These aspects are measurable. For example, reducing the time it takes a user to complete a task by 20%, not only improves usability but also translates into quantifiable costs savings and user satisfaction.
Why Usability is Important in Software Projects?
Boosts user satisfaction: Easy-to-use products keep users happy.
Reduces errors: Clear instructions and feedback help users make fewer mistakes and recover quickly when they do.
Makes learning easy: Consistent design elements make it easy for users to understand and remember how to use your product.
Cuts support costs: User-friendly products lead to fewer support calls, saving money.
Boosts efficiency: Familiar interfaces help users navigate and complete tasks more quickly.
Increases user retention: Satisfied users are more likely to stick around.
Improves accessibility: Usable products work well for everyone, including those with disabilities.
Drives conversions: A smooth and enjoyable process turns visitors into customers.
Why Developers Should Care About Usability?
Usability it's a fundamental part of the development process that can streamline workflows and reduce the need for revisions. Here's why it's essential for developers:
Improve Cross-Functional Collaboration
Understanding usability allows developers to connect more effectively with other departments such as user experience (UX) designers, product owners, and users. This common ground promotes better communication and ensures everyone is focused on user-centric goals.
Reduce Hand-Offs
When developers have a good grasp of usability, the transition between design and development becomes smoother. Early involvement in usability discussions can cut down on extensive revisions and ensure features are well-planned from the start.
Minimize Rework
Planning features with usability in mind prevents costly back-and-forth adjustments after launch. Addressing usability issues early not only guarantees functionality but also improves the user experience of the final product.
Increase Development Efficiency
Consider usability as a part of the big picture, not just an add-on. This perspective allows developers to anticipate user needs, streamline their development processes, and deliver more efficient solutions.
Prioritization
Usability evaluations equip developers with tangible metrics to identify and prioritize issues effectively. This clarity prevents unnecessary changes based on subjective opinions and focuses efforts on addressing critical user experience challenges.
How to Evaluate Usability?
There is no single way to evaluate usability, and there’s no definitive rulebook that applies to every single situation. That said, in this article we’ll be focusing on different heuristic lists. These lists provide general rules or guidelines for identifying usability problems in user interface design.
Some common examples include Nielsen's Usability Heuristics, Gerhardt-Powals' Cognitive Engineering Principles, Shneiderman's Eight Golden Rules of Interface Design, Bastien and Scapin's Ergonomic Criteria, Don Norman's Design Principles, and the ISO 9241-110 Dialogue Principles.
The great thing about these lists is that they’re not set in stone. You can adapt them to fit your unique business needs. For example, if you’re in the business of selling light switches, the height and position of the switch would be pretty crucial parameters in terms of usability.
So, grab a list, understand it, and start evaluating whether you’re meeting usability standards. Remember, customizing the list to your own specific situation and business context is a must.
Some examples of Usability Heuristics
Help Users Recognize, Diagnose & Recover From Errors
Match Between System and the Real World
Prioritizing Usability Issues
When prioritizing usability issues, it's important to have a systematic approach to ensure that we address the most critical problems first. One effective method is to use formulas that assign a specific weight to each issue. These formulas can consider several criteria to determine the priority level.
For example, we can rate the business impact on a scale from 1 to 5.
We can also categorize the criticality of the usability problem, ranging from blocker to suggestion, including moderate and serious levels.
Additionally, the duration of the issue's existence can be part of this formula, gaining more weight over time.
It's important not to rush to address the first piece of feedback, especially when it comes from someone influential like a CEO or Product Owner. We often tend to over-prioritize such feedback, but even well-intentioned suggestions can sometimes cause more harm than good.
So, what should we do? We need to learn how to assign a weight to each usability issue to focus on those that will have the most significant impact. By doing so, we ensure that we address the most critical usability issues first, allocate resources effectively, minimize costs, and achieve significant improvements in usability, leading to a higher return on investment.
Generating Solutions
When generating solutions, it's ideal to have multiple options to bring to the table for discussion. Having various solutions allows us to evaluate different complexities with different levels of effort.
Sometimes, putting a lot of effort into a small problem doesn't make sense, just as solving a big problem with minimal effort might not be effective. By considering multiple solutions, we can weigh the pros and cons of each and choose the most appropriate approach for the situation.
Conclusion
Understanding usability is crucial for developers. It enhances collaboration, reduces rework, and ensures features are user-friendly from the start. By focusing on efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction, you can create products that not only function well but also delight users.
Next time you’re planning a feature, think about usability and see the difference it makes.
A while ago we noticed something pretty common: everyone wanted to share more knowledge internally, but nobody wanted another heavy corporate ritual.
Internal talks usually start with good intentions and slowly disappear. They take time, preparation, and energy. And at some point people start feeling like they need to be experts before presenting anything.
So we tried the opposite.
15 minute talks.
Small topics.
Low pressure.
And one important rule: every session had to leave something useful behind. A tool, a workflow, an idea, a shortcut, a new way to approach a problem. Something people could actually use after the talk ended.
We didn’t want theory that went nowhere.
Somehow, that ended up working much better than we expected.
The idea was to reduce friction
Screenshot of the shared topic pool
Tiny Knowledge Bytes is intentionally simple:
anyone can suggest topics
anyone can end up presenting
you don’t need to master the topic
talks can come from experiments, client problems, tools or random discoveries
sessions should leave something practical behind
if nobody volunteers, the system picks someone for us
The goal was making knowledge sharing feel lightweight instead of exhausting.
Some of the best talks start with:
“I tried this yesterday and it was weird.”
The topic pool started growing on its own
Over time, topics started coming from everywhere.
Sometimes someone took a course and used a Tiny Knowledge Byte as a way to give something back to the team. Other times, a client problem triggered research into new tools, workflows or AI approaches.
A lot of sessions start from curiosity or necessity more than planning.
And honestly, the mix is part of what makes it interesting.
Sometimes a UX session drifts into Computer Vision. Sometimes someone technical shares a visual workflow that half the design team ends up adopting later.
There’s not much curation. It behaves more like a constant exploration system.
Then another problem appeared: choosing who presents
And this is where things became unnecessarily dramatic.
Nobody wanted to be “the person who chooses”. So we started adding absurd layers of randomness until we somehow ended up building a full internal app called 2FS.
Two Factor Sorteo.
Yes, it’s real.
The wheel proposes. The oracle decides.
The logic is simple.
First, a wheel picks someone.
Then a Magic 8 Ball decides whether destiny approves the selection.
If the oracle rejects the person, the process starts again.
That’s it.
The app accidentally became part of the learning loop too
Apps developed for the Tiny Knowledge Bytes.
2FS originally started as an excuse to experiment with:
Claude Code
Claude Design
design systems
editorial interfaces
motion and microinteractions
Eventually those same explorations turned into future Tiny Knowledge Bytes.
The tool we used to select speakers started generating new topics itself.
The system started feeding itself
One of the most interesting side effects is that people started building things outside their usual role because of previous Tiny Knowledge Bytes.
2FS itself is a good example. A designer saw sessions about Claude tooling and AI workflows and thought:
“Maybe I can actually build this.”
What started as a ridiculous speaker selection tool became a real product experiment involving Claude Code, interface systems and interaction design.
Then it came back into the Tiny Knowledge Bytes circuit as a new talk.
That loop became surprisingly valuable:
someone learns something,
tries it,
builds something with it,
and eventually inspires someone else to do the same.
What ended up mattering most
Final Oracle Certificate.
Over time we realized knowledge sharing works much better when:
it doesn’t require huge preparation
it’s allowed to be imperfect
it mixes different disciplines
it leaves something practical behind
and somehow involves a mystical wheel connected to a Magic 8 Ball
At that point, it stops feeling like another internal obligation and starts feeling like something people genuinely want to keep alive.
Just this month, I built a full design system in about 20 hours.
What used to take weeks, sometimes months, is now dramatically faster. So… what actually changed? And more importantly: what didn’t?
Design systems take time. On complex platforms, they can take hundreds of hours.
We were working with a large and complex product where inconsistencies had started to pile up. Different modules had evolved in isolation, teams were making independent decisions, and there were no shared guidelines. The answer was clear: we needed a design system.
AI tools were just starting to emerge back then. They were mostly useful for simple tasks as they tended to hallucinate when things got complex. Developers had started using them earlier than designers, MCP didn't exist yet, and Figma plugins were the best automation we had.
But the context has changed. Fast.
The Manual Era
We did what most teams did. We stopped, and we built it. Manually.
Picture two designers, a mountain of inconsistencies, and no map. We had to cross-reference information manually, digging through the code, detecting what could be merged, agreeing on naming conventions, deciding how to name components. Hours and hours of discussion until we finally landed on a solution.
In the end, we got there. A cleaner system, faster workflows, and for the first time, both teams speaking the same visual language. Hard-won, but it worked.
But now every month a new AI model seems to be released. Design is finally catching up with what developers faced about two years ago. New tools arose, and with that, the scope of our work as designers completely changed.
The Human Factor
For an internal project, I used our Kaizen site as a reference, combined with documentation from industry leaders as a guideline.
I started in v0, which is essentially a chat interface where you can generate UI components through prompts. I fed it the colors, typographies, and a reference image, and from there it was a back-and-forth: the AI generated, I reacted, adjusted, and pushed until the output matched what I had in my head. And just like that, I started prompting my way through a Design System.
Once a component was ready, I used the html.to.design plugin to bring it into Figma (yes, plugins are still alive!). Think of it as a bridge: the plugin exports designs directly from the browser into a Figma file.
Inside Figma, the intervention was more hands-on. First, I checked that everything was visually consistent with what was defined in v0: colors, typography, styles. Then I used Figma's built-in AI to rename all the component layers using BEM convention (something that would have taken a significant amount of time to do so manually).
BEM, which stands for Block Element Modifier, is a widely adopted naming convention in CSS. It structures layer names hierarchically and predictably, for example: button__label--disabled.
Using it keeps the code clean, readable, and consistent, especially when you're working alongside a developer who needs to understand what came out the other side.
Beyond naming, I also made sure the layer structure would generate the right properties when building component sets in Figma, so that all the variants would be correctly exposed and usable. My team also pointed out that adding descriptions to components and variants was key as context for any agent using them through an MCP.
The last step was connecting everything to Windsurf via MCP. With a frame selected in Dev Mode, Windsurf could read the Figma file and use the components to build more complex screens.
We worked closely with a developer throughout this phase. Not just for the technical knowledge, but because having someone who reads code fluently meant catching things we wouldn't have spotted otherwise. The design role here was direction and supervision: making sure the AI used the components correctly and didn't invent solutions where context was missing.
Every step of the process had a human decision behind it.
An Unexpected Discovery
At one point, before we had any of the naming conventions figured out, I selected a frame and asked Windsurf to build a form using the components inside it, styled to match a specific card. The developer next to me was skeptical until he saw the result, and then he was just as surprised as I was.
What we realized is that the MCP wasn't reading layer names to understand context. It was reading everything inside the frame, even the loose text sitting alongside the components. Good naming is still worth doing. But the MCP doesn't need it to understand what it's looking at.
Learning to Talk to an AI
The more specific and contained your prompt, the better the outcome. We started with the most atomic component: the button, and worked outward from there. Each approved component became context for the next one, so the system gradually picked up the visual language we were building.
At some point I got ambitious and asked for five cards in a single prompt: blog card, service card, testimonial card, stats card, feature card… structures, states and all. The AI delivered.
Visually, everything looked fine. Then the developer looked at the code and pointed out that all five cards were independent components instead of variants of one. For a design system, that breaks everything.
One correction prompt fixed it. But it was a good reminder: the AI does exactly what you ask, not what you mean. And fixing it after the fact can cost more than getting it right from the start.
Some Things Learned Along the Way
Precision is key. Natural language is fine when you're asking for a cooking recipe, but when referring to a component, if you say things like "create" instead of "add", you'll probably end up with a whole new set of components instead of additional variants of an existing one.
The "Frame" is the context: MCPs can read everything inside the frame you select. This is a game-changer. It means the "naming conventions" debate might be shifting. If the AI understands the context visually and structurally, will we still spend hours discussing nomenclature in 2027?
No matter what happens, you can always roll back in less than 5 minutes and start over.
Work closely with a developer: they can help you understand MCPs and clear up any code-related doubts. Once you start to grasp their logic, you'll learn very quickly how to prompt in ways that AI actually understands.
There's nothing to lose by asking the AI to follow a specific naming convention for the code. It keeps everything clean and readable, and it takes no extra effort.
The AI covers roughly 80% of the work (generation, variations, exploration...), but the remaining 20% is where quality lives, and that part is not delegable. The AI executes. The judgment is still yours. And if you skip the review, you're not saving time: you'll spend it later.
Context matters more than tooling. What you don't define, the AI will invent. Small components may be resolved well, but large interfaces require more definition from the start. A well-defined system scales. An undefined one generates inconsistencies faster than you can fix them.
Figma is no longer the mandatory starting point. It's useful as a visual reference, a QA space, or a consolidation layer. But the AI doesn't need it. We still do.
There's no single right workflow yet. What you do depends on the project. We're in a transition moment where the tools change faster than the standards. The best thing you can do right now is experiment.
What AI Still Can’t Replace
Through all of this, a few things became very clear. These are the parts that didn’t change:
Knowing when something looks off. The AI generates, but it doesn't notice when the result doesn't feel right. That eye is yours.
Direction and supervision. The AI used the components we gave it, but without someone supervising it, it invents solutions where there is no context to work from.
The definition of done is still a human call, whether it's a conversation with a PO, a stakeholder, or just the designer's criteria. There's no prompt for that.
The context: knowing why certain decisions matter, what a component should communicate, what the user will actually feel. Business knowledge, stakeholder dynamics, unwritten rules, empathy for the end user. These take years to build and live in the people doing the work, not in the tools they use.
My Two Cents
The tools changed, and that gave me the chills, but throughout this experience I found that the designer's role is more alive than ever.
What once took a team weeks can now be prototyped in hours. That’s not a threat; it’s an invitation to get curious.
I'm still figuring a lot of this out, and I suspect most of us are. There's no right workflow yet, and honestly, that's fine. We are in a transition where tools change faster than standards. The best thing you can do is experiment. Don't wait for a "definitive" workflow, it might be obsolete by next month.
Go ahead, try prompting your way through a component. You might be surprised how fast the system starts to take shape.
