Designing Beyond the Center: A Reflection on Heuristics and Inclusive Design
As a product designer, heuristics are one of the first tools I reach for. Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics, Shneiderman’s Eight Golden Rules, and Lund’s Usability Maxims each offer structure and clarity when evaluating design. They remind us to prioritize consistency, provide user feedback, and minimize cognitive load. But as I reflect more deeply—especially through the lens of inclusive design—it’s becoming clear that these frameworks, while foundational, don’t go far enough. The missing piece? Inclusion.
The Limits of Heuristics Without Inclusion
When I apply Nielsen’s heuristics to a design, it’s often to evaluate the whole experience. These principles are incredibly accessible—thanks to the Norman Nielsen Group’s robust resources—and they offer a great starting point. But their lack of explicit consideration for accessibility or equity leaves a gap.
For example, “user control and freedom” or “error prevention” might benefit everyone, but they don’t explicitly push us to think about users with disabilities, neurodivergent users, or anyone whose experience falls outside the so-called “average.”
As Jutta Treviranus eloquently writes in The Bell Curve, the Starburst, and the Virtuous Tornado, our industry’s overreliance on the 80/20 rule—designing for the center, not the edges—has marginalized a vital segment of users. And it’s not just a philosophical gap; it’s a practical one that limits innovation.
Heuristic vs. Cognitive Walkthroughs
In practice, I often pair heuristic evaluations with cognitive walkthroughs—especially when working on mature or complex products. While heuristics evaluate the interface holistically, cognitive walkthroughs center the user’s goals and reveal task-specific breakdowns. It’s a more empathetic method in many ways, because it assumes the perspective of someone trying to achieve something—often for the first time.
Incorporating inclusive design into a walkthrough means choosing diverse personas, designing edge-case scenarios, and actively asking: “Who are we missing?”
Why Inclusive Design Is a Catalyst, Not a Constraint
Treviranus challenges the idea that designing for edge cases is too costly. She reframes the so-called “difficult 20%” as the vital few—people whose lived experiences bring clarity to what systems need to be truly resilient. Think of Siri on the Apple Watch, which began as an accessibility feature. Or the OXO Good Grips peeler, originally designed for users with arthritis, now a mainstream product.
These innovations weren’t accidents. They were outcomes of designing beyond the center.
Moving Forward: Integrating Inclusive Design Into UX Practice
I no longer see inclusive design as a nice-to-have. It’s a necessary layer that must be added to our toolkits—alongside heuristics and walkthroughs. That means doing more than just referencing WCAG or running contrast checks. It means designing with, not just for. It means inviting users who’ve been historically left out into the evaluation process. And it means questioning the assumptions baked into our processes—especially those that prioritize efficiency over equity.
Designing for inclusion isn’t charity work. It’s systems work. It’s future-proofing. And ultimately, it’s better design.
