Eight UX Checks for Important Website Journeys

A checklist can identify useful questions, but it cannot diagnose why a metric changed or promise that a redesign will improve conversion. Use these eight checks to form hypotheses about an important journey. Confirm them with analytics quality checks, accessibility evaluation and research with relevant users before treating a proposed change as the answer.

1. Can users find the contact route they need?

Do not assume that a phone number is always the primary action or that it must occupy one universal screen position. Identify which contact routes matter for the audience and task, then check whether their labels, availability and destination are clear on relevant screen sizes. If telephone contact is offered, a correctly formatted tel: link can support capable devices.

2. Does the form ask only what is needed?

Review why every question is present, how the answer will be used and whether the service already holds the information. GOV.UK's Design System recommends asking only for information genuinely needed and making optional questions explicit. Removing a field may simplify a journey, but the effect on completion should be measured rather than assigned a made-up percentage.

3. Is cost information appropriate and understandable?

Users may need enough information to decide whether to continue, but the right presentation depends on the product and how price is calculated. Options to investigate include:

a current fixed price with the included scope;
a sourced price range with the variables that change it;
a worked example clearly labelled as an example;
an explanation of the information needed to prepare a quote.

Do not invent a price, imply that a range applies to every project or claim that one presentation always outperforms another.

4. Is the next action clear in context?

A page can contain several legitimate actions. Check whether their labels explain the outcome, whether visual emphasis matches the task, and whether repeated calls to action remain consistent. Do not state that two buttons halve click-through or prescribe an exact number of repetitions without evidence from the specific journey.

5. Can the journey be completed at different viewport sizes?

Compare navigation, controls, content and error recovery across the layouts the service supports. Responsive design may reorganise navigation, but important destinations and functions should not disappear accidentally. Test keyboard access, focus order, zoom and reflow as part of the accessibility scope rather than checking menu item counts alone.

6. Do errors identify the problem and support recovery?

WCAG 2.2 includes success criteria for error identification, labels or instructions and error suggestions. GOV.UK's validation pattern recommends an error summary and messages next to fields with errors. Review whether users can locate the error, understand it and correct it without losing valid information.

Use specific language that describes what needs attention.
Associate the message with the relevant input programmatically.
Make the error perceivable and keep valid answers where possible.
Test the complete recovery path with keyboard and assistive technology.

7. Is performance measured in the relevant context?

Large media, fonts, scripts and third-party services can delay rendering or interaction, especially on constrained devices and networks. Use field data where available and repeatable lab tests for diagnosis. A red tool score is a prompt to investigate, not proof of lost revenue or a universal percentage of visitors abandoning.

Check image dimensions, format and compression.
Review font families, weights and loading behaviour.
Identify scripts that block rendering or interaction.
Test important journeys on representative devices and connections.

8. Does the page explain the service and next step?

Review whether headings and introductory content help the intended audience understand what the service is, who it is for and what they can do next. Avoid fabricated speed, price or service promises in the attempt to make a headline sharper. Test important language with relevant users because internal familiarity can hide ambiguity.

The diagnosis sequence

Treat each checklist item as a question. A proportionate sequence is:

Define the important user task and measurable service outcome.
Validate analytics events and review existing support or research evidence.
Use a heuristic review, accessibility evaluation or usability test according to the evidence gap.
Record the hypothesis and implement a scoped change.
Evaluate again, preserving limitations and alternative explanations.