UX Frameworks Reference
Advanced Emotion Model (Russell's Circumplex)
Beyond the -3 to +3 linear scale, Echo can perform multi-dimensional emotion analysis:
Three Dimensions of Emotion
| Dimension | Range | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Valence | Negative ↔ Positive | Basic good/bad feeling |
| Arousal | Calm ↔ Excited | Energy level, activation |
| Dominance | Powerless ↔ In Control | Sense of agency |
Emotion Mapping Examples
| Emotion State | Valence | Arousal | Dominance | User Quote |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frustrated | -2 | +2 | -1 | "This is so annoying and I can't fix it!" |
| Anxious | -1 | +2 | -2 | "I'm scared to click this, what if I break something?" |
| Bored | -1 | -2 | 0 | "This is taking forever... whatever." |
| Confident | +2 | +1 | +2 | "I know exactly what to do next." |
| Delighted | +3 | +2 | +1 | "Wow, that was so easy!" |
| Relieved | +1 | -1 | +1 | "Finally, it worked." |
When to Use Multi-Dimensional Analysis
Use the 3D model when:
- Distinguishing between similar negative states (frustrated vs anxious vs bored)
- Analyzing flows where user control/agency matters (settings, permissions)
- Evaluating high-stakes interactions (payments, data deletion)
Emotion Journey Patterns
Pattern Recognition
| Pattern | Shape | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery | \_/─ |
Problem solved, user recovered | Prevent the initial dip |
| Cliff | ─│__ |
Sudden catastrophic drop | Fix the breaking point |
| Rollercoaster | /\/\/\ |
Inconsistent experience | Ensure consistency |
| Slow Decline | ─\__ |
Gradual frustration | Address cumulative friction |
| Plateau Low | __─ |
Stuck in negativity | Major intervention needed |
| Building Momentum | _/─/ |
Increasing confidence | Maintain the trajectory |
Peak-End Rule Application
Users remember experiences based on:
- Peak moment - The most intense point (positive or negative)
- End moment - The final impression
Prioritization Strategy:
- Fix the worst moment first (negative peak)
- Ensure positive ending regardless of middle friction
- Create intentional positive peaks ("delight moments")
Priority = (Peak Impact × 0.4) + (End Impact × 0.4) + (Average × 0.2)Cognitive Psychology Framework
Mental Model Gap Detection
| Gap Type | Detection Signal | Example Quote |
|---|---|---|
| Terminology Mismatch | User uses different words | "The system says 'Authenticate' but I just want to 'Log in'" |
| Action Prediction Failure | Unexpected result | "I thought this button would go back, but it went forward" |
| Causality Misunderstanding | Unclear cause-effect | "I saved it but it's not showing up. Did it work?" |
| Hidden Prerequisites | Missing context | "Wait, I needed to do THAT first?" |
| Spatial Confusion | Lost in navigation | "Where am I? How do I get back?" |
| Temporal Confusion | Unclear state/timing | "Is it still loading or is it broken?" |
Cognitive Load Index (CLI)
| Load Type | Definition | Indicators |
|---|---|---|
| Intrinsic | Task's inherent complexity | Number of concepts, relationships |
| Extraneous | UI-induced unnecessary load | Poor layout, confusing labels, visual clutter |
| Germane | Learning/schema building | New patterns to remember |
Report formats (Gap Report, CLI Score, Attention Flow): See output-templates.md#cognitive-psychology-reports
Latent Needs Discovery
Jobs-to-be-Done (JTBD) Lens
| Observed Behavior | Surface Need | Latent Need (JTBD) |
|---|---|---|
| Repeats same action multiple times | Make it work | Needs confirmation/feedback |
| Searches for help | Find instructions | Wants to self-solve (in-context guidance) |
| Abandons mid-flow | Give up | Feels risk, needs reassurance |
| Opens new tab to search | Find information | Insufficient explanation in UI |
| Takes screenshot | Remember something | Fears losing progress/data |
| Hesitates before clicking | Unsure of consequence | Needs preview/undo capability |
Implicit Expectation Detection
| Expectation Type | Violation Signal | User Quote |
|---|---|---|
| Response Time | Perceived slowness | "Is it frozen?" "Still loading?" |
| Outcome | Results don't match effort | "That's it?" "I expected more" |
| Effort | Required work exceeds expectation | "I have to fill ALL of this?" |
| Reward | Value unclear or insufficient | "What did I get from doing that?" |
| Control | Unexpected automation | "Wait, I didn't want it to do that" |
| Privacy | Unexpected data usage | "Why does it need access to THAT?" |
JTBD analysis format: See output-templates.md#latent-needs
Context-Aware Simulation
Add real-world usage context (Physical, Temporal, Social, Cognitive, Technical) to persona simulations. Evaluate how well the UI handles interrupted sessions.
Environmental dimensions: See analysis-frameworks.md#context-aware-simulation
Scenario examples & interruption assessment: See output-templates.md#context-aware-simulation
Behavioral Economics Integration
Cognitive Bias Detection
| Bias | UI Trigger | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|
| Anchoring | Price shown before options | Medium |
| Default Effect | Pre-selected options | High if harmful |
| Loss Aversion | Cancellation warnings | Medium |
| Choice Overload | Many similar options | High |
| Sunk Cost | "You've already completed 80%" | Medium |
| Social Proof | "1000 users chose this" | Low |
| Scarcity | "Only 3 left!" | Medium |
| Framing Effect | "90% fat-free" vs "10% fat" | Medium |
Dark Pattern Detection
| Pattern | Detection Criteria |
|---|---|
| Confirmshaming | "No, I don't want to save money" |
| Roach Motel | Sign-up: 2 clicks, Cancel: 10 steps |
| Hidden Costs | Price increases at checkout |
| Trick Questions | Confusing double negatives |
| Forced Continuity | Trial → Paid with no warning |
| Misdirection | Tiny "skip" link, huge "accept" button |
| Privacy Zuckering | Public-by-default sharing |
| Bait and Switch | Free feature becomes paid |
Report formats & severity rating: See output-templates.md#behavioral-economics
Cross-Persona Insights
Run the same flow with multiple personas to identify issue types:
| Issue Type | Definition | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Universal Issue | All personas struggle | CRITICAL - Fundamental UX problem |
| Segment Issue | Specific personas struggle | HIGH - Targeted fix needed |
| Edge Case | Only extreme personas struggle | MEDIUM - Consider accessibility |
| Non-Issue | No persona struggles | LOW - Working as intended |
Comparison matrix & persona transition analysis: See output-templates.md#cross-persona-insights
Predictive Friction Detection
Pattern-Based Pre-Analysis
| Pattern | Risk Signal | Predicted Issue |
|---|---|---|
| Form > 3 steps | Multi-page form | High abandonment risk |
| Required fields > 5 | Many asterisks | Cognitive overload |
| No progress indicator | Missing breadcrumb/steps | Lost user syndrome |
| Error clears input | Form reset on error | Rage quit trigger |
| No confirmation | Missing success state | "Did it work?" anxiety |
| Tiny touch targets | Buttons < 44px | Mobile user frustration |
| Wall of text | Paragraphs > 3 lines | Content blindness |
| Deep nesting | 4+ menu levels | Navigation black hole |
Risk assessment & A/B test hypothesis formats: See output-templates.md#predictive-friction
Accessibility Checklist
When using Accessibility User persona, run this WCAG 2.1 simplified checklist:
Perceivable
- Images have alt text
- Information not conveyed by color alone
- Sufficient color contrast (4.5:1 minimum)
- Text can be resized to 200% without breaking
- Captions/transcripts for media content
Operable
- All functions available via keyboard
- Focus order is logical / Focus indicator visible
- No keyboard traps
- Sufficient time to complete actions
- No content that flashes more than 3 times/second
Understandable
- Page language is specified
- Error messages are specific and helpful
- Labels associated with inputs / Consistent navigation
- Input purpose is identifiable (autocomplete)
Robust
- Valid HTML structure
- Name, role, value available for custom components
- Status messages announced to screen readers
Persona feedback style examples: See output-templates.md#accessibility
WCAG 3.0 Tier Simulation
When evaluating accessibility, supplement WCAG 2.2 pass/fail with WCAG 3.0 tier scoring:
| Tier | Scope | Echo Action |
|---|---|---|
| Bronze | Core barriers (≈ AA) | Run Accessibility User persona — flag score 0-1 items |
| Silver | + cognitive barriers, usability testing | Run Senior, Low Vision, Cognitive Load personas — flag score 0-2 items |
| Gold | + comprehensive user testing | Run all personas including cultural context variations — flag score 0-3 items |
Report format: append WCAG 3.0 Tier Estimate: Bronze/Silver/Gold to accessibility findings.
Multi-Modal Input Evaluation
For each persona, evaluate input mode transitions:
| Transition | Check |
|---|---|
| Touch → Voice | Can user switch mid-task without losing context? |
| Keyboard → Touch | Is focus state preserved across mode switch? |
| Gesture → Keyboard | Are gesture shortcuts discoverable via keyboard? |
| Voice → Visual | Does voice feedback have visual confirmation? |
Invisible interaction evaluation: Assess voice commands, gesture recognition, and presence detection for discoverability, error recovery, and feedback clarity.
AI-Generated UI Cognitive Evaluation
When evaluating AI-generated interfaces (Figma Make, v0, Stitch output):
| Pattern | Risk | Check |
|---|---|---|
| Excessive symmetry | Medium | Real layouts have intentional hierarchy breaks |
| Generic placeholder feel | High | Stock-like imagery, templated copy, uniform card grids |
| Context-awareness gap | High | AI may not understand user's mental model or domain |
| Dark pattern leakage | Medium | AI training data may include manipulative patterns |
Rule: AI-generated UI requires mandatory cognitive walkthrough before production use.
Competitor Comparison Mode
When using Competitor Migrant persona, evaluate: Expectation Gap, Muscle Memory Conflict, Feature Parity, Terminology Mismatch.
Comparison framework & feedback style: See output-templates.md#competitor-comparison