Repeatable handheld UX review rubric

Use this rubric with a dated source identity and links to the evidence, not as a numeric score. Record each observation as observed, not observed, or unavailable; state whether it is host-render, native board capture, injected board input, camera, or real-finger evidence.

Dimension	Review question	Evidence needed to call a current behavior observed
Discovery	Can a person identify the action and find a named app/surface?	Current-source image and stated catalog size; real-finger review for reach/reading claims.
Hierarchy and consistency	Do type, spacing, palette, icon role, and state labels form a legible whole across Home, drawer, settings, shade and deck?	Paired same-source frames; authored-theme host render may assess pixels, not physical readability.
Focus and feedback	Does selection/press/loading/error produce visible, timely feedback and preserve context?	Reproducible action and before/after native pixels or capture; host fixture only proves renderer output.
Motion and direct manipulation	Does the same object follow touch and settle predictably; are close/refusal routes recoverable?	Timestamped input and compositor/native capture; camera/finger footage for optical tracking. Static frames cannot prove trajectory.
Keyboard occlusion and recovery	When visible, what remains reachable, and can the person hide/recover the keyboard?	Current-source shown/hidden states and the actual action used. Keyboard command reveal is not gesture evidence.
Accessibility and reach	Are targets legible and reachable without relying on a gesture alone?	Target geometry plus actual interaction; camera framing/optical clarity and finger reach need physical review.
State/recovery language	Are empty, loading, stale, failed, denied and private states distinct, short, and actionable?	One artifact/fixture per state, with literal displayed text and route out. Do not infer missing states from a healthy screen.
Reference comparison	Does a webOS principle clarify an interaction while respecting this handheld’s different context?	Inspected primary reference and current artifact; label interpretation as comparison, not compatibility claim.

Confidence labels: high = the named evidence directly shows the scoped claim; medium = source or a proxy state supports a plausible issue, but physical impact is not shown; low = hypothesis requiring a new observation. Severity describes user impact only when the evidence shows a user-facing problem. An absent capture is an evidence gap, not automatically a defect.

Review keyboard-hidden and keyboard-visible states separately. Reuse a prior acceptance only for a behavior whose interaction contract and implementation are unchanged; state the date and source. Do not count a described sequence, host render, injected event, or previously accepted session as a newly walked current-source journey. Preserve unknowns verbatim as UNVERIFIED.