← Back to stories Internal Tooling · Minor Initiative

AI Initiatives

A smaller-scope tool for Method's global service team to sanity-check their own design work against six lenses — usability, accessibility, trust & ethics, business impact, design quality, and Method's own experience framework — before a single line of code gets written.

Company
Method / GlobalLogic
Role
Design Lead, tool built for internal use
Tool
Method UX Review Copilot
Business Context

Every design review at Method catches usability and accessibility issues — eventually. The problem was timing: most gaps surfaced after a build had already started, when fixing them cost real engineering time.

The Problem

Manual review doesn't scale with three time zones shipping in parallel. Whoever reviewed last, or reviewed fastest, ended up deciding what "good enough" meant that week.

My Role

I built a small AI-assisted copilot for the global service team to flag usability and accessibility issues at the design-file stage, before a single line of code gets written.

Decisions

The team almost treated it as a pass/fail gate. I pushed back — it flags, a person still decides. AI didn't change what good design is. It changed how fast bad design gets caught.

How It Works
01
Configure
Describe the project brief, pick the standards that apply — WCAG 2.2, EAA, ADA, Nielsen heuristics, Material, HIG — or apply a saved preset.
02
Upload
Drop in up to 20 screens as PNG or JPG. The engine grounds every finding in the actual interface — reviewed together as one journey, not screen by screen.
03
Receive
A board-ready report: one overall score, six lens scores, visual callouts, prioritized findings, and a roadmap grouped by effort and impact.
Evidence
The Tool
overview · six lenses, one verdict
Method UX Review Copilot overview page showing the six review lenses
Usability, accessibility, trust & ethics, business impact, design quality, and Method's own experience framework — combined into one report instead of five separate ones.
configure · pick your lenses
New review configuration screen showing selectable review standards across UX, accessibility, trust and ethics, and design systems
Every standard is selectable — WCAG 2.2 AA, ADA, EAA, Nielsen heuristics, dark-pattern detection, even a specific design system. This run: 12 standards, Full review depth.
multi-screen · the whole flow
Eight J-ESTA screens attached together for one unified journey review
All 8 J-ESTA screens attached and reviewed as one continuous journey — home through terms & conditions — not eight disconnected reviews.
The Result — Six Lenses, One Verdict
the verdict · 68/100
Overall UX score of 68 with six lens scores and an executive summary
One score, six lenses, needs-attention flagged immediately — Accessibility (58) called out as the weakest lens before you read a single finding.
usability lens · a finding
Critical usability finding: placeholder text used as form labels, with issue, recommendation, and business impact
Every finding is severity-graded, tied to a real screen location, and paired with a recommendation and a business-impact tag — not just "this is wrong."
design quality lens · strengths
Four design strengths worth preserving, each with why it works and its business benefit
Every review also surfaces what's working. A second opinion, not just a fault-finder — the strengths get a business case too.
accessibility lens · WCAG 2.2 AA
Accessibility review mapped to WCAG 2.2 AA, ADA, and EAA standards, broken down by contrast and touch target findings
Mapped to real standards — WCAG 2.2 AA, ADA, EAA — and broken down by category: contrast, touch targets, keyboard, screen reader. Not a generic accessibility score.
trust & ethics lens
Trust and ethics review showing transparency, user control, and consent scores, plus dark pattern risk
Dark-pattern risk, consent clarity, and user control — the lens most review tools skip entirely.
method experience lens · proprietary
Method Experience review, a proprietary six-dimension lens covering value clarity, trust building, guidance, action clarity, friction, and business alignment
The one lens that's ours: does the screen build trust, guide the user, and align to the business goal — Method's own 6-dimension framework, not a borrowed heuristic.
business impact lens · the roll-up
Business impact summary showing risk areas across conversion, adoption, retention, trust, support costs, and task completion
Every finding rolled up into business risk — conversion, retention, support cost — so the review closes as a business conversation, not just a design one.
Reflection
A useful tool doesn't need to be a flagship initiative to be worth building. This one earned its place by making the global service team's own review process faster — nothing more, nothing less.
Next story
Designing a digital ID that replaces the passport in your pocket — JESTA
→

Curious about where AI actually helps vs. where it doesn't — happy to talk through it.

Email me → Back to all stories