Ova četiri prompta pokrivaju delove cognitive walkthrough u kojima AI najviše štedi vreme bez gubitka strogosti: simulacija prvog korisnika na snimcima ekrana sa četiri propisana pitanja, generisanje action sequence i persone iz prototipa, stres-test dizajna protiv više persona paralelno i klasterovanje tačaka otkaza u prioritizovanu listu popravki. Svaki prompt treba popuniti sopstvenim proizvodom, personom i snimcima ekrana, a zatim ga pokrenuti u Claude-u, ChatGPT-ju, Gemini-ju ili bilo kom multimodalnom LLM-u sa dovoljno dugačkim kontekstualnim prozorom. Promptovi pretpostavljaju ljudski tim u petlji — model pravi prvi prolaz, radionica potvrđuje ili nadjačava.
Prompt 1: Multimodalni cognitive walkthrough na snimcima ekrana
You are an experienced UX researcher running a Cognitive Walkthrough on a [tip proizvoda — npr. zdravstveni čekin tablet, B2B onboarding tok, AI funkcionalnost u aplikaciji za produktivnost] for [persona — npr. potpuno novi pacijent u pedesetim koji nikada nije koristio ovu aplikaciju].
Persona details (knowledge, motivation, prior experience):
[opišite personu u 3-5 rečenica — šta zna o domenu, šta zna o sličnim proizvodima, šta želi da postigne, šta očekuje da nađe]
Task scenario:
[jedna rečenica — šta korisnik pokušava da uradi]
Starting state: [šta je na ekranu na početku]
Goal state: [kako uspeh izgleda]
Action sequence (the correct path the user would need to take):
1. [akcija 1]
2. [akcija 2]
...
I will paste/attach screenshots of each step in order.
For every action in the sequence, answer the four Cognitive Walkthrough questions from the persona's point of view:
1. Will the user try to achieve this result? (Yes / No / Maybe + one-sentence rationale)
2. Will the user notice that the correct action is available? (Yes / No / Maybe + one-sentence rationale)
3. Will the user associate the correct action with the result they want? (Yes / No / Maybe + one-sentence rationale)
4. After the action is performed, will the user see that progress is being made? (Yes / No / Maybe + one-sentence rationale)
End each action with a verdict (Pass / Hesitate / Fail) and tag which of the four questions broke down.
Stay in the persona's voice. Do not slip into "any designer knows" or "I would just" — speak as the imagined first-time user.Prompt 2: Generisati action sequence i personu iz prototipa
You are helping me prepare a Cognitive Walkthrough. I will paste a description (or screenshots) of a prototype below. Produce a draft persona, task scenario, and step-by-step action sequence I can use as the starting document for a workshop.
Prototype description / screenshots:
[ubacite link, opis ili priložite snimke ekrana]
Product context: [šta je ovaj proizvod, ko je ciljani korisnik]
Critical task to evaluate: [jedan zadatak koji želite da prođete]
Please produce:
1. A one-page persona for a brand-new user of this product. Include: prior knowledge of the domain, prior experience with similar products, motivation for being on this screen, context (location, device, emotional state), and 2-3 expectations they would bring from previous experiences.
2. A task scenario: one-sentence description, starting state, goal state.
3. An action sequence — the correct path the user would need to take, one row per click or interaction, in order. Be specific about the element they would interact with on each step.
4. A list of 3-5 alternative paths the user might take by mistake, for the team to discuss during the walkthrough.
5. A list of any prior knowledge or assumptions the design seems to depend on, that a first-time user might not have.
Flag any step where you are uncertain about the correct action or where the persona's likely behavior is hard to predict.Prompt 3: Stres-test dizajna protiv više persona paralelno
I need to run a Cognitive Walkthrough on the same task scenario against 5 different personas in parallel, to see which failure points are persona-specific and which are universal.
Task scenario:
[jedna rečenica]
Starting state: [šta je na ekranu]
Goal state: [stanje uspeha]
Action sequence:
[ubacite action list]
Personas to run in parallel:
1. Novice: [opis u 3 rečenice]
2. Returning user: [opis u 3 rečenice]
3. Low-literacy: [opis u 3 rečenice]
4. Non-native speaker (English as second language): [opis u 3 rečenice]
5. Accessibility user (e.g., screen reader): [opis u 3 rečenice]
Screenshots: [ubacite]
For each persona, run the four Cognitive Walkthrough questions on every action, and produce one row per persona-action pair with the verdict and rationale.
At the end, build a matrix:
- Rows: actions
- Columns: personas
- Cells: Pass / Hesitate / Fail
Highlight:
1. Failure points that are universal across all personas (the most urgent fixes)
2. Failure points that are specific to one or two personas (smaller but persona-critical fixes)
3. Any persona that fails more than 50% of the steps (the design may not be viable for that group at all)
4. Any step where the personas split in surprising ways and the team should investigate furtherPrompt 4: Klasterovanje tačaka otkaza i prioritizovani spisak popravki
I have a Cognitive Walkthrough log of [N] failure points across [M] actions for [zadatak] in [proizvod]. The team has roughly [inženjerski i dizajn kapacitet] for the next sprint.
Walkthrough log:
[ubacite svaku tačku otkaza sa: action ID, ekran, koje od četiri pitanja se polomilo (formiranje cilja / vidljivost akcije / oznaka akcije / povratna informacija), ozbiljnost (fail / hesitate) i jednoparagrafno obrazloženje]
Please:
1. Cluster the failure points by which of the four questions broke down. Report the count per cluster and identify the dominant failure type for this design.
2. For each cluster, propose a category of fix (onboarding, copy, layout, affordance, system message, etc.) and explain why it addresses that specific question type.
3. Score each individual failure point on three dimensions (1-5 each): severity (does the user completely fail or just hesitate), frequency (how often a real user would hit it), and effort to fix (1 = small, 5 = large).
4. Compute a priority score (severity + frequency – effort) and sort the failure points from highest to lowest priority.
5. Recommend the top 5-10 failure points to fix in the next sprint, with a concrete proposed fix and a rough effort estimate per item.
6. Identify any cluster of 3+ failure points on the same screen — these may deserve a redesign of the screen rather than incremental patches.
7. Draft a 5-sentence executive summary the lead can use as the opening of the readout brief, anchored on the dominant failure type and the top recommended fix.