UX audit in practice: from friction to fix - Kitty Toft - NDC Oslo 2026

UX audit in practice: from friction to fix - Kitty Toft - NDC Oslo 2026

Title history
  • UX audit in practice: from friction to fix - Kitty Toft - NDC Oslo 2026 — observed on 20261026-2151 UTC (YouTube)
🎙 Kitty Toft 👥 230K 📅 October 7, 2026 ⏱ 50 min 👁 1K 📄 tutorial 🧭 2026-10-26
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

UX auditusability testinguser journeyaccessibilityUX improvement

Summary

This practical talk provides a structured framework for conducting UX audits to uncover usability issues and prioritize improvements. The speaker, Kitty Toft, a UX lead in financial crime prevention, shares her experience across various projects and demonstrates the process using a real example called PeopleHub. She emphasizes the importance of building a foundation, mapping the solution, documenting findings systematically, and communicating them effectively to product teams. The talk covers key aspects such as user journeys, accessibility, UX writing, visual consistency, and system feedback. She explains how to measure the impact of fixes by creating baselines and tracking improvements. The audience learns how to set up an audit, use Figma for visualization, and produce a report. The talk concludes with a free template for conducting audits, making it highly actionable for practitioners.

131 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The talk provides a clear, step-by-step methodology for UX audits, supported by concrete examples and a demo. The value lies in its practicality and actionable advice that teams can immediately apply. The argumentation is based on the speaker’s professional experience and logical reasoning about costs and benefits, though it lacks external empirical data or references to established UX research. The speaker justifies the need for audits with arguments about saving time, reducing rework, and improving user satisfaction, making a compelling case for regular audits.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The talk does not cite external sources or studies, relying instead on the speaker’s extensive practical experience. The methodology appears sound and aligns with common UX practices, but the lack of verifiable references limits its scientific rigor. The title accurately matches the content, and the talk is well-structured. The speaker demonstrates a systematic approach and provides tools for documentation, which enhances its credibility. However, the absence of citations to authoritative sources like WCAG or Nielsen’s heuristics could be seen as a missed opportunity for strengthening the theoretical foundation.

187 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content; the talk is indeed about conducting UX audits in practice, from identifying friction to implementing fixes.

Quality & Reliability

7/10

The talk is practical and based on extensive professional experience, but lacks empirical evidence or external references. The methods are sound and actionable.

Key Moments

Cited Sources

  • NDC Conferences — Conference website where the talk was recorded
  • NDC Oslo — Conference event page for NDC Oslo 2026

External References

Contribution & Novelties

The talk contributes a practical, repeatable framework for UX audits, including a Figma template and a Word report template. It emphasizes the importance of creating a shared understanding of usability issues and measuring improvements over time. The speaker illustrates how to systematically map a solution, annotate findings, and present them to teams, which is a valuable addition to the discourse on UX practices.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • Nielsen’s 10 Usability Heuristics — Directly relevant to identifying usability issues in audits.
  • WCAG 2.1 Guidelines — Essential for evaluating accessibility aspects covered in the talk.
  • UX Audit: A Comprehensive Guide — A broader reference on conducting UX audits, complementing the speaker’s approach.

111 words

Radar Profile

The profile shows high information quantity but moderate quality, technical level, and reliability, indicating a practical talk with rich content but limited scientific depth.

Reliability 6/10