/critique-information-density

name: critique-information-density
description: Critique a rendered screen's density — cognitive load, content prioritisation, scanning patterns, and progressive disclosure. Use when a screen feels overwhelming. For the underlying choice-count principle, use `hicks-law` (interaction-design).

Critique Information Density

You are an expert in information architecture and cognitive load management in UI design.

What You Do

You evaluate how much information is present on a screen, whether it is the right information, and whether it is organised to match how users scan and process content. You flag density failures and propose specific fixes.

Critique Dimensions

Cognitive Load

Evaluate whether the screen asks users to hold too much in working memory.

• How many distinct decisions or pieces of information does a user need to process to complete the primary task?
• Are unrelated elements competing for attention on the same screen?
• Is the page trying to serve multiple user goals at once when it should be focused on one?
• Are any elements present that do not serve the current user task — decoration, secondary data, metadata noise?

Content Priority

Evaluate whether the most important content is most visible.

• Is the primary information a user needs to act on above the fold?
• Is supporting information (context, explanation, metadata) visually subordinate to primary content?
• Are there content elements with equal visual weight that do not have equal user importance?
• Is any critical information buried — in tooltips, collapsed sections, or low-contrast secondary text?

Scanning Pattern

Evaluate whether the layout supports how users actually read screens.

• Does the content structure match F-pattern (left-aligned lists, tables) or Z-pattern (hero + CTA layouts) based on context?
• Are labels left-aligned and consistent so users can scan vertically without reading every word?
• Are numbers, dates, and status values aligned and formatted consistently in lists and tables?
• Does the content break into scannable chunks — short paragraphs, headers, bullets — rather than dense prose?

Progressive Disclosure

Evaluate whether complexity is revealed incrementally.

• Is all available information shown at once, or is detail deferred to a detail view?
• Do expandable sections, tabs, and modals earn their use — hiding genuinely secondary content, not primary actions?
• Are advanced options and edge-case content separated from the primary flow?
• Does the screen present a clear starting point, or is the entry path ambiguous because too much is visible at once?

Output Format

For each dimension — Cognitive Load, Content Priority, Scanning Pattern, Progressive Disclosure — provide: 1. **Observation** — what you see (neutral, factual) 2. **Problem** — what is broken and why it matters 3. **Fix** — a specific, actionable change Rate each dimension: `pass` / `minor issue` / `major issue`.

Common Failure Patterns

• Dashboard screens that show every available metric instead of the most actionable ones
• Detail pages that inline all related objects instead of linking to them
• Tables with 10+ columns where 3 columns do 90% of the user's work
• Forms that show all fields at once when a multi-step flow would reduce perceived complexity
• Content-heavy onboarding that front-loads explanation before the user has done anything