Back to Details

accelint-persona-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Persona-Based Design Review

基于角色的设计评审

Evaluate Figma designs from the perspective of specific operator personas. Generic UX advice ("make it more intuitive") misses insights that emerge from the persona's documented profile - their responsibilities, pain points, systems they monitor, and operational context.
从特定操作员角色的视角评估Figma设计。通用的UX建议（如“让界面更直观”）无法挖掘出从角色档案中获得的深度见解——包括角色的职责、痛点、监控的系统以及操作场景。

Workflow

工作流程

1. Load Persona Profile

1. 加载角色档案

Start by loading the persona index to find available personas:
Read references/personas/_index.md
Then load the specific persona requested by the user:
Read references/personas/{persona-id}.md
Do NOT load multiple persona files - only load the one requested by the user.
Do NOT load evaluation-examples.md yet - wait until Step 4.
If the persona doesn't exist, list available options from the index and ask the user to choose.
首先加载角色索引以查看可用角色：
Read references/personas/_index.md
然后加载用户指定的特定角色档案：
Read references/personas/{persona-id}.md
请勿加载多个角色档案——仅加载用户指定的那一个。
请勿提前加载evaluation-examples.md——等待步骤4再加载。
如果指定的角色不存在，请列出索引中的可用选项并让用户选择。

2. Gather Design Context

2. 收集设计上下文

Figma URL provided: Use appropriate Figma MCP tool to fetch the design (e.g., 
mcp__figma-desktop__get_design_context
with extracted node ID from URL pattern 
node-id=1-2
→ 
1:2
).
No URL (default): Use Figma MCP desktop to get current file/selection. If nothing selected, prompt user to select a frame or component.
Figma MCP unavailable: Ask user to provide a screenshot of the design. Analyze the screenshot using visual inspection, but note that without full design context (component properties, layout constraints, interaction states), the review will be limited to visual elements only.
提供了Figma URL时： 使用合适的Figma MCP工具获取设计内容（例如，
mcp__figma-desktop__get_design_context
，从URL模式
node-id=1-2
中提取节点ID转换为
1:2
）。
未提供URL（默认情况）： 使用Figma MCP桌面端获取当前文件/选中内容。若未选中任何内容，请提示用户选择一个框架或组件。
Figma MCP不可用时： 请用户提供设计的截图。通过视觉检查分析截图，但需注意，若缺少完整的设计上下文（组件属性、布局约束、交互状态），评审将仅局限于视觉元素。

3. Search Supporting Documentation

3. 搜索支持文档

Use Outline MCP to find relevant context. Since Outline requires workspace selection, use this pattern:
ListMcpResourcesTool(server: "outline")
Search for documents covering:
  • UI standards/guidelines for this operator role
  • Previous design reviews or feedback
  • System requirements or specifications
  • Training materials or user guides
Prioritize documents mentioning the persona's role, responsibilities, or systems they interact with.
Outline MCP unavailable: Proceed with the review based solely on the persona profile and design context. Note in your review that supporting documentation wasn't available, and recommend areas where organizational standards should be consulted.
使用Outline MCP查找相关上下文。由于Outline需要选择工作区，请使用以下模式：
ListMcpResourcesTool(server: "outline")
搜索涵盖以下内容的文档：
  • 针对该操作员角色的UI标准/指南
  • 过往的设计评审或反馈
  • 系统需求或规范
  • 培训材料或用户指南
优先考虑提及角色职责、监控系统的文档。
Outline MCP不可用时： 仅基于角色档案和设计上下文进行评审。在评审中注明无法获取支持文档，并建议需要参考组织标准的相关领域。

4. Analyze & Critique

4. 分析与评审

Load evaluation examples to calibrate your approach:
Read references/evaluation-examples.md
Use the evaluation framework below, but adapt structure to findings - don't force insights into rigid sections.
加载评估示例以校准评审方法：
Read references/evaluation-examples.md
使用以下评估框架，但需根据发现调整结构——不要强行将见解套入固定章节。

Evaluation Framework

评估框架

Cognitive Load Assessment

认知负荷评估

  • Information density: Can they process all displayed data given their experience level and work tempo?
  • Visual hierarchy: Does critical info for their role stand out immediately?
  • Mental models: Does the interface match systems they already use (documented in "Sees")?
  • 信息密度：考虑操作员的经验水平和工作节奏，他们能否处理所有显示的数据？
  • 视觉层级：对其角色至关重要的信息是否能立即突出显示？
  • 心智模型：界面是否与他们日常使用的系统（“所见”部分记录的内容）匹配？

Communication Pattern Alignment

沟通模式匹配

  • "Says & Does" support: Does the UI facilitate their typical actions and communications?
  • Workflow integration: How well does this fit documented workflows?
  • Error prevention: Does it prevent mistakes aligned with their documented pain points?
  • “所说与所做”支持：UI是否能辅助他们的典型操作和沟通？
  • 工作流集成：设计与已记录的工作流契合度如何？
  • 错误预防：是否能避免与他们已记录的痛点相关的错误？

Pain Point Mitigation

痛点缓解

  • Direct pain relief: Which documented pain points does this design address?
  • Inadvertent pain creation: Does this introduce new friction or complexity?
  • System consolidation: If they juggle multiple systems, does this reduce context switching?
  • 直接痛点缓解：该设计解决了哪些已记录的痛点？
  • 新增痛点：是否引入了新的摩擦或复杂性？
  • 系统整合：若他们需要同时使用多个系统，该设计是否减少了上下文切换？

Context Awareness

场景感知

  • Experience calibration: Is complexity appropriate for their rank/experience (e.g., E4 vs E7)?
  • Responsibility alignment: Does the design support their specific responsibilities?
  • Schedule considerations: Can they use this effectively given their work schedule/tempo?
  • 经验适配：复杂度是否与他们的职级/经验匹配（如E4与E7）？
  • 职责匹配：设计是否支持他们的特定职责？
  • 工作节奏适配：考虑到他们的工作安排/节奏，能否有效使用该设计？

System Visibility

系统可见性

  • "Sees" coverage: Are the systems they monitor visible/accessible (e.g., BCS-F, RS-4, ERSA)?
  • Integration gaps: What critical systems are missing?
  • Redundancy: Is there unnecessary duplication of information they see elsewhere?
  • “所见”覆盖：他们监控的系统是否可见/可访问（如BCS-F、RS-4、ERSA）？
  • 整合缺口：缺少哪些关键系统？
  • 冗余性：是否存在与他们在其他地方看到的信息重复的不必要内容？

Communication Support

沟通支持

  • "Hears" integration: Does the design support their communication channels (e.g., Surveillance Net)?
  • Information relay: Can they easily relay information as documented in "Says & Does"?
  • Notification design: Are alerts/notifications appropriate for their attention budget?
  • “所听”集成：设计是否支持他们的沟通渠道（如监视网络）？
  • 信息传递：能否轻松传递“所说与所做”部分记录的信息？
  • 通知设计：警报/通知是否符合他们的注意力分配需求？

Output Structure

输出结构

Provide critique in this general format (adapt as needed):
undefined
请按照以下通用格式提供评审内容（可按需调整）：
undefined

Persona Review: [Persona Name]

角色评审：[角色名称]

Design Summary

设计摘要

[1-2 sentence summary of what you reviewed]
[1-2句话总结评审内容]

Critical Findings

关键发现

[2-3 most important insights specific to this persona]
[2-3条针对该角色的最重要见解]

Detailed Evaluation

详细评估

Cognitive Load: [Assessment with specific examples from persona profile]
Communication Patterns: [How well it supports their "Says & Does"]
Pain Point Mitigation: [Which pain points addressed/created]
Context Awareness: [Appropriate for their experience/responsibilities]
System Visibility: [Coverage of their "Sees" systems]
Communication Support: [Integration with their "Hears" channels]
认知负荷：[结合角色档案中的具体案例进行评估]
沟通模式：[对其“所说与所做”的支持程度]
痛点缓解：[解决/新增的痛点]
场景感知：[是否适配他们的经验/职责]
系统可见性：[对其“所见”系统的覆盖情况]
沟通支持：[与“所听”渠道的集成情况]

Recommendations

建议

[Prioritized list of actionable improvements, grounded in persona profile]
[基于角色档案的可操作改进优先级列表]

Supporting References

支持参考

[Links to relevant Outline docs found during research]

**This is an example structure, not a rigid template.** Adapt based on:
- Depth of findings in specific areas
- Completeness of persona profile
- Design scope (component vs. full dashboard)

The critical elements are:
1. Clear connection to persona's documented profile
2. Specific, actionable recommendations
3. Prioritization based on operational impact
4. Evidence from supporting docs (when available)
[研究过程中找到的相关Outline文档链接]

**这是示例结构，而非严格模板。** 请根据以下因素调整：
- 特定领域的发现深度
- 角色档案的完整性
- 设计范围（组件 vs 完整仪表板）

核心要素包括：
1. 与角色档案的明确关联
2. 具体、可操作的建议
3. 基于操作影响的优先级排序
4. 来自支持文档的证据（若有）

Evaluation Principles

评审原则

Be specific to the persona: Generic UX advice helps no one. Ground every observation in the persona's documented profile (Profile, About, Hears, Sees, Says & Does, Pain Points).
Prioritize operational impact: A minor UI inconsistency that breaks muscle memory for a high-tempo operator matters more than major visual polish issues. Consider the stakes of their work.
Assume domain expertise: These operators are experts in their field. Don't suggest "simplifications" that remove necessary complexity they need to do their jobs.
Consider the full context: Review their entire profile - insights often emerge from connections between sections. A pain point in one area may relate to systems they monitor or communication channels they use.
Connect across profile sections: The most valuable insights synthesize multiple parts of the persona profile (e.g., a pain point + systems they see + actions they take = integrated solution opportunity).
贴合角色特性：通用的UX建议毫无帮助。每一项观察都必须基于角色档案中的记录（档案、简介、所听、所见、所说与所做、痛点）。
优先考虑操作影响：对于快节奏工作的操作员来说，一个打破肌肉记忆的微小UI不一致，比视觉美化的大问题更重要。要考虑他们工作的风险。
假设用户具备领域专业知识：这些操作员是各自领域的专家。不要建议移除他们完成工作所需的必要复杂性。
考虑完整场景：查看角色的完整档案——见解往往来自不同部分的关联。一个痛点可能与他们监控的系统或使用的沟通渠道相关。
跨档案部分关联分析：最有价值的见解是综合角色档案的多个部分（例如，痛点 + 所见系统 + 操作行为 = 集成解决方案的机会）。

NEVER Do When Reviewing

评审时绝对禁止的行为

  • NEVER give generic UX advice like "make it more intuitive" or "improve the user experience" - these could apply to any interface. Ground every observation in the persona's specific profile.
  • NEVER suggest simplifications that remove necessary complexity - these operators are domain experts. Complexity that serves their documented responsibilities is valuable.
  • NEVER ignore operational context - a minor UI inconsistency that breaks muscle memory matters more than major visual polish issues for high-tempo operators.
  • NEVER treat all personas as the same - an E4 AST review should differ from an O4 MCC review for the same interface.
  • NEVER skip loading the persona profile - generic reviews without persona context miss the entire value of this skill.
  • 绝对禁止给出通用UX建议，比如“让界面更直观”或“提升用户体验”——这些建议适用于任何界面。每一项观察都必须基于角色的特定档案。
  • 绝对禁止建议移除必要的复杂性——这些操作员是领域专家。服务于他们职责的复杂性是有价值的。
  • 绝对禁止忽略操作场景——对于快节奏工作的操作员来说，打破肌肉记忆的微小UI不一致比视觉美化的大问题更重要。
  • 绝对禁止将所有角色视为相同——针对同一个界面，E4级AST的评审应与O4级MCC的评审不同。
  • 绝对禁止跳过加载角色档案——没有角色上下文的通用评审完全失去了这项技能的价值。

References

参考资料

  • Persona profiles: 
    references/personas/{persona-id}.md
  • Persona index: 
    references/personas/_index.md
  • Evaluation examples: 
    references/evaluation-examples.md
Load these on-demand to minimize context usage.
  • 角色档案：
    references/personas/{persona-id}.md
  • 角色索引：
    references/personas/_index.md
  • 评估示例：
    references/evaluation-examples.md
按需加载这些资料以减少上下文占用。