Independent Audit · UX & Accessibility · Regulated Platform

ComeOn Casino

An independent heuristic and WCAG-based audit of the casino lobby — identifying usability friction, accessibility risks, and prioritised improvement opportunities.

5 key issues

Prioritised by impact level

Mobile + Desktop

Cross-platform review

Nielsen heuristics

Structured evaluation framework

Actionable

Context + impact + direction per issue

Casino lobby — the primary discovery surface reviewed across mobile and desktop.

My role

Senior Product Designer

Heuristic evaluation, accessibility review, usability analysis, prioritised recommendations

Type

Independent audit

Not commissioned — conducted as a personal case study using industry best practices

Framework

NN/g heuristics + WCAG

Each issue mapped to a specific heuristic to explain why it matters

Context

The problem

The platform evolved through incremental changes — small UX issues compounded into accessibility risks, pattern inconsistency, and cognitive overload, especially on mobile.

Findings

Key issues identified

Grouped by impact level — the combined effect increases cognitive load, slows navigation, and introduces unnecessary friction.

🔴 High impact

Small touch targets

Interactive elements fall below the 44×44px minimum — increasing mistaps, especially on smaller devices.

🔴 High impact

Cluttered navigation

Too many elements compete in a confined space — users must decode before they can act.

Issues grouped by impact — the interface asks users to work harder than necessary.

🟠 Medium impact

No action feedback

Taps and selections yield no visual feedback — users hesitate, retry, or assume the UI is broken.

🟠 Medium impact

Tiny game thumbnails

Dense grids make scanning exhausting — games blur together, discovery feels like work.

🟡 Low–Medium impact

Desktop side panel

Layered interaction without clear focus — users can’t tell if they’re browsing or committing to a game.

Navigation density — branding, search, tabs, and CTAs compressed into one block.

Missing feedback — no pressed/active states, no loading indicators.

Desktop panel — layered UI creates ambiguity between browsing and committing.

Outcome

What the audit delivered

Deliverable

Prioritised findings

Issues ranked by user impact, risk, and implementation effort

Clarity

Context per issue

Each finding includes what’s wrong, why it matters, and a suggested direction

Alignment

Shared reference

One document for Product, Design, and Engineering to plan from

Risk

Compliance flagged

Accessibility gaps highlighted before they become regulatory issues

Takeaways

What this reinforced

Small issues compound fast

No single finding was catastrophic — but combined, they made the interface work against the user.

Structure beats volume

Prioritisation and context mattered more than exhaustive documentation.

Audits are decision-support tools

The goal isn’t to redesign — it’s to give teams clear, actionable insight they can plan from.

This is an independent UX/UI design audit conducted as a personal case study. It was not commissioned, and I have no professional or commercial relationship with ComeOn or any related brand.

Thanks for reading