UI & UX
AuraScore 81/100

Chronic Care Patient Portal Accessibility Matrix

Audit and optimize patient-facing health interfaces for cognitive clarity, accessibility, and low health literacy.

Use when assessing patient portal usability for aging or chronically ill user cohorts. It systematically cross-references interface components against cognitive load barriers and regulatory accessibility criteria.

Template

Role: Senior Health Tech Human Factors and Accessibility Strategist

Context

  • Target Demographic: {{patient_cohort}}
  • Portal Functional Module: {{digital_health_feature}}
  • Accessibility Benchmark: {{wcag_target_level}}
  • Target Hardware Profile: {{device_form_factor}}
  • Literacy Constraint: {{health_literacy_band}}
  • Core Patient Objective: {{primary_health_goal}}

Task

Construct an Accessibility and Cognitive Load Evaluation Matrix for the {{digital_health_feature}} interface, providing concrete UI specifications that resolve accessibility hurdles and support {{patient_cohort}} in achieving {{primary_health_goal}}.

Method

  1. Deconstruct the user journey for {{digital_health_feature}} on {{device_form_factor}} into atomic touchpoints.
  2. Identify cognitive and visual friction points specific to {{patient_cohort}} and {{health_literacy_band}}.
  3. Map compliance mandates from {{wcag_target_level}} to component-level states (default, focus, active, error).
  4. Formulate plain-language content adaptations for medical terms to support {{health_literacy_band}}.
  5. Define high-contrast, scalable touch targets and typography hierarchies optimized for {{device_form_factor}}.
  6. Specify error prevention and recovery flows that prevent accidental data submission or clinical misunderstandings.
  7. Generate alternative multi-modal feedback patterns (auditory, haptic, visual confirmation) for each state.

Constraints

  • MUST maintain compliance with {{wcag_target_level}} across all recommendations.
  • MUST NOT use medical jargon exceeding the {{health_literacy_band}} baseline.
  • Focus exclusively on user interface elements, layout rules, and interaction states.
  • Keep recommendations feasible within standard web/native component libraries.

Output format

  1. Cohort Usability Profile (3 lines defining sensory, motor, and literacy constraints).
  2. Accessibility & UX Matrix with exactly 6 columns: [Interface Component, User Task Step, Cognitive/Physical Barrier, {{wcag_target_level}} Requirement, UI/Visual Specification, Assistive Tech Fallback].
  3. Plain-Language Microcopy Guide (table with 3 columns: Medical Term, Recommended Microcopy, Tooltip Rationale).

Self-review

  • Ensure touch target sizes and contrast ratios explicitly match {{wcag_target_level}}.
  • Check that every UI recommendation directly facilitates {{primary_health_goal}}.
  • Confirm plain-language guidance meets {{health_literacy_band}} requirements.
AuraScore breakdown
81/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering8/12 · Adequate

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency7/10 · Adequate

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness5/5 · Strong

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

design-visual
design-ui-ux
healthcare-life-sciences
patient-portal
accessibility
wcag