Expert review depends on relevant domain experience
Aliases: expert review · domain knowledge · professional judgment
What it is
Expert review uses knowledge of the target domain, tasks, risks, and professional practice to predict design consequences. Unlike inspection based only on general usability principles, severity in medicine, finance, industry, or accessibility often requires understanding the work outcome.
Why it happens
Experience supplies a pattern library for rare states, hidden constraints, and regulatory risks. It also normalizes jargon, complexity, and local routines. Greater specialization can improve domain detection while making the reviewer less representative of novices or other roles.
Studying it
Create a task–expertise matrix showing each reviewer's domain, role, and technical coverage. Collect independent evidence, triggers, predicted consequences, and confidence, then compare unique findings and disagreements by background. Validate severe predictions with field evidence or target-user tasks.
Where it stops holding
Seniority, title, and certification do not guarantee relevant experience, and old expertise may not transfer to new technology. Domains contain competing practices, so consensus is not the sole correct workflow. Conflicts of interest and familiarity can suppress criticism.
Applying it
- Recruit complementary expertise around critical tasks and risks, not rank alone.
- Disclose scope, conflicts, and missing roles.
- Attach scenarios and consequences and separate requirements from preference.
- Validate disputed recommendations with target-role tasks or field checks.