We combined Cognitive Walkthrough + Heuristic Evaluation + Thinking aloud for our study. We used 3 “experts” who dealt with the terms “usability” and “user experience”. It was relatively quick to discover many problems on one device with a small group. Each of the experts has focused on as many problems as possible with each task. If I could measure the method according to the usability components (usability, efficiency, effectiveness), I would rate it in this way: “Ease of use: high Efficiency: high Effectiveness: medium ” Ease of use high, since the effort is largely proportional to the size and complexity of the interface to be evaluated. Above all, CW is used to check the interaction between the interface and the user. As with our study, the focus of the method was on evaluating the design of a system through exploration.   Efficiency relatively high, because in a small period of about 1 hour each of the experts discovered many problems with the interface. It is sometimes advantageous that the method does not promote users, as this saves time. I think that effectiveness is one of the weaknesses of the method. With the method, the experts find many problems, but an expert / designer can never really put himself in the role of the user. The task of the experts is to focus on problems and not to use the device in real life. The “Thinking aloud” method enabled us to identify reasons for problems and abnormalities as well as possible proposed solutions without additional analysis. I find the method not only very simple and at the same time very effective, but also very flexible, since it can be applied to many different scenarios.