Use ChatGPT and three browser tabs for a more useful UX review

Choose comparable moments in the journey

A marketing hero, an account-creation form, and a logged-in dashboard are different stages. Either compare the same stage across products or name the difference in the table. Ask AI to report what is actually visible, with page links and short paraphrases. Hidden validation, keyboard behavior, and recovery flows stay unverified until you test them.

Before you begin: connect the browser you actually mean

OpenAI documents a browser extension that can use open tabs and provide side chat. In the desktop setup, open Settings → Computer Use, choose your browser, and follow its installation flow. That route points you to the appropriate extension. Use the profile where you installed it. Availability and controls depend on your account, app version, and workspace settings.

This guide uses a public-page practice task. The cover is AI-generated editorial imagery; the five step graphics are conceptual illustrations, not screenshots of an actual ChatGPT session. Allow about 20 minutes for a first attempt; that is a suggested practice time, not a measured result.

Step 1 — Open side chat beside one public page

Open one of your sources and select ChatGPT from the browser toolbar or Extensions menu. Use the tab mention or page-context control your version provides. Begin in Chat for reading where available. If the panel cannot see the page, confirm the correct profile and connection before continuing.

Read only the page I selected. Tell me its title and URL, what information you can actually access, and anything you cannot verify. Do not change the page.

Step 2 — Name the three tabs and the decision

Open three public onboarding or product-explanation pages. Select or mention each tab explicitly. Replace the placeholders in this prompt with the actual page titles or URLs. A list of links is not proof that ChatGPT has read every page; ask it to identify any failed or partial reads.

Use only these three tabs: [title and URL 1], [title and URL 2], [title and URL 3]. My task: Compare three public onboarding or product-explanation pages for a new-user journey. Record the first action, visible requirements, help, error guidance, and unresolved questions. Do not infer task success from appearance. Create a comparison with one row per option, the source URL for each important claim, and a separate column for missing information. Use “not verified” when a page does not establish a detail. Do not start trials, buy, register, or send messages.

Step 3 — Check the answer against the original pages

Open the source behind each decision-changing claim. Separate a visible statement from AI’s interpretation. For prices, check currency, billing period, paid-seat count, minimum seats, required add-ons, and any tax or fee exclusions. For events, check date, time zone, venue, and registration status. Do not convert a blank field into a favorable assumption.

Audit your comparison against the three source pages. For each important claim, show the supporting page and explain the calculation or inference. Mark contradictions and missing details. List what I must confirm before making the decision.

Worked example: turn a pattern comparison into a design question

Illustrative scenario. The sample pages below are invented to demonstrate the reasoning, not a report of a completed browser test.

Example decision note: A useful next test is whether showing requirements before the first action helps new users start with fewer questions. The comparison alone cannot establish which page is easiest to use.

Record exact screen or page context with every observation. Do not report accessibility compliance from a static page read. Keyboard operation, focus order, errors, and assistive-technology behavior require appropriate interaction testing.

Step 4 — Review the tab list, then group only those tabs

If browser actions and tab grouping are available in Work, select that mode and name Chrome explicitly. Reading pages and changing the browser are separate tasks. First ask for a preview of the three tab titles and URLs. After you check the list, request the grouping action below. Inspect the actual Chrome group afterward.

In Chrome, show me the exact three tab titles and URLs you would group as “Onboarding pattern review”. Do not change the browser yet.

Group only those three reviewed tabs as “Onboarding pattern review”. Leave the other tabs where they are. Do not close pages, navigate to checkout, register, or send anything. Report the group name and the tabs actually included.

If grouping is unavailable, create the group manually in Chrome and keep the comparison. A useful research result does not depend on this optional action. If the extension fails to connect, use OpenAI’s linked troubleshooting guidance; do not grant wider access just to complete a practice exercise.

Step 5 — Finish with a recommendation and one open question

Write a decision note under 150 words: the goal, the best-supported next step, the source links, the main tradeoff, and one unanswered question that could change the recommendation. Distinguish facts, calculations, and your judgment. If the evidence is insufficient, recommend the next check instead of choosing a winner.

Use the comparison to frame a design question, such as whether explaining requirements before the first action reduces confusion. Build a small prototype and observe people attempting the task. The reference review informs the hypothesis; user research and interaction testing supply evidence about whether the design works.

Try the same method on a single article

Select the article tab and ask for a short evidence review. This is useful when a headline makes a broad promise but the body describes a narrow example.

What is the main claim in this article? What evidence does the author present? Which statements are interpretation, which details remain unresolved, and what original source would I need to inspect before relying on the claim? Include the article URL.

Your finished-work checklist

• The comparison uses the three sources you selected.
• Decision-changing claims link back to an accessible page.
• Costs and dates use the correct assumptions.
• Missing information remains visible.
• The actual tab group matches the reviewed list, if grouping was used.
• The final note names a next step and one question.

Save the note with the date checked. When a price, policy, or event changes, revisit the original page before reusing the recommendation.

Put this into practice

Turn the observation log into a research question, a prototype decision, and an explicit standard for review.

Explore the UX decision worksheets →