Errors can provide a lot of diagnostic information about the root causes of UI problems and the impact such problems have on the user experience. The frequency of errors—even trivial ones—also provides a quantitative description of the performance of a task. The process of observing and coding errors is more time-consuming and dependent on researcher
Usability tests don’t have to be expensive or require a lot of technology. The real value is not in the equipment or technology but in the technique. Usability testing is not a focus group. Nor is usability testing a product demo. You shouldn’t lead participants through a product as if it were a demo and
Unmoderated testing platforms allow for quick data collection from large sample sizes. This has enabled researchers to answer questions that were previously difficult or cost prohibitive to answer with traditional lab-based testing. But is the data collected in unmoderated studies, both behavioral and attitudinal, comparable to what you get from a more traditional lab setup? Comparing
Benchmarking is an essential step in making quantitative improvements to the user experience of a website, app, or product. In an earlier article and course, I discussed the benefits of regularly benchmarking and it’s the topic of my forthcoming book. While technology platforms like MUIQ have made unmoderated benchmarks popular, moderated benchmarks are still essential
