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
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
Small differences in design changes can have large consequences on website purchases. But detecting these small differences (e.g. 2%–10% changes) through behaviors and attitudes has generally not been feasible from traditional lab-based testing due to the time and costs of recruiting and facilitator costs/time. With unmoderated testing, organizations can now collect data from hundreds to
To understand problems on a website, nothing quite beats watching users. The process provides a wealth of information both about what users can or can’t do and what might be causing problems in an interface. The major drawback to watching users live or recordings of sessions is that it takes a lot of focused time.