SEQ

Browse Content by Topic

UX ( 73 )
Methods ( 62 )
Usability Testing ( 55 )
Statistics ( 51 )
Survey ( 38 )
NPS ( 34 )
Usability ( 32 )
Benchmarking ( 32 )
Customer Experience ( 31 )
User Research ( 29 )
SUS ( 28 )
Sample Size ( 27 )
Rating Scale ( 26 )
Net Promoter Score ( 22 )
Usability Problems ( 18 )
Questionnaires ( 17 )
Metrics ( 17 )
Measurement ( 16 )
User Experience ( 14 )
Rating Scales ( 14 )
Satisfaction ( 14 )
Validity ( 14 )
UMUX-lite ( 13 )
Surveys ( 13 )
Usability Metrics ( 13 )
SUPRQ ( 12 )
Market Research ( 12 )
Qualitative ( 11 )
Reliability ( 11 )
SUPR-Q ( 11 )
Navigation ( 10 )
Heuristic Evaluation ( 8 )
UX Metrics ( 8 )
Task Time ( 8 )
SEQ ( 7 )
Task Completion ( 7 )
Questionnaire ( 7 )
Mobile Usability Testing ( 6 )
Mobile ( 6 )
Research ( 6 )
Analytics ( 6 )
Unmoderated Research ( 5 )
Six Sigma ( 5 )
Visualizing Data ( 5 )
Usability Problem ( 5 )
Task Times ( 4 )
UX Maturity ( 4 )
sliders ( 4 )
Confidence ( 4 )
Credibility ( 4 )
Loyalty ( 4 )
Expert Review ( 4 )
Confidence Intervals ( 4 )
Moderation ( 4 )
Quantitative ( 4 )
UX Methods ( 4 )
Card Sorting ( 3 )
Summative ( 3 )
Usability Lab ( 3 )
Lean UX ( 3 )
Voice Interaction ( 3 )
Key Driver ( 3 )
Customer Segmentation ( 3 )
Task Metrics ( 3 )
ROI ( 3 )
Desirability ( 3 )
PURE ( 3 )
Data ( 3 )
TAM ( 3 )
Findability ( 2 )
Excel ( 2 )
Personas ( 2 )
Sensitivity ( 2 )
SUM ( 2 )
Salary Survey ( 2 )
Focus Groups ( 2 )
Tree Testing ( 2 )
Tasks ( 2 )
Branding ( 2 )
Correlation ( 2 )
Errors ( 2 )
PhD ( 2 )
UX Salary Survey ( 2 )
Remote Usability Testing ( 2 )
IA ( 2 )
A/B Testing ( 2 )
Star Scale ( 2 )
Eye-Tracking ( 2 )
Emoji scale ( 2 )
slider ( 2 )
Sample Sizes ( 2 )
LTR ( 2 )
Variables ( 2 )
Marketing ( 2 )
Prototype ( 2 )
Cognitive Walkthrough ( 2 )
Formative ( 2 )
KLM ( 2 )
Likert ( 1 )
consumer software ( 1 )
Desktop ( 1 )
Design Thinking ( 1 )
Latin Squares ( 1 )
Visual Analog Scale ( 1 )
b2b software ( 1 )
User-Centred Design ( 1 )
Meeting software ( 1 )
Formative testing ( 1 )
Margin of Error ( 1 )
CUE ( 1 )
RITE ( 1 )
MUSiC ( 1 )
Cumulative Graphs ( 1 )
History of usability ( 1 )
ISO ( 1 )
Greco-Latin Squares ( 1 )
Linear Numeric Scale ( 1 )
Information Architecture ( 1 )
Bias ( 1 )
Contextual Inquiry ( 1 )
Mean Opinion Scale ( 1 )
graphic scale ( 1 )
Probability ( 1 )
Measure ( 1 )
coding ( 1 )
negative scale ( 1 )
MOS ( 1 )
Mobile Usability ( 1 )
Carryover ( 1 )
Problem Severity ( 1 )
Within-subjects ( 1 )
Task Randomization ( 1 )
Research design ( 1 )
MOS-R ( 1 )
Anchoring ( 1 )
Polarization ( 1 )
Site Analytics ( 1 )
AttrakDiff2 ( 1 )
Effect Size ( 1 )
Affinity ( 1 )
Unmoderated ( 1 )
Z-Score ( 1 )
User Testing ( 1 )
Persona ( 1 )
Software ( 1 )
Segmentation ( 1 )
Task Completin ( 1 )
Design ( 1 )
Performance ( 1 )
Sample ( 1 )
Crowdsourcing ( 1 )
Random ( 1 )
Think Aloud ( 1 )
Five ( 1 )
Perceptions ( 1 )
Top Task Analysis ( 1 )
True Intent ( 1 )
Visual Appeal ( 1 )
Certification ( 1 )
Facilitation ( 1 )
Microsoft Desirability Toolkit ( 1 )
Competitive ( 1 )
Expectations ( 1 )
PSSUQ ( 1 )
meCUE2.0 ( 1 )
UEQ ( 1 )
Quality ( 1 )
Hedonic usability ( 1 )
Trust ( 1 )
Conjoint Analysis ( 1 )
Regression Analysis ( 1 )
Moderating ( 1 )
Ordinal ( 1 )
Metric ( 1 )
protoype ( 1 )
moderated ( 1 )
NSAT ( 1 )
CSUQ ( 1 )
Delight ( 1 )
Customer effort ( 1 )
Test Metrics ( 1 )
We typically recommend small sample sizes (5–10) for conducting iterative usability testing meant to find and fix problems (formative evaluations). For benchmark or comparative studies, where the focus is on detecting differences or estimating population parameters (summative evaluations), we recommend using larger sample sizes (20–100+). Usability testing can be used to uncover problems and assess the experience. Many usability tests will play both roles simultaneously, formative

Read More

One of the primary goals of measuring the user experience is to see whether design efforts actually make a quantifiable difference over time. A regular benchmark study is a great way to institutionalize the idea of quantifiable differences. Benchmarks are most effective when done at regular intervals (e.g., quarterly or yearly) or after significant design or feature changes. A UX benchmark is something akin to

Read More

If users can’t complete a task, not much else matters. Consequently, task completion is one of the fundamental UX measures and one of the most commonly collected metrics, even in small-sample formative studies and studies of low-fidelity prototypes. Task completion is usually easy to collect, and it’s easy to understand and communicate. It’s typically coded as a binary measure (success or fail) dependent on a participant

Read More

Numbers are universally understood across cultures, geography, and languages. But when those numbers are applied to sentiments (for example, satisfaction, agreement, or intention), do people respond universally or does a 4 on a five-point scale elicit different reactions based on culture or geography? Many international organizations use similar sets of measures (such as satisfaction or the Net Promoter Score) to compare countries and regions. If

Read More

Our attitudes both reflect and affect our actions. What we think affects what we do and what we do affects what we think. It’s not a perfect relationship of course. What people say or think doesn’t always directly correspond to actions in easily predictable ways. Understanding and measuring user attitudes early and often can provide a good indication of likely future behaviors. Attitudes can be

Read More

The Single Ease Question (SEQ) is a 7-point rating scale to assess how difficult users find a task. It's administered immediately after a user attempts a task in a usability test. After users attempt a task, ask them this simple question: Overall, how difficult or easy was the task to complete? Use the seven point rating scale format below. Labels and values: We typically label

Read More

Have you ever watched a user perform horribly during a usability test only to watch in amazement as they rate a task as very easy to use? I have, and as long as I've been conducting usability tests, I've heard of this contradictory behavior from other researchers. Such occurrences have led many to discount the collection of satisfaction data altogether. In fact I've often heard

Read More