In Think Aloud (TA) testing, participants speak their thoughts while attempting tasks. The process is meant to help researchers identify usability problems and potential fixes. Indeed, in an earlier analysis, we found an increase in problem discovery. Our evaluation of 153 videos, split between TA and non-TA, revealed that evaluators uncovered 36–50% more problems with
One of the most popular UX research methods is Think Aloud (TA) usability testing. In TA testing, participants speak their thoughts while attempting tasks. The process helps researchers identify usability problems and potential fixes. But is the process of thinking aloud necessary to uncover problems and insights? Earlier, we investigated the effects of TA on
If different researchers conduct a study, will they identify different problems? While it was originally controversial, the evaluator effect is now well-established in the field of UX research. The evaluator effect is the finding that, in general, different teams or individuals conducting a usability study will identify and report different problems (Hertzum & Jacobsen, 2003).
ChatGPT. A sequence of letters that didn’t mean much to people a few months ago is now ubiquitous. It seems like every social media post mentions ChatGPT (especially the latest version, 4) and hypes it as a game changer. It’s been used to quickly summarize text, do homework, pass the bar exam, and code the game Duck Hunt
The wide range of UX methods is one of the things that makes UX such an interesting field. Some methods, like usability testing, have been around for decades. Others are more recent additions, and some seem to be just slight variations on other existing methods. We’ve been tracking and analyzing the methods UX professionals reported
Paraphrasing the statistician George Box, all models are wrong, some are useful, and some can be improved. In a recent article, we reviewed the most common way of modeling problem discovery, which is based on a straightforward application of the cumulative binomial probability formula: P(x≥1) = 1 – (1-p)n. Well, it’s straightforward if you like
Finding and fixing problems in an interface is one of the fundamental priorities of a formative usability test. But how many users should you test with? And how many usability problems are there to be uncovered? These questions have been discussed and debated for decades. Early work on problem discovery suggested that the first few
The fundamental goal of usability testing is to produce highly usable products and services. That’s an uncontroversial statement. Where things can get a bit confusing is how different approaches to usability testing have different ways of achieving that goal. In earlier articles we have described the different types of usability tests but many types still
Usability testing is expensive. At least that has been the perception. But the idea that usability is a nice-to-have ideal that only big companies such as IBM or Microsoft can afford has fortunately evolved. While technology has improved and gotten cheaper, it’s the technique that’s become more accessible and accepted. The discount-usability movement helped emphasize the effectiveness
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
