As I embark upon another global website usability study for one of our clients, and after reading about a new offering from Zurb (their third app called Verify) on TechCrunch, I thought it timely to reflect here about the range of usability testing methodologies available to companies that are developing web-based experiences (e.g., websites, mobile apps, widgets, RIAs).
At Goodman&Company we subscribe to the "test early / test often" model, but we don't limit it to usability. We involve users in the strategy development phase as well - whether the "phase" is two weeks or two months, and whether "involve" means friends and family research or recruiting for facility-based research.
But most companies do not instinctively incorporate time and budget for user research (including usability testing) in their project plans. User research typically has to be shoe-horned in once the project is well underway. So first, the brief case for user research:
- Ensures the experience design process - strategy, architecture, creative, development - is on the right trajectory (each stage builds on one another, creating complex linkages and dependencies that create a domino effect should any early stage artifacts require modification)
- Avoids costs related to re-work by aligning experience design to user goals, needs, behaviors and expectations before "too much concrete is poured", and avoids lost opportunity associated with launching an underachieving experience
- Delivers a common platform of insights and perspectives around which internal teams can rally and provides a tangible artifact that internal teams can reference to help enable and align trade-off decisions
In terms of usability testing, test early / test often suggests that testing should be done at various stages of experience design. There are a wide-range of usability testing methodologies that can be employed to execute user research:
- In-person facilitated: Moderated by a professional on-site; could be facility-based, office-based, at-work or at-home
- Remote facilitated: Moderated by a professional remotely via tele and / or video conference
- Remote unfacilitated: Application-based; unmoderated; participants answer questions, perform tasks, suggest layout / nomenclature revisions, etc.
There are many online tools to facilitate both kinds of remote usability testing, which is gaining traction with some really big brands. As with in-person facilitated research, any artifact - from user experience concepts to paper-based wireframes to clickable wireframe prototypes to creative prototypes to live websites - can be tested using remote methodologies. Self-administered applications like Verify, FiveSecondTest, ClickTest, and more robust platforms such as UserZoom, increase the ability to deliver on the test early / test often model. A few remote testing benefits:
- Output can be quantitative. With remote usability testing you can test with literally hundreds of participants vs. in-person research where testing typically occurs with as few as six subjects (depending on various factors such as geographies, target audiences, tasks, number of concepts, etc.). And dazzling quantitative outputs like mouse move heat maps and funnel analyses can really bolster the case internally for various design choices.
- Use occurs in their natural habitat. This is also possible with in-person facilitated research, but with remote methodologies this occurs 100% of the time.
- Logistics are easier. No traditional recruiting and scheduling, facilities rental, lead times, etc.
- Faster results. You can drop in an A/B creative test and have results back in a few days, depending on participant response.
Remember that remote usability testing is one arrow in the quiver. It's a complement to (not a substitute for) in-person research. In-person research provides the ability to have a richer, more intimate dialog, just as with some business meetings or personal get-togethers. In-person allows the moderator to probe in specific areas and alter the areas of inquiry on the fly. That said, remote testing is a nice, quick, less expensive way to execute usability testing, especially when time and budget conspire against the ability to conduct in-person testing.
