5 Misunderstandings of Usability Testing in Singapore
There are many discussion about Usability Testing, some of the views are not necessary to follow.
Myth # 1 Do not listen to your users.
Jacob Nielson, Usability Research Pioneer, said. Of course, it is important to get feedback from real users, but that does not mean that usability experts should not be completely trusted with users. The question is, at what time. “When should I collect user data? Only if they are already in use and have a real feel for their capabilities.”
What can be hidden behind user feedback?
- Users perfect copy of all tasks
- Users like new, modern designs
After completing these tasks, they asked: “What are these interfaces?”
Summary: Listen to their feedback after the user completes the task.
Myth # 2 Hundred of views better than five.
Someone once said that 100 people are better than 5 people. Mistakes are “automated testing is better than the on-site interview.” Automated testing is great as a tool, but they are not almighty.
First, real skills and practice require a lot of data in the right way.
Suppose I have a chicken farm. If I report it, 10% of the eggs are broken. how should I do?
- Increase the number of chicks to cover the loss
- Focus on existing and safe chickens to reduce losses
- Dismiss my cousin
Big data gives us more confidence, but it does not save us from ambiguity. In a personal interview, only one participant is enough to break my heart, let me constantly suspect everything I know, and make me more objective.
I do not encourage you to interview every chicken to solve the farm problem (3,4 enough). I did a bit – automated test results were more clearly explained than face-to-face interviews.
Second, face to face interviewing can give you a lot of unique information when you listen attentively to your users.
Summary: All automated testing and live interviews provide different ways, not superior to each other, but complementary.
Myth # 3 Don’t change the script.
If you rip off your notes two minutes before your speech, this is called Bravery. This is called an independent perspective when you change the script while filming, but if you suddenly change the script during usability interviews, it’s called “What’s this beep?”
Why UX staff is so afraid of being altered script? They say the result of the interview will not be objective enough. You need five people to do the same thing, come to a reasonable conclusion that the interface is being tested.
Of course, I very much agree to get as objective feedback as possible, but I do not agree with the rigid compliance with the script. In one of my studies, I saw how people simply ignored a very prominent button, and if at this point I did not ask one more question, “Did you notice this button before the mission started?” I Will not understand the real reason behind this strange behaviour.
Another argument about the rigid script is that it increases the comfort for everyone – the participants feel like the visitors know what they are doing and the visitors feel like they know what they are doing. what can I say? Real information is more important than comfort.
Summary: It’s important to have a script, but do not be afraid to add something to your visit. Just make sure you do not interrupt the entire interview process.
Myth # 4 Don’t talk with participants
A typical laboratory equipment includes a chair, a table, and a participant’s seat in front of the computer to do the task. Camera and sensor track everything – eye movements, facial expressions, body language. And no one else around. The goal is to exclude some of the impacts on the participants and allow them to complete one-on-one product testing on their own.
For some reason, some writers recommend creating this form of lab every time, even in Skype interview. “Do not talk to users and listen.” Of course, I agree that researchers should listen more and less, and they do not have to treat participants as Wolverine did in his early experiments.
Even if you are silent or in other rooms, people know they are being observed. You do not need to do anything, the pilot hole is the default, but you play the role of the test, will have the effect:
The participants consider you to be the authoritative person who will bend the truth in order to please your response
They are worried about admitting mistakes because they do not want to see “stupid” in your eyes,
They disguise patterns of behaviour differently from their use at home or in the office.
So please use some friendly ways. I always like to do a little bit of communication with participants. Speak some joke (best fun) in a relaxed voice and ask some fringe questions, people will be willing to share their own things. Therefore, you will receive valuable information.
Summary: Do not say too much, and strive to create the atmosphere as real as possible.
Myth # 5 Only common sense is not enough.
Usability has its own point of view for everyone. From your boss to your unemployed brother. This does not mean that there are no real usability experts. Here are usability experts who are familiar with a few things:
- Social psychology
- Behavioral psychology
- Basics of design
- Communication skills
- Data management
- A lot of practical experience
Such experts are very expensive, so many businesses take another approach. They simply assign this role to some people, and if someone has common sense, there is always a reward.
If you do not have an experienced usability expert, but want to test your product, why not use the same way to become such a person?
A basic principle that 80% of people use the product’s 20% function, which is 20% “core.” Define the core, and come up with some tasks to influence it, and then observe how the user does it. Do not give tips, wait patiently until they ask for your help. Then you will see the real problem, more than simply by personal subjective opinion.
Summary: Experienced experts can benefit everyone, but having a common sense is the good start.
Sum up
The availability myths mentioned in this article are more or less directed at eliminating “human factors” and making us say that usability research and services are as objective as possible. This is true from one perspective – in real life, people use the product without experimentation. (Imagine, whenever you use a new shower head, someone pops up and pulls out a notebook asking how you feel about it …)
However, the opposite happens when trying to “hide” the experiment from experience – they behave differently from real life, and the best way to eliminate it is to put the user in a natural environment and take a full view.
So, what else is needed? Create a friendly, trusted environment. Do not eliminate human factors, do not pretend you are not there.
Well, usability testing in the early product release has a very important role, I hope we can be a reasonable use.
read more:
