5 ways to measure UX return on investment

Knowing and understanding why and how your users use your product is invaluable for getting to the nitty gritty of usability. Delving deep with probing questions into motivation or skimming over looking for issues can equally be informative. 

‍

Put super simply, usability testing literally is testing how usable your product is for your users. If your product isn’t usable users often won’t complete their task, let alone come back for more. No one wants to lose users before they even get started. Usability testing gets under their skin and really into the how, why and what they want (and equally what they don’t).

‍

As we have been getting used to video calling regularly and using the internet for interactions, usability testing has followed suit. Being able to access participants remotely has allowed us to diversify the participant pool by not being restricted to those that are close enough to be in-person. This has also allowed an increase in the number of participants per test, as it becomes more cost-effective to perform remote usability testing.

‍

But if we’re remote, does this mean it can’t be moderated? No - remote testing, along with modern technology, can mean that remote testing can be facilitated and moderated. But what is the best method - moderated or unmoderated?

‍

What is moderated remote research testing?

‍

In traditional usability testing, moderated research is done in person. With the moderator and the participant in the same physical space. This, of course, allows for conversation and observational behavioral monitoring. Meaning the moderator can note not only what the participant answers but how and even make note of the body language, surroundings, and other influencing factors. 

‍

This has also meant that traditionally, the participant pool has been limited to those that can be available (and close enough) to make it into a facility for testing. And being in person has meant it takes time (and money) to perform these tests.

‍

As technology has moved along and the speed of internet connections and video calling has increased, this has opened up a world of opportunities for usability testing. Allowing usability testing to be done remotely. Moderators can now set up testing remotely and ‘dial in’ to observe participants anywhere they are. And potentially even running focus groups or other testing in a group format across the internet. 

‍

Pros of moderated remote research testing:

‍

- In-depth gathering of insights through a back-and-forth conversation and observing of the participants.

‍

- Follow-up questions don’t underestimate the value of being available to ask questions throughout the testing. And following up in the moment.

‍

- Observational monitoring noticing and noting the environment and how the participants are behaving, can give more insight into how or why they choose to make a decision.

‍

- Quick remote testing can be quicker to start, find participants, and complete than in-person. This is because you only need to set up a time to connect via the internet, rather than coordinating travel times, etc.

‍

- Location (local and/or international) Testing online removes reliance on participants being physically present for the testing. This broadens your ability to broaden the pool, and participants can be either within your country or global. 

‍

Cons of moderated remote research testing:

‍

- Time-consuming having to be present at each test takes time. As does analyzing the data and insights generated. But remember, this is quality data.

‍

- Limited interactions with any remote testing there is only so much you can observe or understand across the window of a computer screen. It can be difficult to have a grasp on all the factors that might be influencing your participants.

‍

What is unmoderated remote research testing?

‍

In its most simple sense, unmoderated user testing removes the ‘moderated’ part of the equation. Instead of having a facilitator guide participants through the test, participants are left to complete the testing by themselves and in their own time. For the most part, everything else stays the same. 

‍

Removing the moderator, means that there isn’t anyone to respond to queries or issues in the moment. This can either delay, influence, or even potentially force participants to not complete or maybe not be as engaged as you may like. Unmoderated research testing suits a very simple and direct type of test. With clear instructions and no room for inference. 

‍

Pros of unmoderated remote research testing:

‍

- Speed and turnaround,  as there is no need to schedule meetings with each and every participant. Unmoderated usability testing is usually much faster to initiate and complete.

‍

- Size of study (participant numbers) unmoderated usability testing allows you to collect feedback from dozens or even hundreds of users at the same time. 

- Location (local and/or international) Testing online removes reliance on participants being physically present for the testing, which broadens your participant pool.  And unmoderated testing means that it literally can be anywhere while participants complete the test in their own time.

‍

Cons of unmoderated remote research testing:

‍

- Follow-up questions as your participants are working on their own and in their own time, you can’t facilitate and ask questions in the moment. You may be able to ask limited follow-up questions.

‍

- Products need to be simple to use unmoderated testing does not allow for prototypes or any product or site that needs guidance. 

‍

- Low participant support without the moderator any issues with the test or the product can’t be picked up immediately and could influence the output of the test.

‍

When should you do moderated vs unmoderated remote usability testing?

‍

Each moderated and unmoderated remote usability testing have its use and place in user research. It really depends on the question you are asking and what you are wanting to know.

‍

Moderated testing allows you to gather in-depth insights, follow up with questions, and engage the participants in the moment. The facilitator has the ability to guide participants to what they want to know, to dig deeper, or even ask why at certain points. This method doesn’t need as much careful setup as the participants aren’t on their own. While this is all done online, it does still allow connection and conversation. This method allows for more investigative research. Looking at why users might prefer one prototype to another. Or possibly tree testing a new website navigation to understand where they might get lost and querying why the participant made certain choices.

‍

Unmoderated testing, on the other hand, is literally leaving the participants to it. This method needs very careful planning and explaining upfront. The test needs to be able to be set and run without a moderator. This lends itself more to wanting to know a direct answer to a query. Such as a card sort on a website to understand how your users might sort information. Or a first click to see how/where users will click on a new website.

‍

Planning your next user test? Here’s how to choose the right method

‍

With the ability to expand our pool of participants across the globe with all of the advances (and acceptance of) technology and video calling etc, the ability to expand our understanding of users’ experiences is growing. Remote usability testing is a great option when you want to gather information from users in the real world. Depending on your query, moderated or unmoderated usability testing will suit your study. As with all user testing, being prepared and planning ahead will allow you to make the most of your test.

Usability experts play an essential role in the user interface design process by evaluating the usability of digital products from a very important perspective - the users! Usability experts utilize various techniques such as heuristic evaluation, usability testing, and user research to gather data on how users interact with digital products and services. This data helps to identify design flaws and areas for improvement, leading to the development of user-friendly and efficient products.

‍

Heuristic evaluation is a usability research technique used to evaluate the user interface design of a digital product based on a set of ‘heuristics’ or ‘usability principles’. These heuristics are derived from a set of established principles of user experience design - attributed to the landmark article “Improving a Human-Computer Dialogue” published by web usability pioneers Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich in 1990. The principles focus on the experiential aspects of a user interface. 

‍

In this article, we’ll discuss what heuristic evaluation is and how usability experts use the principles to create exceptional design. We’ll also discuss how usability testing works hand-in-hand with heuristic evaluation, and how minimalist design and user control impact user experience. So, let’s dive in!

‍

‍

Understanding Heuristic Evaluation

Heuristic evaluation helps usability experts to examine interface design against tried and tested rules of thumb. To conduct a heuristic evaluation, usability experts typically work through the interface of the digital product and identify any issues or areas for improvement based on these broad rules of thumb, of which there are ten. They broadly cover the key areas of design that impact user experience - not bad for an article published over 30 years ago!

‍

The ten principles are:

‍

1. Prevention error: Well-functioning error messages are good, but instead of messages, can these problems be removed in the first place? Remove the opportunity for slips and mistakes to occur.
2. Consistency and standards: Language, terms, and actions used should be consistent to not cause any confusion.
3. Control and freedom for users: Give your users the freedom and control to undo/redo actions and exit out of situations if needed.
4. System status visibility: Let your users know what’s going on with the site. Is the page they’re on currently loading, or has it finished loading?
5. Design and aesthetics: Cut out unnecessary information and clutter to enhance visibility. Keep things in a minimalist style.
6. Help and documentation: Ensure that information is easy to find for users, isn’t too large and is focused on your users’ tasks.
7. Recognition, not recall: Make sure that your users don’t have to rely on their memories. Instead, make options, actions and objects visible. Provide instructions for use too.
8. Provide a match between the system and the real world: Does the system speak the same language and use the same terms as your users? If you use a lot of jargon, make sure that all users can understand by providing an explanation or using other terms that are familiar to them. Also ensure that all your information appears in a logical and natural order.
9. Flexibility: Is your interface easy to use and it is flexible for users? Ensure your system can cater to users to all types, from experts to novices.
10. Help users to recognize, diagnose and recover from errors: Your users should not feel frustrated by any error messages they see. Instead, express errors in plain, jargon-free language they can understand. Make sure the problem is clearly stated and offer a solution for how to fix it.

‍

Heuristic evaluation is a cost-effective way to identify usability issues early in the design process (although they can be performed at any stage) leading to faster and more efficient design iterations. It also provides a structured approach to evaluating user interfaces, making it easier to identify usability issues. By providing valuable feedback on overall usability, heuristic evaluation helps to improve user satisfaction and retention.

‍

‍

‍

The Role of Usability Experts in Heuristic Evaluation

‍

‍

Usability experts play a central role in the heuristic evaluation process by providing feedback on the usability of a digital product, identifying any issues or areas for improvement, and suggesting changes to optimize user experience.

‍

One of the primary goals of usability experts during the heuristic evaluation process is to identify and prevent errors in user interface design. They achieve this by applying the principles of error prevention, such as providing clear instructions and warnings, minimizing the cognitive load on users, and reducing the chances of making errors in the first place. For example, they may suggest adding confirmation dialogs for critical actions, ensuring that error messages are clear and concise, and making the navigation intuitive and straightforward.

‍

Usability experts also use user testing to inform their heuristic evaluation. User testing involves gathering data from users interacting with the product or service and observing their behavior and feedback. This data helps to validate the design decisions made during the heuristic evaluation and identify additional usability issues that may have been missed. For example, usability experts may conduct A/B testing to compare the effectiveness of different design variations, gather feedback from user surveys, and conduct user interviews to gain insights into users' needs and preferences.

‍

Conducting user testing with users that represent, as closely as possible, actual end users, ensures that the product is optimized for its target audience. Check out our tool Reframer, which helps usability experts collaborate and record research observations in one central database.

‍

‍

‍

Minimalist Design and User Control in Heuristic Evaluation

‍

‍

Minimalist design and user control are two key principles that usability experts focus on during the heuristic evaluation process. A minimalist design is one that is clean, simple, and focuses on the essentials, while user control refers to the extent to which users can control their interactions with the product or service.

‍

Minimalist design is important because it allows users to focus on the content and tasks at hand without being distracted by unnecessary elements or clutter. Usability experts evaluate the level of minimalist design in a user interface by assessing the visual hierarchy, the use of white space, the clarity of the content, and the consistency of the design elements. Information architecture (the system and structure you use to organize and label content) has a massive impact here, along with the content itself being concise and meaningful.

‍

Incorporating minimalist design principles into heuristic evaluation can improve the overall user experience by simplifying the design, reducing cognitive load, and making it easier for users to find what they need. Usability experts may incorporate minimalist design by simplifying the navigation and site structure, reducing the number of design elements, and removing any unnecessary content (check out our tool Treejack to conduct site structure, navigation, and categorization research). Consistent color schemes and typography can also help to create a cohesive and unified design.

‍

User control is also critical in a user interface design because it gives users the power to decide how they interact with the product or service. Usability experts evaluate the level of user control by looking at the design of the navigation, the placement of buttons and prompts, the feedback given to users, and the ability to undo actions. Again, usability testing plays an important role in heuristic evaluation by allowing researchers to see how users respond to the level of control provided, and gather feedback on any potential hiccups or roadblocks.

‍

‍

‍

Usability Testing and Heuristic Evaluation

‍

‍

Usability testing and heuristic evaluation are both important components of the user-centered design process, and they complement each other in different ways.

‍

Usability testing involves gathering feedback from users as they interact with a digital product. This feedback can provide valuable insights into how users perceive and use the user interface design, identify any usability issues, and help validate design decisions. Usability testing can be conducted in different forms, such as moderated or unmoderated, remote or in-person, and task-based or exploratory. Check out our usability testing 101 article to learn more.

‍

On the other hand, heuristic evaluation is a method in which usability experts evaluate a product against a set of usability principles. While heuristic evaluation is a useful method to quickly identify usability issues and areas for improvement, it does not involve direct feedback from users.

‍

Usability testing can be used to validate heuristic evaluation findings by providing evidence of how users interact with the product or service. For example, if a usability expert identifies a potential usability issue related to the navigation of a website during heuristic evaluation, usability testing can be used to see if users actually have difficulty finding what they need on the website. In this way, usability testing provides a reality check to the heuristic evaluation and helps ensure that the findings are grounded in actual user behavior.

‍

Usability testing and heuristic evaluation work together in the design process by informing and validating each other. For example, a designer may conduct heuristic evaluation to identify potential usability issues and then use the insights gained to design a new iteration of the product or service. The designer can then use usability testing to validate that the new design has successfully addressed the identified usability issues and improved the user experience. This iterative process of designing, testing, and refining based on feedback from both heuristic evaluation and usability testing leads to a user-centered design that is more likely to meet user needs and expectations.

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion

‍

‍

Heuristic evaluation is a powerful usability research technique that usability experts use to evaluate digital product interfaces based on a set of established principles of user experience design. After all these years, the ten principles of heuristic evaluation still cover the key areas of design that impact user experience, making it easier to identify usability issues early in the design process, leading to faster and more efficient design iterations. Usability experts play a critical role in the heuristic evaluation process by identifying design flaws and areas for improvement, using user testing to validate design decisions, and ensuring that the product is optimized for its intended users.

‍

Minimalist design and user control are two key principles that usability experts focus on during the heuristic evaluation process. A minimalist design is clean, simple, and focuses on the essentials, while user control gives users the freedom and control to undo/redo actions and exit out of situations if needed. By following these principles, usability experts can create an exceptional design that enhances visibility, reduces cognitive load, and provides a positive user experience. 

‍

Ultimately, heuristic evaluation is a cost-effective way to identify usability issues at any point in the design process, leading to faster and more efficient design iterations, and improving user satisfaction and retention. How many of the ten heuristic design principles does your digital product satisfy? 

It’s a chicken and egg situation when it comes to securing funding for a large transformation program in government. On one hand, you need to submit a business case and, as part of that, you need to make early decisions about how you might approach and deliver the program of work. On the other hand, you need to know enough about the problem you are going to solve to ensure you have sufficient funding to understand the problem better, hire the right people, design the right service, and build it the right way. 

‍

Now imagine securing hundreds of millions of dollars to design and build a service, but not feeling confident about what the user needs are. What if you had the opportunity to change this common predicament and influence your leadership team to carry out alignment activities, all while successfully delivering within the committed time frames?

‍

Meera Pankhania, Design Director and Co-founder of Propel Design, recently spoke at UX New Zealand, the leading UX and IA conference in New Zealand hosted by Optimal Workshop, on traceability and her learnings from delivering a $300 million Government program.

‍

In her talk, Meera helps us understand how to use service traceability techniques in our work and apply them to any environment - ensuring we design and build the best service possible, no matter the funding model.

‍

Background on Meera Pankhania

‍

As a design leader, Meera is all about working on complex, purpose-driven challenges. She helps organizations take a human-centric approach to service transformation and helps deliver impactful, pragmatic outcomes while building capability and leading teams through growth and change.

‍

Meera co-founded Propel Design, a strategic research, design, and delivery consultancy in late 2020. She has 15 years of experience in service design, inclusive design, and product management across the private, non-profit, and public sectors in both the UK and Australia. 

‍

Meera is particularly interested in policy and social design. After a stint in the Australian Public Service, Meera was appointed as a senior policy adviser to the NSW Minister for Customer Service, Hon. Victor Dominello MP. In this role, she played a part in NSW’s response to the COVID pandemic, flexing her design leadership skills in a new, challenging, and important context.

‍

Contact Details:

‍

Email address: meera@propeldesign.com.au

‍

Find Meera on LinkedIn  

‍

From funding to delivery: ensuring alignment from start to finish 🏁🎉👏

‍

Meera’s talk explores a fascinating case study within the Department of Employment Services (Australia) where a substantial funding investment of around $300 million set the stage for a transformative journey. This funding supported the delivery of a revamped Employment Services Model, which had the goal of delivering better services to job seekers and employers, and a better system for providers within this system. The project had a focus on aligning teams prior to delivery, which resulted in a huge amount of groundwork for Meera.

‍

Her journey involved engaging various stakeholders within the department, including executives, to understand the program as a whole and what exactly needed to be delivered. “Traceability” became the watchword for this project, which is laid out in three phases.

‍

• Phase 1: Aligning key deliverables
• Phase 2: Ensuring delivery readiness
• Phase 3: Building sustainable work practices

‍

Phase 1: Aligning key deliverables 🧮

‍

Research and discovery (pre-delivery)

‍

Meera’s work initially meant conducting extensive research and engagement with executives, product managers, researchers, designers, and policymakers. Through this process, a common theme was identified – the urgent (and perhaps misguided) need to start delivering! Often, organizations focus on obtaining funding without adequately understanding the complexities involved in delivering the right services to the right users, leading to half-baked delivery.

After this initial research, some general themes started to emerge:

1. Assumptions were made that still needed validation
2. Teams weren’t entirely sure that they understood the user’s needs
3. A lack of holistic understanding of how much research and design was needed

The conclusion of this phase was that “what” needed to be delivered wasn’t clearly defined. The same was true for “how” it would be delivered.

‍

Traceability

‍

Meera’s journey heavily revolved around the concept of "traceability” and sought to ensure that every step taken within the department was aligned with the ultimate goal of improving employment services. Traceability meant having a clear origin and development path for every decision and action taken. This is particularly important when spending taxpayer dollars!

‍

So, over the course of eight weeks (which turned out to be much longer), the team went through a process of combing through documents in an effort to bring everything together to make sense of the program as a whole. This involved some planning, user journey mapping, and testing and refinement. 

‍

Documenting Key Artifacts

‍

Numerous artifacts and documents played a crucial role in shaping decisions. Meera and her team gathered and organized these artifacts, including policy requirements, legislation, business cases, product and program roadmaps, service maps, and blueprints. The team also included prior research insights and vision documents which helped to shape a holistic view of the required output.

‍

After an effort of combing through the program documents and laying everything out, it became clear that there were a lot of gaps and a LOT to do.

‍

Prioritising tasks

‍

As a result of these gaps, a process of task prioritization was necessary. Tasks were categorized based on a series of factors and then mapped out based on things like user touch points, pain points, features, business policy, and technical capabilities.

‍

This then enabled Meera and the team to create Product Summary Tiles. These tiles meant that each product team had its own summary ahead of a series of planning sessions. It gave them as much context (provided by the traceability exercise) as possible to help with planning. Essentially, these tiles provided teams with a comprehensive overview of their projects i.e. what their user needs, what certain policies require them to deliver, etc.  

‍

Phase 2: Ensuring delivery readiness 🙌🏻

‍

Meera wanted every team to feel confident that we weren’t doing too much or too little in order to design and build the right service, the right way.

‍

Standard design and research check-ins were well adopted, which was a great start, but Meera and the team also built a Delivery Readiness Tool. It was used to assess a team's readiness to move forward with a project. This tool includes questions related to the development phase, user research, alignment with the business case, consideration of policy requirements, and more. Ultimately, it ensures that teams have considered all necessary factors before progressing further. 

‍

Phase 3: Building sustainable work practices 🍃

‍

As the program progressed, several sustainable work practices emerged which Government executives were keen to retain going forward.

Some of these included:

‍

• ResearchOps Practice: The team established a research operations practice, streamlining research efforts and ensuring that ongoing research was conducted efficiently and effectively.
• Consistent Design Artifacts: Templates and consistent design artifacts were created, reducing friction and ensuring that teams going forward started from a common baseline.
• Design Authority and Ways of Working: A design authority was established to elevate and share best practices across the program.
• Centralized and Decentralized Team Models: The program showcased the effectiveness of a combination of centralized and decentralized team models. A central design team provided guidance and support, while service design leads within specific service lines ensured alignment and consistency.

‍

Why it matters 🔥

‍

Meera's journey serves as a valuable resource for those working on complex design programs, emphasizing the significance of aligning diverse stakeholders and maintaining traceability. Alignment and traceability are critical to ensuring that programs never lose sight of the problem they’re trying to solve, both from the user and organization’s perspective. They’re also critical to delivering on time and within budget!

‍

Traceability key takeaways 🥡

‍

• Early Alignment Matters: While early alignment is ideal, it's never too late to embark on a traceability journey. It can uncover gaps, increase confidence in decision-making, and ensure that the right services are delivered.
• Identify and audit: You never know what artifacts will shape your journey. Identify everything early, and don’t be afraid to get clarity on things you’re not sure about.
• Conducting traceability is always worthwhile: Even if you don’t find many gaps in your program, you will at least gain a high level of confidence that your delivery is focused on the right things.

‍

Delivery readiness key takeaways 🥡

‍

• Skills Mix is Vital: Assess and adapt team member roles to match their skills and experiences, ensuring they are positioned optimally.
• Not Everyone Shares the Same Passion: Recognize that not everyone will share the same level of passion for design and research. Make the relevance of these practices clear to all team members.

‍

Sustainability key takeaways 🥡

‍

• One Size Doesn't Fit All: Tailor methodologies, templates, and practices to the specific needs of your organization.
• Collaboration is Key: Foster a sense of community and collective responsibility within teams, encouraging shared ownership of project outcomes.

‍

‍