July 2, 2026
—
5 minutes

Frequently Asked Questions about Optimal’s New Mixed-Methods Usability Testing Tool

We recently hosted a live webinar introducing Optimal's new Usability Testing tool, a powerful solution that brings multiple research methods together in a single study, helping you get better insights, faster.

‍

Looking for the highlights? We've rounded up answers to the most common questions from the session.

‍

‍

‍

What is Usability Testing?

‍

‍

Optimal's new Usability Testing tool is a mixed-methods research tool that brings Prototype Testing, Live Site Testing, and Surveys into a single, end-to-end study workflow. Instead of treating each method as its own initiative, you can combine them inside a single study to allow participants to move naturally between tasks, experiences, and questions.

‍

With this tool, you can compare multiple prototypes side by side, benchmark a current live experience against a redesigned concept, evaluate a competitor's experience, and more. And researchers get everything analyzed in one place with AI-powered summaries, task results, video clips, and evidence-backed insights surfaced automatically.

‍

‍

‍

Is Usability Testing supported for mobile testing?

‍

Yes, participants can complete Usability Testing studies on mobile devices using their mobile browser or the Optimal Participant App. If screen recording is required, participants are prompted to download the Optimal Participant App, available for both iOS and Android. 

‍

Do you have to use multiple methods, or can you run just one?

‍

You can keep it simple and run a single survey, a standalone prototype test, or a live site session on its own. Or, mix methods or run multiple of the same method, such as multiple prototypes or live website tests in one study. The tool supports however your study needs to be shaped.

‍

Can you run bilingual studies?

‍

Usability Testing currently supports over 30 languages enabling what participants see and guiding how AI models interpret responses, generate summaries, identify themes, and surface insights. Today, studies are configured around a single language, so participants are expected to respond in the chosen language. That said, multilingual study support is something we're exploring for our roadmap.

‍

Are participants recruited once across all methods, or separately for each?

‍

Just once. From the participant's perspective, this looks and feels like a single study regardless of how many methods are included. They move through the experience naturally from start to finish.

‍

To what extent can sections and questions be randomized?

‍

Section-level randomization shuffles the order of any sections, while question-level randomization works within a specific section, shuffling the order of tasks and follow-up questions. Both are supported, giving researchers the flexibility to reduce order bias, particularly useful when comparing multiple experiences.

‍

Can you test multiple prototypes within the same study?

‍

Yes, with no limitations on the number of prototypes you can link to a single study so you can add multiple Figma prototype sections and connect a different prototype to each one.

‍

Can you reorder sections and questions in a study?

‍

Given that Usability Testing studies can grow complex, the ability to reorder things quickly was a priority. You can reorder individual tasks and questions within a section, and sections themselves by dragging them in the Build panel.

‍

How effectively can Usability Testing scale across a business?

‍

Scaling research isn't just about running more studies, it's about helping more people across the business access insights, understand them, and use them to make decisions. With Usability Testing, product managers, designers, and stakeholders can quickly understand what happened and why without having to see hours of recording through the automatically generated highlight reels, key quotes, and transcripts.

‍

Watch the full webinar

‍

If you want to experience the full walkthrough, demo, and Q&A, watch the recording to see Usability Testing in action and pick up tips and best practices straight from the session.

👉 Watch the full webinar here.

‍

Share this article
Author
Optimal
Workshop

Related articles

View all blog articles
Learn more
1 min read

Frequently Asked Questions about Optimal’s New Mixed-Methods Usability Testing Tool

We recently hosted a live webinar introducing Optimal's new Usability Testing tool, a powerful solution that brings multiple research methods together in a single study, helping you get better insights, faster.

‍

Looking for the highlights? We've rounded up answers to the most common questions from the session.

‍

‍

‍

What is Usability Testing?

‍

‍

Optimal's new Usability Testing tool is a mixed-methods research tool that brings Prototype Testing, Live Site Testing, and Surveys into a single, end-to-end study workflow. Instead of treating each method as its own initiative, you can combine them inside a single study to allow participants to move naturally between tasks, experiences, and questions.

‍

With this tool, you can compare multiple prototypes side by side, benchmark a current live experience against a redesigned concept, evaluate a competitor's experience, and more. And researchers get everything analyzed in one place with AI-powered summaries, task results, video clips, and evidence-backed insights surfaced automatically.

‍

‍

‍

Is Usability Testing supported for mobile testing?

‍

Yes, participants can complete Usability Testing studies on mobile devices using their mobile browser or the Optimal Participant App. If screen recording is required, participants are prompted to download the Optimal Participant App, available for both iOS and Android. 

‍

Do you have to use multiple methods, or can you run just one?

‍

You can keep it simple and run a single survey, a standalone prototype test, or a live site session on its own. Or, mix methods or run multiple of the same method, such as multiple prototypes or live website tests in one study. The tool supports however your study needs to be shaped.

‍

Can you run bilingual studies?

‍

Usability Testing currently supports over 30 languages enabling what participants see and guiding how AI models interpret responses, generate summaries, identify themes, and surface insights. Today, studies are configured around a single language, so participants are expected to respond in the chosen language. That said, multilingual study support is something we're exploring for our roadmap.

‍

Are participants recruited once across all methods, or separately for each?

‍

Just once. From the participant's perspective, this looks and feels like a single study regardless of how many methods are included. They move through the experience naturally from start to finish.

‍

To what extent can sections and questions be randomized?

‍

Section-level randomization shuffles the order of any sections, while question-level randomization works within a specific section, shuffling the order of tasks and follow-up questions. Both are supported, giving researchers the flexibility to reduce order bias, particularly useful when comparing multiple experiences.

‍

Can you test multiple prototypes within the same study?

‍

Yes, with no limitations on the number of prototypes you can link to a single study so you can add multiple Figma prototype sections and connect a different prototype to each one.

‍

Can you reorder sections and questions in a study?

‍

Given that Usability Testing studies can grow complex, the ability to reorder things quickly was a priority. You can reorder individual tasks and questions within a section, and sections themselves by dragging them in the Build panel.

‍

How effectively can Usability Testing scale across a business?

‍

Scaling research isn't just about running more studies, it's about helping more people across the business access insights, understand them, and use them to make decisions. With Usability Testing, product managers, designers, and stakeholders can quickly understand what happened and why without having to see hours of recording through the automatically generated highlight reels, key quotes, and transcripts.

‍

Watch the full webinar

‍

If you want to experience the full walkthrough, demo, and Q&A, watch the recording to see Usability Testing in action and pick up tips and best practices straight from the session.

👉 Watch the full webinar here.

‍

Learn more
1 min read

Rethinking How We Design and Innovate in an Agentic AI World: Key Takeaways from DDX

‍Was human-centered design all wrong?

‍

No, but it fails to capture the whole picture.

‍

Don Norman introduced human-centered design (HCD), the approach of putting people and their needs at the center of the design process, in the 1980s and almost 50 years later at DDX San Diego 2026, he challenged the philosophy.

‍

Human-centered design gave the industry an important shift in perspective, paying close attention to the people who would actually live with what we create, but there’s tension. Design can create tremendous value for people while also creating unintended consequences for cultures, communities, organizations, and the world around them.

‍

If we optimize for the person in front of us, what happens to everyone and everything outside the frame?

‍

And as technology becomes increasingly agentic, that broader view becomes even more relevant. We're no longer designing only things that people interact with. We're increasingly designing systems that can act, make decisions, and influence what happens next.

‍

‍

‍

Summary

‍

    • Human-centered design does not capture the whole picture
    • New philosophies emerge including life-centered design, intelligence-centered, human-agent centered design, and agent-centered design
    • Four shifts matter most in the age of agentic AI: design for the system, not just the user; turn frameworks into prototypes; study behavior over stated needs; and translate insights and decisions into the language of the business
    • The future of design is about what you do with what you know
  • ‍

    ‍

    ‍

    Emerging design philosophies

    ‍

    ‍

    Life-Centered Design (LCD) expands the focus from the individual user to the larger living system that the product or service exists within. It seeks to align design decisions with global goals such as the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.

    ‍

    Intelligence-Centered Design (ICD) and Human-Agent Centered Design (H-ACD) are extensions of HCD where AI plays an active role in the design process alongside human intelligence, each learning from, making decisions, and mediating the process.

    ‍

    Agent-Centered Design (ACD) puts AI agents at the center as the primary participant in the process, agents building for agents.

    ‍

    ‍

    ‍

    Key elements of design and innovation in an agentic world

    ‍

    ‍

    Start with the people, not the product

    ‍

    ‍

    Good experiences have always started with deep understanding of the people who use the product, service, or system. Needs, expectations, and priorities are shaped by environment, so what works in one market, organization, or culture can't automatically be treated as a universal truth for all.

    ‍

    That's why ethnography and other forms of contextual research remain so valuable. Before asking what we should build, we need to understand the world people are navigating.

    ‍

    Questions to ask:

    ‍

    • Who are we really designing for?
    • What assumptions are we bringing from our own environment?
    • What would happen if this design enters a different context?
    • What are users' stated choices and how does that differ from their actual behavior?

    ‍

    The discipline of understanding people hasn't gone anywhere. It's just being asked to stretch further, to the systems, risks, and impacts beyond individuals.

    ‍

    ‍

    ‍

    Design for the system around the human

    ‍

    ‍

    Behavior is shaped by systems, organizational structures, constraints, and the decisions made around you, so those factors are part of what we are designing for. Agentic AI makes this deep understanding of context even more important.

    ‍

    When AI can act, make decisions, and influence what happens next, it becomes a key part of the system. Therefore, design has to account for the relationship between humans and their agents including how they work together, what artifacts are created along the way, how do they communicate, what decisions does AI make and what are its responsibilities.

    ‍

    Questions to ask:

    ‍

    • What happens outside the immediate experience?
    • How might the system change over time?
    • How do decisions get made? What's the logic behind them?

    ‍

    One practical takeaway is to spend more time understanding what people actually do, not just what they say they do. Diary studies, observation, prototype testing, and live site testing can all help surface what people may not be able to articulate themselves. Rather than simply asking “why,” ask, “What drove you to make that decision?” This is an open question to prompt an honest explanation of what influenced their thinking and led them to take a certain action.

    ‍

    ‍

    ‍

    Do more "design doing"

    ‍

    ‍

    Design has no shortage of frameworks, methodologies, books, and white papers. While these give us useful ways to think, real change only happens when teams transform what they’ve learned into something tangible. In the end, impact isn't measured by the depth of your knowledge, but by what you actually create with it.

    ‍

    Question to ask: What's the smallest thing I could do to build or test this idea this week?

    ‍

    A simple prototype will reveal insights that hours of discussion never could. A real interaction exposes the hidden gaps between what people say and what they actually do. A quick experiment tells a team far more than another round of debate.

    ‍

    At its best, good design thinking must always lead to good "design doing."

    ‍

    ‍

    ‍

    Earn influence by translating value into the language of the business

    ‍

    ‍

    Research and design often sits in the middle of an organization. Leadership sets direction, research gathers insight, design shapes the experience, then implementation follows. When each function speaks a different language, intent can get lost along the way.

    ‍

    Designers and researchers are inherently connectors. We bring together different perspectives, make sense of complexity, and help people see how decisions affect one another. But we aren't often in the room when the decisions themselves are being made. Policy, process, business models, and organizational structures are all forms of design, yet designers are often brought in after those choices have already been made.

    ‍

    There is an opportunity and a need for design thinking and "design doing" to move further upstream, and that starts with speaking the language of the people making those decisions: finances and margins.

    ‍

    Questions to ask:

    ‍

    • What does this insight or design mean for productivity, adoption, risk, growth, for the people working inside the system and for the people affected by it?
    • What would this save, generate, or protect, in dollars, time, or risk?
    • Can we connect the human story to a number?
    • How can I socialize this upwards in my organization?

    ‍

    Business decisions are design decisions.

    ‍

    ‍

    ‍

    Designing for what comes next

    ‍

    ‍

    The next era of design is expanding what we consider when we design.

    ‍

    As systems become more autonomous, designers have an opportunity to shape not only experiences, but the policies, services, and the systems around them.

    ‍

    The future of design is less about finding the right framework and more about what we choose to do with what we know.

    ‍

    Our monthly newsletter, User Tested is for product, design, and research teams who want to make UX research a strategic accelerator.  Subscribe to User Tested.

    ‍

    Header graphic for the article 'Usability Experts Unite: The Power of Heuristic Evaluation in User...'
    Learn more
    1 min read

    Usability Experts Unite: The Power of Heuristic Evaluation in User Interface Design

    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? 

    Seeing is believing

    Explore our tools and see how Optimal makes gathering insights simple, powerful, and impactful.