Ready for take-off: Best practices for creating and launching remote user research studies

Last week Optimal Workshop was delighted to sponsor UXDX USA 2024 in New York. The User Experience event brings together Product, Design, UX, CX, and Engineering professionals and our team had an amazing time meeting with customers, industry experts, and colleagues throughout the conference. This year, we also had the privilege of sharing some of our industry expertise by running an interactive forum on “Measuring the Value of UX Research” - a topic very close to our hearts.

‍

‍

Our forum, hosted by Optimal Workshop CEO Alex Burke and Product Lead Ella Fielding, was focused on exploring the value of User Experience Research (UXR) from both an industry-wide perspective and within the diverse ecosystem of individual companies and teams conducting this type of research today.

‍

The session brought together a global mix of UX professionals for a rich discussion on measuring and demonstrating the effectiveness of and the challenges facing organizations who are trying to tie UXR to tangible business value today.

‍

The main topics for the discuss were: 

• Metrics that Matter: How do you measure UXR's impact on sales, customer satisfaction, and design influence?
• Challenges & Strategies: What are the roadblocks to measuring UXR impact, and how can we overcome them?
• Beyond ROI:  UXR's value beyond just financial metrics

‍

Some of the key takeaways from our discussions during the session were: 

‍

1. The current state of UX maturity and value
   • Many UX teams don’t measure the impact of UXR on core business metrics and there were more attendees who are not measuring the impact of their work than those that are measuring it. 
   • Alex & Ella discussed with the attendees the current state of UX research maturity and the ability to prove value across different organizations represented in the room. Most organizations were still early in their UX research maturity with only 5% considering themselves advanced in having research culturally embedded.

2. Defining and proving the value of UX research
   • The industry doesn’t have clear alignment or understanding of what good measurement looks like. Many teams don’t know how to accurately measure UXR impact or don’t have the tools or platforms to measure it, which serve as core roadblocks for measuring UXRs’ impact. 
   • Alex and Ella discussed challenges in defining and proving the value of UX research, with common values being getting closer to customers, innovating faster, de-risking product decisions, and saving time and money. However, the value of research is hard to quantify compared to other product metrics like lines of code or features shipped.

3. Measuring and advocating for UX research
   • When teams are measuring UXR today there is a strong bias for customer feedback, but little ability or understanding about how to measure impact on business metrics like revenue. 
   • The most commonly used metrics for measuring UXR are quantitative and qualitative feedback from customers as opposed to internal metrics like stakeholder involvement or tieing UXR to business performance metrics (including financial performance). 
   • Attendees felt that in organizations where research is more embedded, researchers spend significant time advocating for research and proving its value to stakeholders rather than just conducting studies. This included tactics like research repositories and pointing to past study impacts as well as ongoing battles to shape decision making processes. 
   • One of our attendees highlighted that engaging stakeholders in the process of defining key research metrics prior to running research was a key for them in proving value internally. 

4. Relating user research to financial impact
   • Alex and Ella asked the audience if anyone had examples of demonstrating financial impact of research to justify investment in the team and we got some excellent examples from the audience proving that there are tangible ways to tie research outcomes to core business metrics including:
   • Calculating time savings for employees from internal tools as a financial impact metric. 
   • Measuring a reduction in calls to service desks as a way to quantify financial savings from research.

5. Most attendees recognise the value in embedding UXR more deeply in all levels of their organization - but feel like they’re not succeeding at this today. 
   • Most attendees feel that UXR is not fully embedded in their orgnaization or culture, but that if it was - they would be more successful in proving its overall value.
   • Stakeholder buy-in and engagement with UXR, particularly from senior leadership varied enormously across organizations, and wasn’t regularly measured as an indicator of UXR value 
   • In organizations where research was more successfully embedded, researchers had to spend significant time and effort building relationships with internal stakeholders before and after running studies. This took time and effort away from actual research, but ended up making the research more valuable to the business in the long run. 

‍

With the large range of UX maturity and the democratization of research across teams, we know there’s a lot of opportunity for our customers to improve their ability to tie their user research to tangible business outcomes and embed UX more deeply in all levels of their organizations. To help fill this gap, Optimal Workshop is currently running a large research project on Measuring the Value of UX which will be released in a few weeks.
‍

Keep up to date with the latest news and events by following us on LinkedIn.

In 2009, Bob Bailey and Cari Wolfson published published findings that changed how we approach first click testing and usability testing. They analyzed 12 scenario-based user tests and found that if someone gets their first click right, they're about twice as likely to complete their task successfully. This finding was so compelling that we built First Click Testing (formerly Chalkmark) specifically to help teams test this.  But we'd never actually validated their research using our own data, until now.

‍

Turns out, we're sitting on one of the world's largest databases of tree testing results. So we analyzed millions of task responses to see if the "first click predicts success" hypothesis holds up.

‍

It does. Convincingly.

‍

Users who get their first click correct are nearly three times more likely to complete their task successfully (70% vs 24% success rate).

‍

Here's how we validated the original study, what our data shows, and why first clicks matter more than you might think.

‍

‍

‍

Original first click testing study: 87% task success rate

‍

‍

Bob and Cari analyzed data from twelve usability studies on websites and products with varying amounts and types of content, a range of subject matter complexity, and distinct user interfaces. They found that people were about twice as likely to complete a task successfully if they got their first click right, than if they got it wrong:

‍

If the first click was correct, the chances of getting the entire scenario correct was 87% if the first click was incorrect, the chances of eventually getting the scenario correct was only 46%.

‍

‍

‍

Our Tree Testing data: First clicks predict 70% task success rate

‍

‍

We analyzed millions of tree testing responses in our database. We've found that people who get the first click correct are almost three times as likely to complete a task successfully:

‍

If the first click was correct, the chances of getting the entire scenario correct was 70% if the first click was incorrect, the chances of eventually getting the scenario correct was 24%

‍

To give you another perspective on the same data, here's the inverse:

‍

If the first click was correct, the chances of getting the entire scenario incorrect was 30% if the first click was incorrect, the chances of getting the whole scenario incorrect was 76%

‍

‍

‍

How Tree Testing measures first click success and task completion

‍

‍

Bob and Cari proved the usefulness of the methodology by linking two key metrics in scenario-based usability studies: first clicks and task success. First Click Testing doesn't measure task success — it's up to the researcher to determine as they're setting up the study what constitutes 'success', and then to interpret the results accordingly. Tree Testing (formerly Treejack) does measure task success — and first clicks.

‍

In a tree test, participants are asked to complete a task by clicking though a text-only version of a website hierarchy, and then clicking 'I'd find it here' when they've chosen an answer. Each task in a tree test has a pre-determined correct answer — as was the case in Bob and Cari's usability studies — and every click is recorded, so we can see participant paths in detail.

‍

Thus, every single time a person completes an individual tree testing task, we record both their first click and whether they are successful or not. When we came to test the 'correct first click leads to task success' hypothesis, we could therefore mine data from millions of task.

‍

To illustrate this, have a look at the results for one task. The overall Task result, you see a score for success and directness, and a breakdown of whether each Success, Fail, or Skip was direct (they went straight to an answer), or indirect (they went back up the tree before they selected an answer):

‍

‍

‍

‍

In the pie tree for the same task, you can look in more detail at how many people went the wrong way from a label (each label representing one page of your website):

‍

‍

‍

‍

In the First Click tab, you get a percentage breakdown of which label people clicked first to complete the task:

‍

‍

‍

‍

And in the Paths tab, you can view individual participant paths in detail (including first clicks), and can filter the table by direct and indirect success, fails, and skips (this table is only displaying direct success and direct fail paths):

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

How to run first click tests: Best practices for usability testing

‍

‍

First click analysis is one of the most predictive metrics in usability testing. Whether you're testing wireframes, landing pages, or information architecture, measuring first click success gives you early insight into whether your design will work.

‍

This analysis reinforces something we already knew: first clicks matter. It is worth your time to get that first impression right. You have plenty of options for measuring the link between first clicks and task success in your scenario-based usability tests. From simply noting where your participants go during observations, to gathering quantitative first click data via online tools, you'll win either way. And if you want quantitative first click data, Optimal has you covered. First Click Testing works for wireframes and landing pages, while Tree Testing validates your information architecture.

‍

To finish, here are a few invaluable insights from other researchers on getting the most from first click testing:

‍

• Jeff Sauro details a useful approach to running a first click test, and shares the findings from a test he ran on 13 people.
• An article on Neoinsight describes three common usability problems that first click testing can solve.
• Gianna LaPin describes a first click test she ran on Netflix, VUDU, and Hulu Plus.

‍

‍

About this study

‍

This analysis was conducted in 2015 using millions of task responses from Optimal’s First Click and Tree Testing tools. While the dataset predates recent UI trends, the underlying behavioral principle, that a correct first click strongly predicts task success, remains consistent with modern usability research.

Improved organization, privacy controls, and more with new Workspaces 🚀

‍

One of our key priorities in 2024 is making Optimal Workshop easier for large organizations to manage teams and collaborate more effectively on delivering optimal digital experiences. Workspaces is going live this week, which replaces teams, and introduces projects and folders for improved organization and privacy controls. Our latest release lays the foundations to provide more control over managing users, licenses, and user roles in the app in the near future.

‍

More control with project privacy 🔒

‍

Private projects allow greater flexibility on who can see what in your workspace, with the ability to make projects public or private and manage who can access a project. Find out more about how to set up private projects in this help article.

‍

What changes for Enterprise customers? 😅

‍

• The teams you have set up today will remain the same; they are renamed workspaces.
  
• Studies will be moved to a 'Default project' within the new workspace, from here you can decide how you would like to organize your studies and access to them.
  
  
• You can create new projects, move studies into them, and use the new privacy features to control who has access to studies or leave them as public access.
  
  
• Optimal Workshop are here to help if you would like to review your account structure and make changes, please reach out to your Customer Success Manager.
  

‍

Watch the video 🎞️

‍

What changes for Professional and Team customers? 😨

‍

Customers on either a Professional or Team plan will notice the studies tab will now be called Workspace. We have introduced another layer of organization called projects, and there is a new-look sidebar on the left to create projects, folders, and studies.

What's next for Workspaces? 🔮

‍

This new release is an essential step towards improving how we manage users, licenses, and different role types in Optimal Workshop. We hope to deliver more updates, such as the ability to move studies between workspaces, in the near future. If you have any feedback or ideas you want to share on workspaces or Optimal Workshop, please email product@optimalworkshop.com; we'd love to hear from you.

‍