"Hi Optimal Work,I was wondering if there are some best practices you stick to when creating or sending out different UX research studies (i.e. Card sorts, Prototyye Test studies, etc)? Thank you! Mary"
Indeed I do! Over the years I’ve learned a lot about creating remote research studies and engaging participants. That experience has taught me a lot about what works, what doesn’t and what leaves me refreshing my results screen eagerly anticipating participant responses and getting absolute zip. Here are my top tips for remote research study creation and launch success!
Screener questions are really useful for eliminating participants who may not fit the criteria you’re looking for but you can’t exactly stop them from being less than truthful in their responses. Now, I’m not saying all participants lie on the screener so they can get to the activity (and potentially claim an incentive) but I am saying it’s something you can’t control. To help manage this, I like to use the post-study questions to provide additional context and structure to the research.
Depending on the study, I might ask questions to which the answers might confirm or exclude specific participants from a specific group. For example, if I’m doing research on people who live in a specific town or area, I’ll include a location based question after the study. Any participant who says they live somewhere else is getting excluded via that handy toggle option in the results section. Post-study questions are also great for capturing additional ideas and feedback after participants complete the activity as remote research limits your capacity to get those — you’re not there with them so you can’t just ask. Post-study questions can really help bridge this gap. Use no more than five post-study questions at a time and consider not making them compulsory.
No matter how careful I am, I always miss something! A typo, a card with a label in the wrong case, forgetting to update a new version of an information architecture after a change was made — stupid mistakes that we all make. By launching a practice version of your study and sharing it with your team or client, you can stop those errors dead in their tracks. It’s also a great way to get feedback from the team on your work before the real deal goes live. If you find an error, all you have to do is duplicate the study, fix the error and then launch. Just keep an eye on the naming conventions used for your studies to prevent the practice version and the final version from getting mixed up!
Something that has come back to bite me more than once is failing to clearly explain when the study will close. Understandably, participants can be left feeling pretty annoyed when they mentally commit to complete a study only to find it’s no longer available. There does come a point when you need to shut the study down to accurately report on quantitative data and you’re not going to be able to prevent every instance of this, but providing that information upfront will go a long way.
You may think you’re setting yourself up to be bombarded with emails, but I’ve found that isn’t necessarily the case. I’ve noticed I get around 1-3 participants contacting me per study. Sometimes they just want to tell me they completed it and potentially provide additional information and sometimes they have a question about the project itself. I’ve also found that sometimes they have something even more interesting to share such as the contact details of someone I may benefit from connecting with — or something else entirely! You never know what surprises they have up their sleeves and it’s important to be open to it. Providing an email address or social media contact details could open up a world of possibilities.
It might seem really obvious, but I can’t tell you how many emails I received (and have been guilty of sending out) that are missing the damn link to the study. It happens! You’re so focused on getting that delivery right and it becomes really easy to miss that final yet crucial piece of information.
To avoid this irritating mishap, I always complete a checklist before hitting send:
First and foremost, before you create or disseminate a remote research study, you need to understand who it’s going to and how they best receive this type of content. Posting it out when none of your followers are in your user group may not be the best approach. Do a quick brainstorm about the best way to reach them. For example if your users are internal staff, there might be an internal communications channel such as an all-staff newsletter, intranet or social media site that you can share the link and approach content to.
And by that I’m talking about both the engagement mechanism and the study itself. I learned this one the hard way. Time is everything and no matter your intentions, no one wants to spend more time than they have to. Even more so in situations where you’re unable to provide incentives (yep, I’ve been there). As a rule, I always stick to no more than 10 questions in a remote research study and for card sorts, I’ll never include more than 60 cards. Anything more than that will see a spike in abandonment rates and of course only serve to annoy and frustrate your participants. You need to ensure that you’re balancing your need to gain insights with their time constraints.
As for the accompanying approach content, short and snappy equals happy! In the case of an email, website, other social media post, newsletter, carrier pigeon etc, keep your approach spiel to no more than a paragraph. Use an audience appropriate tone and stick to the basics such as: a high level sentence on what you’re doing, roughly how long the study will take participants to complete, details of any incentives on offer and of course don’t forget to thank them.
The default instructions in Optimal Workshop’s suite of tools are really well designed and I’ve learned to borrow from them for my approach content when sending the link out. There’s no need for wheel reinvention and it usually just needs a slight tweak to suit the specific study. This also helps provide participants with a consistent experience and minimizes confusion allowing them to focus on sharing those valuable insights!
When you’re on to something that works — turn it into a template! Every time I create a study or send one out, I save it for future use. It still needs minor tweaks each time, but I use them to iterate my template.What are your top tips for creating and sending out remote user research studies? Comment below!
If you missed our live training, don’t worry, we’ve got you covered! In this session, our product experts Katie and Aidan discuss why, how and when to benchmark an existing structure using Treejack.
They also talk through some benchmarking use cases, demo how to compare tasks between different studies, and which results are most helpful.
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:
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.
We love getting stuck into scary, hairy problems to make things better here at Trade Me. One challenge for us in particular is how best to navigate customer reaction to any change we make to the site, the app, the terms and conditions, and so on. Our customers are passionate both about the service we provide — an online auction and marketplace — and its place in their lives, and are rightly forthcoming when they're displeased or frustrated. We therefore rely on our Customer Service (CS) team to give customers a voice, and to respond with patience and skill to customer problems ranging from incorrectly listed items to reports of abusive behavior.
The CS team uses a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system, Trade Me Admin, to monitor support requests and manage customer accounts. As the spectrum of Trade Me's services and the complexity of the public website have grown rapidly, the CRM system has, to be blunt, been updated in ways which have not always been the prettiest. Links for new tools and reports have simply been added to existing pages, and old tools for services we no longer operate have not always been removed. Thus, our latest focus has been to improve the user experience of the CRM system for our CS team.
And though on the surface it looks like we're working on a product with only 90 internal users, our changes will have flow on effects to tens of thousands of our members at any given time (from a total number of around 3.6 million members).
We face unique challenges designing customer service systems. Robert Schumacher from GfK summarizes these problems well. I’ve paraphrased him here and added an issue of my own:
1. Customer service centres are high volume environments — Our CS team has thousands of customer interactions every day, and and each team member travels similar paths in the CRM system.
2. Wrong turns are amplified — With so many similar interactions, a system change that adds a minute more to processing customer queries could slow down the whole team and result in delays for customers.
3. Two people relying on the same system — When the CS team takes a phone call from a customer, the CRM system is serving both people: the CS person who is interacting with it, and the caller who directs the interaction. Trouble is, the caller can't see the paths the system is forcing the CS person to take. For example, in a previous job a client’s CS team would always ask callers two or three extra security questions — not to confirm identites, but to cover up the delay between answering the call and the right page loading in the system.
4. Desktop clutter — As a result of the plethora of tools and reports and systems, the desktop of the average CS team member is crowded with open windows and tabs. They have to remember where things are and also how to interact with the different tools and reports, all of which may have been created independently (ie. work differently). This presents quite the cognitive load.
5. CS team members are expert users — They use the system every day, and will all have their own techniques for interacting with it quickly and accurately. They've also probably come up with their own solutions to system problems, which they might be very comfortable with. As Schumacher says, 'A critical mistake is to discount the expert and design for the novice. In contact centers, novices become experts very quickly.'
6. Co-design is risky — Co-design workshops, where the users become the designers, are all the rage, and are usually pretty effective at getting great ideas quickly into systems. But expert users almost always end up regurgitating the system they're familiar with, as they've been trained by repeated use of systems to think in fixed ways.
7. Training is expensive — Complex systems require more training so if your call centre has high churn (ours doesn’t – most staff stick around for years) then you’ll be spending a lot of money. …and the one I’ve added:
8. Powerful does not mean easy to learn — The ‘it must be easy to use and intuitive’ design rationale is often the cause of badly designed CRM systems. Designers mistakenly design something simple when they should be designing something powerful. Powerful is complicated, dense, and often less easy to learn, but once mastered lets staff really motor.
Our improvement of Trade Me Admin is focused on fixing the shattered IA and restructuring the key pages to make them perform even better, bringing them into a new code framework. We're not redesigning the reports, tools, code or even the interaction for most of the reports, as this will be many years of effort. Watching our own staff use Trade Me Admin is like watching someone juggling six or seven things.
The system requires them to visit multiple pages, hold multiple facts in their head, pattern and problem-match across those pages, and follow their professional intuition to get to the heart of a problem. Where the system works well is on some key, densely detailed hub pages. Where it works badly, staff have to navigate click farms with arbitrary link names, have to type across the URL to get to hidden reports, and generally expend more effort on finding the answer than on comprehending the answer.
The first thing that we did was to sit with CS and watch them work and get to know the common actions they perform. The random nature of the IA and the plethora of dead links and superseded reports became apparent. We surveyed teams, providing them with screen printouts and three highlighter pens to colour things as green (use heaps), orange (use sometimes) and red (never use). From this, we were able to immediately remove a lot of noise from the new IA. We also saw that specific teams used certain links but that everyone used a core set. Initially focussing on the core set, we set about understanding the tasks under those links.
The complexity of the job soon became apparent – with a complex system like Trade Me Admin, it is possible to do the same thing in many different ways. Most CRM systems are complex and detailed enough for there to be more than one way to achieve the same end and often, it’s not possible to get a definitive answer, only possible to ‘build a picture’. There’s no one-to-one mapping of task to link. Links were also often arbitrarily named: ‘SQL Lookup’ being an example. The highly-trained user base are dependent on muscle memory in finding these links. This meant that when asked something like: “What and where is the policing enquiry function?”, many couldn’t tell us what or where it was, but when they needed the report it contained they found it straight away.
Therefore, it came as little surprise that staff found the subsequent card sort task quite hard. We renamed the links to better describe their associated actions, and of course, they weren't in the same location as in Trade Me Admin. So instead of taking the predicted 20 minutes, the sort was taking upwards of 40 minutes. Not great when staff are supposed to be answering customer enquiries!
We noticed some strong trends in the results, with links clustering around some of the key pages and tasks (like 'member', 'listing', 'review member financials', and so on). The results also confirmed something that we had observed — that there is a strong split between two types of information: emails/tickets/notes and member info/listing info/reports.
After card sorting, we created two new IAs, and then customized one of the IAs for each of the three CS teams, giving us IAs to test. Each team was then asked to complete two tree tests, with 50% doing one first and 50% doing the other first. At first glance, the results of the tree test were okay — around 61% — but 'Could try harder'. We saw very little overall difference between the success of the two structures, but definitely some differences in task success. And we also came across an interesting quirk in the results.
Closer analysis of the pie charts with an expert in Trade Me Admin showed that some ‘wrong’ answers would give part of the picture required. In some cases so much so that I reclassified answers as ‘correct’ as they were more right than wrong. Typically, in a real world situation, staff might check several reports in order to build a picture. This ambiguous nature is hard to replicate in a tree test which wants definitive yes or no answers. Keeping the tasks both simple to follow and comprehensive proved harder than we expected.
For example, we set a task that asked participants to investigate whether two customers had been bidding on each other's auctions. When we looked at the pietree (see screenshot below), we noticed some participants had clicked on 'Search Members', thinking they needed to locate the customer accounts, when the task had presumed that the customers had already been found. This is a useful insight into writing more comprehensive tasks that we can take with us into our next tests.
What’s clear from analysis is that although it’s possible to provide definitive answers for a typical site’s IAs, for a CRM like Trade Me Admin this is a lot harder. Devising and testing the structure of a CRM has proved a challenge for our highly trained audience, who are used to the current system and naturally find it difficult to see and do things differently. Once we had reclassified some of the answers as ‘correct’ one of the two trees was a clear winner — it had gone from 61% to 69%. The other tree had only improved slightly, from 61% to 63%.
There were still elements with it that were performing sub-optimally in our winning structure, though. Generally, the problems were to do with labelling, where, in some cases, we had attempted to disambiguate those ‘SQL lookup’-type labels but in the process, confused the team. We were left with the dilemma of whether to go with the new labels and make the system initially harder to use for staff but easier to learn for new staff, or stick with the old labels, which are harder to learn. My view is that any new system is going to see an initial performance dip, so we might as well change the labels now and make it better.
The importance of carefully structuring questions in a tree test has been highlighted, particularly in light of the ‘start anywhere/go anywhere’ nature of a CRM. The diffuse but powerful nature of a CRM means that careful consideration of tree test answer options needs to be made, in order to decide ‘how close to 100% correct answer’ you want to get.
It's great to see that our research is influencing the next stage of the CRM system, and we're looking forward to seeing it go live. Of course, our work isn't over— and nor would we want it to be! Alongside the redevelopment of the IA, I've been redesigning the key pages from Trade Me Admin, and continuing to conduct user research, including first click testing using Chalkmark.
This project has been governed by a steadily developing set of design principles, focused on complex CRM systems and the specific needs of their audience. Two of these principles are to reduce navigation and to design for experts, not novices, which means creating dense, detailed pages. It's intense, complex, and rewarding design work, and we'll be exploring this exciting space in more depth in upcoming posts.