The Power of Prototype Testing Live Training

"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!

‍

‍

Creating remote research studies

‍

‍

Use screener questions and post-study questions wisely

‍

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.

‍

‍

Do a practice run

‍

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!

‍

Sending out remote research studies

‍

‍

Manage expectations about how long the study will be open for

‍

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.

‍

‍

Provide contact details and be open to questions

‍

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.

‍

‍

Don’t forget to include the link!

‍

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:

‍

• Have I checked my spelling and grammar?
• Have I replaced all the template placeholder content with the correct information?
• Have I mentioned when the study will close?
• Have I included contact details?
• Have I launched my study and received confirmation that it is live?
• Have I included the link to the study in my communications to participants?
• Does the link work? (yep, I’ve broken it before)

‍

‍

‍

General tips for both creating and sending out remote research studies

‍

‍

Know your audience

‍

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.

‍

‍

Keep it brief

‍

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.

‍

‍

Set clear instructions

‍

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!

‍

‍

Create a template

‍

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!

In UX research we are told again and again that to ensure truly user-centered design, it’s important to test ideas with real users as early as possible. There are many benefits that come from introducing the voice of the people you are designing for in the early stages of the design process. The more feedback you have to work with, the more you can inform your design to align with real needs and expectations. In turn, this leads to better experiences that are more likely to succeed in the real world.It is not surprising then that paper prototypes have become a popular tool used among researchers. They allow ideas to be tested as they emerge, and can inform initial designs before putting in the hard yards of building the real thing. It would seem that they’re almost a no-brainer for researchers, but just like anything out there, along with all the praise, they have also received a fair share of criticism, so let’s explore paper prototypes a little further.

‍

What’s a paper prototype anyway? 🧐📖

‍

Paper prototyping is a simple usability testing technique designed to test interfaces quickly and cheaply. A paper prototype is nothing more than a visual representation of what an interface could look like on a piece of paper (or even a whiteboard or chalkboard). Unlike high-fidelity prototypes that allow for digital interactions to take place, paper prototypes are considered to be low-fidelity, in that they don’t allow direct user interaction. They can also range in sophistication, from a simple sketch using a pen and paper to simulate an interface, through to using designing or publishing software to create a more polished experience with additional visual elements.

‍

‍

‍

Showing a research participant a paper prototype is far from the real deal, but it can provide useful insights into how users may expect to interact with specific features and what makes sense to them from a basic, user-centered perspective. There are some mixed attitudes towards paper prototypes among the UX community, so before we make any distinct judgements, let's weigh up their pros and cons.

‍

Advantages 🏆

‍

• They’re cheap and fastPen and paper, a basic word document, Photoshop. With a paper prototype, you can take an idea and transform it into a low-fidelity (but workable) testing solution very quickly, without having to write code or use sophisticated tools. This is especially beneficial to researchers who work with tight budgets, and don’t have the time or resources to design an elaborate user testing plan.
• Anyone can do itPaper prototypes allow you to test designs without having to involve multiple roles in building them. Developers can take a back seat as you test initial ideas, before any code work begins.
• They encourage creativityFrom both the product teams participating in their design, but also from the users. They require the user to employ their imagination, and give them the opportunity express their thoughts and ideas on what improvements can be made. Because they look unfinished, they naturally invite constructive criticism and feedback.
• They help minimize your chances of failurePaper prototypes and user-centered design go hand in hand. Introducing real people into your design as early as possible can help verify whether you are on the right track, and generate feedback that may give you a good idea of whether your idea is likely to succeed or not.

‍

Disadvantages 😬

‍

• They’re not as polished as interactive prototypesIf executed poorly, paper prototypes can appear unprofessional and haphazard. They lack the richness of an interactive experience, and if our users are not well informed when coming in for a testing session, they may be surprised to be testing digital experiences on pieces of paper.
• The interaction is limitedDigital experiences can contain animations and interactions that can’t be replicated on paper. It can be difficult for a user to fully understand an interface when these elements are absent, and of course, the closer the interaction mimics the final product, the more reliable our findings will be.
• They require facilitationWith an interactive prototype you can assign your user tasks to complete and observe how they interact with the interface. Paper prototypes, however, require continuous guidance from a moderator in communicating next steps and ensuring participants understand the task at hand.
• Their results have to be interpreted carefullyPaper prototypes can’t emulate the final experience entirely. It is important to interpret their findings while keeping their limitations in mind. Although they can help minimize your chances of failure, they can’t guarantee that your final product will be a success. There are factors that determine success that cannot be captured on a piece of paper, and positive feedback at the prototyping stage does not necessarily equate to a well-received product further down the track.

‍

Improving the interface of card sorting, one prototype at a time 💡

‍

We recently embarked on a research project looking at the user interface of our card-sorting tool, OptimalSort. Our research has two main objectives — first of all to benchmark the current experience on laptops and tablets and identify ways in which we can improve the current interface. The second objective is to look at how we can improve the experience of card sorting on a mobile phone.

‍

Rather than replicating the desktop experience on a smaller screen, we want to create an intuitive experience for mobiles, ensuring we maintain the quality of data collected across devices.Our current mobile experience is a scaled down version of the desktop and still has room for improvement, but despite that, 9 per cent of our users utilize the app. We decided to start from the ground up and test an entirely new design using paper prototypes. In the spirit of testing early and often, we decided to jump right into testing sessions with real users. In our first testing sprint, we asked participants to take part in two tasks. The first was to perform an open or closed card sort on a laptop or tablet. The second task involved using paper prototypes to see how people would respond to the same experience on a mobile phone.

‍

‍

Context is everything 🎯

‍

What did we find? In the context of our research project, paper prototypes worked remarkably well. We were somewhat apprehensive at first, trying to figure out the exact flow of the experience and whether the people coming into our office would get it. As it turns out, people are clever, and even those with limited experience using a smartphone were able to navigate and identify areas for improvement just as easily as anyone else. Some participants even said they prefered the experience of testing paper prototypes over a laptop. In an effort to make our prototype-based tasks easy to understand and easy to explain to our participants, we reduced the full card sort to a few key interactions, minimizing the number of branches in the UI flow.

‍

This could explain a preference for the mobile task, where we only asked participants to sort through a handful of cards, as opposed to a whole set.The main thing we found was that no matter how well you plan your test, paper prototypes require you to be flexible in adapting the flow of your session to however your user responds. We accepted that deviating from our original plan was something we had to embrace, and in the end these additional conversations with our participants helped us generate insights above and beyond the basics we aimed to address. We now have a whole range of feedback that we can utilize in making more sophisticated, interactive prototypes.

‍

Whether our success with using paper prototypes was determined by the specific setup of our testing sessions, or simply by their pure usefulness as a research technique is hard to tell. By first performing a card sorting task on a laptop or tablet, our participants approached the paper prototype with an understanding of what exactly a card sort required. Therefore there is no guarantee that we would have achieved the same level of success in testing paper prototypes on their own. What this does demonstrate, however, is that paper prototyping is heavily dependent on the context of your assessment.

‍

Final thoughts 💬

‍

Paper prototypes are not guaranteed to work for everybody. If you’re designing an entirely new experience and trying to describe something complex in an abstracted form on paper, people may struggle to comprehend your idea. Even a careful explanation doesn’t guarantee that it will be fully understood by the user. Should this stop you from testing out the usefulness of paper prototypes in the context of your project? Absolutely not.

‍

In a perfect world we’d test high fidelity interactive prototypes that resemble the real deal as closely as possible, every step of the way. However, if we look at testing from a practical perspective, before we can fully test sophisticated designs, paper prototypes provide a great solution for generating initial feedback.In his article criticizing the use of paper prototypes, Jake Knapp makes the point that when we show customers a paper prototype we’re inviting feedback, not reactions. What we found in our research however, was quite the opposite.

‍

In our sessions, participants voiced their expectations and understanding of what actions were possible at each stage, without us having to probe specifically for feedback. Sure we also received general comments on icon or colour preferences, but for the most part our users gave us insights into what they felt throughout the experience, in addition to what they thought.

‍

Further reading 🧠

‍

• Why You Only Need To Test With 5 Users - Nielsen Norman Group’s Jakob Nielsen explains reveals his thoughts on only using five users when conducting usability testing.
• Sketching for better mobile experiences - Lennart Hennigs explains how to sketch and why you should do it in an article for Smashing Magazine.
• Paper prototypes work as well as software prototypes -  Bob Bailey explains why he thinks paper prototypes are just as good as software prototypes for usability testing.

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.