Top Tasks in UX: How to Identify What Really Matters to Your Users

In the field of user research, every method is either qualitative, quantitative – or both. Understandably, there’s some confusion around these 2 approaches and where the different methods are applicable. This article provides a handy breakdown of the different terms and where and why you’d want to use qualitative or quantitative research methods.

‍

‍

Qualitative research

‍

Let’s start with qualitative research, an approach that’s all about the ‘why’. It’s exploratory and not about numbers, instead focusing on reasons, motivations, behaviors and opinions – it’s best at helping you gain insight and delve deep into a particular problem. This type of data typically comes from conversations, interviews and responses to open questions. The real value of qualitative research is in its ability to give you a human perspective on a research question. Unlike quantitative research, this approach will help you understand some of the more intangible factors – things like behaviors, habits and past experiences – whose effects may not always be readily apparent when you’re conducting quantitative research. A qualitative research question could be investigating why people switch between different banks, for example.

‍

‍

When to use qualitative research

‍

Qualitative research is best suited to identifying how people think about problems, how they interact with products and services, and what encourages them to behave a certain way. For example, you could run a study to better understand how people feel about a product they use, or why people have trouble filling out your sign up form. Qualitative research can be very exploratory (e.g., user interviews) as well as more closely tied to evaluating designs (e.g., usability testing). Good qualitative research questions to ask include:

‍

• Why do customers never add items to their wishlist on our website?
• How do new customers find out about our services?
• What are the main reasons people don’t sign up for our newsletter?

‍

‍

How to gather qualitative data

‍

There’s no shortage of methods to gather qualitative data, which commonly takes the form of interview transcripts, notes and audio and video recordings. Here are some of the most widely-used qualitative research methods:

‍

• Usability test – Test a product with people by observing them as they attempt to complete various tasks.
• User interview – Sit down with a user to learn more about their background, motivations and pain points.
• Contextual inquiry – Learn more about your users in their own environment by asking them questions before moving onto an observation activity.
• Focus group – Gather 6 to 10 people for a forum-like session to get feedback on a product.

‍

‍

How many participants will you need?

‍

You don’t often need large numbers of participants for qualitative research, with the average range usually somewhere between 5 to 10 people. You’ll likely require more if you're focusing your work on specific personas, for example, in which case you may need to study 5-10 people for each persona. While this may seem quite low, consider the research methods you’ll be using. Carrying out large numbers of in-person research sessions requires a significant time investment in terms of planning, actually hosting the sessions and analyzing your findings.

‍

‍

Quantitative research

‍

On the other side of the coin you’ve got quantitative research. This type of research is focused on numbers and measurement, gathering data and being able to transform this information into statistics. Given that quantitative research is all about generating data that can be expressed in numbers, there multiple ways you make use of it. Statistical analysis means you can pull useful facts from your quantitative data, for example trends, demographic information and differences between groups. It’s an excellent way to understand a snapshot of your users. A quantitative research question could involve investigating the number of people that upgrade from a free plan to a paid plan.

‍

‍

When to use quantitative research

‍

Quantitative research is ideal for understanding behaviors and usage. In many cases it's a lot less resource-heavy than qualitative research because you don't need to pay incentives or spend time scheduling sessions etc). With that in mind, you might do some quantitative research early on to better understand the problem space, for example by running a survey on your users. Here are some examples of good quantitative research questions to ask:

‍

• How many customers view our pricing page before making a purchase decision?
• How many customers search versus navigate to find products on our website?
• How often do visitors on our website change their password?

‍

‍

How to gather quantitative data

‍

Commonly, quantitative data takes the form of numbers and statistics.

‍

Here are some of the most popular quantitative research methods:

‍

• Card sorts – Find out how people categorize and sort information on your website.
• First-click tests – See where people click first when tasked with completing an action.
• A/B tests – Compare 2 versions of a design in order to work out which is more effective.
• Clickstream analysis – Analyze aggregate data about website visits.

‍

‍

How many participants will you need?

‍

While you only need a small number of participants for qualitative research, you need significantly more for quantitative research. Quantitative research is all about quantity. With more participants, you can generate more useful and reliable data you can analyze. In turn, you’ll have a clearer understanding of your research problem. This means that quantitative research can often involve gathering data from thousands of participants through an A/B test, or with 30 through a card sort. Read more about the right number of participants to gather for your research.

‍

‍

Mixed methods research

‍

While there are certainly times when you’d only want to focus on qualitative or quantitative data to get answers, there’s significant value in utilizing both methods on the same research projects.Interestingly, there are a number of research methods that will generate both quantitative and qualitative data. Take surveys as an example. A survey could include questions that require written answers from participants as well as questions that require participants to select from multiple choices.

‍

Looking back at the earlier example of how people move from a free plan to a paid plan, applying both research approaches to the question will yield a more robust or holistic answer. You’ll know why people upgrade to the paid plan in addition to how many. You can read more about mixed methods research in this article:

‍

• What is mixed methods research?

‍

‍

Where to from here?

‍

Now that you know the difference between qualitative and quantitative research, the best way to build confidence is to start testing. Hands-on experience is the fastest path to deeper insight. At Optimal, we make it easy to run your first study, no matter your role or research experience.

‍

• Explore our 101 guides to user research
• Start a free trial and discover insights that drive real business impact
• How to encourage people to participate in your study – Seemingly one of the hardest parts of conducting research is finding willing participants. It’s actually not that difficult.

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 night, Optimal brought together an incredible community of product leaders and innovators for "The Automation Breakthrough: Workflows for the AI Era" at Q-Branch in Austin, Texas. This two-hour in-person event featured expert perspectives on how AI and automation are transforming the way we work, create, and lead.

‍

The event featured a lightning Talk on "Designing for Interfaces" featured Cindy Brummer, Founder of Standard Beagle Studio, followed by a dynamic panel discussion titled "The Automation Breakthrough" with industry leaders including Joe Meersman (Managing Partner, Gyroscope AI), Carmen Broomes (Head of UX, Handshake), Kasey Randall (Product Design Lead, Posh AI), and Prateek Khare (Head of Product, Amazon). We also had a fireside chat with our CEO, Alex Burke and Stu Smith, Head of Design at Atlassian. 

‍

Here are the key themes and insights that emerged from these conversations:

‍

Trust & Transparency: The Foundation of AI Adoption

‍

Cindy emphasized that trust and transparency aren't just nice-to-haves in the AI era, they're essential. As AI tools become more integrated into our workflows, building systems that users can understand and rely on becomes paramount. This theme set the tone for the entire event, reminding us that technological advancement must go hand-in-hand with ethical considerations.

‍

Automation Liberates Us from Grunt Work

‍

One of the most resonant themes was how AI fundamentally changes what we spend our time on. As Carmen noted, AI reduces the grunt work and tasks we don't want to do, freeing us to focus on what matters most. This isn't about replacing human workers, it's about eliminating the tedious, repetitive tasks that drain our energy and creativity.

‍

Enabling Creativity and Higher-Quality Decision-Making

‍

When automation handles the mundane, something remarkable happens: we gain space for deeper thinking and creativity. The panelists shared powerful examples of this transformation:

‍

Carmen described how AI and workflows help teams get to insights and execution on a much faster scale, rather than drowning in comments and documentation. Prateek encouraged the audience to use automation to get creative about their work, while Kasey shared how AI and automation have helped him develop different approaches to coaching, mentorship, and problem-solving, ultimately helping him grow as a leader.

‍

The decision-making benefits were particularly striking. Prateek explained how AI and automation have helped him be more thoughtful about decisions and make higher-quality choices, while Kasey echoed that these tools have helped him be more creative and deliberate in his approach.

‍

Democratizing Product Development

‍

Perhaps the most exciting shift discussed was how AI is leveling the playing field across organizations. Carmen emphasized the importance of anyone, regardless of their role, being able to get close to their customers. This democratization means that everyone can get involved in UX, think through user needs, and consider the best experience.

‍

The panel explored how roles are blurring in productive ways. Kasey noted that "we're all becoming product builders" and that product managers are becoming more central to conversations. Prateek predicted that teams are going to get smaller and achieve more with less as these tools become more accessible.

‍

Automation also plays a crucial role in iteration, helping teams incorporate customer feedback more effectively, according to Prateek.

‍

Practical Advice for Navigating the AI Era

‍

The panelists didn't just share lofty visions, they offered concrete guidance for professionals navigating this transformation:

‍

Stay perpetually curious. Prateek warned that no acquired knowledge will stay with you for long, so you need to be ready to learn anything at any time.

‍

Embrace experimentation. "Allow your process to misbehave," Prateek advised, encouraging attendees to break from rigid workflows and explore new approaches.

‍

Overcome fear. Carmen urged the audience not to be afraid of bringing in new tools or worrying that AI will take their jobs. The technology is here to augment, not replace.

‍

Just start. Kasey's advice was refreshingly simple: "Just start and do it again." Whether you're experimenting with AI tools or trying "vibe coding," the key is to begin and iterate.

‍

The energy in the room at Q-Branch reflected a community that's not just adapting to change but actively shaping it. The automation breakthrough isn't just about new tools, it's about reimagining how we work, who gets to participate in product development, and what becomes possible when we free ourselves from repetitive tasks.

‍

As we continue to navigate the AI era, events like this remind us that the most valuable insights come from bringing diverse perspectives together. The conversation doesn't end here, it's just beginning.

‍

Interested in joining future Optimal community events? Stay tuned for upcoming gatherings where we'll continue exploring the intersection of design, product, and emerging technologies.

‍