Learn hub

We recently hosted a live webinar introducing Optimal's new Usability Testing tool which combines multiple research methods into one study so you can get better insights, faster. 

‍

‍

‍

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.

‍

These are some of the top questions we heard at our recent live training as a recap in case you missed it!

‍

‍

‍

FAQs from the Webinar

‍

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.

‍

Coordinating user interviews shouldn’t feel like a full-time job. Between juggling calendars, chasing confirmations, and sending reminders, scheduling can be the hidden bottleneck in research velocity and quietly consume the time you actually want to spend talking to customers. 
‍

If you want to run more interviews and generate insights more consistently, simplifying your scheduling process is one of best ways to remove friction and streamline your workflow.
‍

‍

‍

Save time and streamline your workflow

‍

What does a simpler workflow look like? 

With a tool like Optimal’s Interviews Scheduler, you can:
‍

• Invite participants via a booking link or email
• View upcoming and completed sessions in one place
• Connect with tools you already use like Google Calendar, Microsoft Outlook, Google Meet, Zoom, and Microsoft Teams.
• Let participants reschedule themselves. No back-and-forth emails.
• Add collaborators and automatically notify everyone of changes.
• Set session limits and calendar buffers.
• Automate email invites, reminders, confirmations, and thank-you messages.
  ‍

It’s everything you need to manage interviews without the chaos.
‍
‍

‍

Calendar integrations: Avoid conflicts and save time

With the Interviews Scheduler, you can sync your availability with Google Calendar and Microsoft Outlook in real time. Connect your own calendar or your team’s to ensure every busy slot is accounted for. Avoid double bookings, block out busy times, and keep everything in one place. 

Once set up, your availability automatically updates, and participants can book directly into open slots, eliminating the back-and-forth. Plus, depending on your preferences, your sessions will either sync directly to your calendar or come through as an .ics file in the confirmation email, saving you one more step.
‍

‍
‍

Seamless video conferencing integrations

The Interviews Scheduler integrates directly with Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet.

When someone books a session:

• A video link is automatically generated
• It’s added to the calendar invite
• Everyone receives confirmation details
• Sessions can be automatically recorded

No copying links. No switching between tools.
‍

‍
‍

Built for research teams

‍

The Interviews Scheduler isn’t just about booking time slots. It’s about removing friction from your research workflow.

‍

With integrations at its core, you can:

• Keep your calendar, video tools, and participants in sync
• Reduce manual coordination
• Eliminate scheduling errors
• Focus on insights instead of admin

‍

Whether you’re running one-off interviews or managing weekly research sprints, the Interviews Scheduler helps you move faster and stay organised.

‍

Ready to give it a try? Log in to your Optimal account and get started or book a demo to learn more.

‍

So, you’re ready to run a study. It’s designed, you’ve planned your questions, your methodology is sound. Your discussion guide is carefully crafted to avoid leading questions and dig into real user motivations…then you start recruiting participants.

‍

Suddenly, you’ve hit a massive bottleneck. Your perfect study depends entirely on finding the right people, getting them to show up, and hoping they provide thoughtful responses rather than one-word answers and distracted multitasking. You’ve now hit the crunch point that every researcher faces: your insights are only as good as your participants. What happens when participant quality isn’t great? 

‍

‍

‍

The hidden cost of "good enough"

‍

‍

Let's be honest about what typically happens with recruitment. You need a minimum number of participants to get statistically significant results (depending on study type). You’ve got a time limit in which you need to get results so they’re still relevant to your product development lifecycle. You start reaching out through your usual channels: customer lists, screening surveys, panel providers, social media posts, begging colleagues to connect you with people who fit your criteria. 

‍

After a week of this, you've got a few confirmed participants, but not enough. Some people have expressed interest but haven't confirmed times and it’s teeming more and more like your study is going to launch late, and you’re going to miss product deadlines. 

‍

So you make compromises.

‍

You accept the participant who sort of fits your criteria but isn't quite in the target demographic. You take the person who can only do a 30-minute session instead of the planned 60 minutes. You keep the flaky participant who's rescheduled twice because you need the numbers. 

‍

Then the sessions happen.

‍

One person no-shows. Another is clearly distracted, giving minimal responses while probably checking email. A third seems to have misunderstood the screening criteria entirely and doesn't actually use the type of product you're researching. The two good participants provide valuable insights, but now you're making conclusions based on a sample size of two.

‍

This isn't research. This is educated guessing with extra steps.

‍

‍

‍

What bad participants cost you

‍

‍

1. Quality  In, Quality Out. Poor participant quality isn't just annoying. It has real consequences that ripple through everything that comes after. The worst outcome isn't getting no data. It's getting bad data that you treat as good data. A participant who doesn't match your target users provides feedback, but that feedback doesn't represent your actual users. If you act on it, you're optimizing for the wrong people. Bad data doesn't just waste research time. It sends product decisions in the wrong direction. 
2. Wasted team time. You spend hours recruiting, scheduling, conducting sessions, and analyzing results. When the research is based on poor-quality participants, all of that time is wasted. Or worse, it's spent acting on misleading information. One bad research study doesn't just cost the time invested in that study. It costs the time spent implementing the wrong solutions based on faulty insights.
3. Damaged credibility. Research teams build credibility over time by providing insights that prove valuable. Stakeholders learn to trust research because it leads to better decisions. But credibility is fragile. When research based on poor participants leads to recommendations that don't pan out, stakeholders start questioning whether research is worth the investment. 
4. Slower velocity. Settling for mediocre participants to move faster actually slows you down. You run your study quickly with whoever you can find. The insights are muddy. You're not quite sure what to conclude. So you run a follow-up study to clarify. Or you make a decision with low confidence and have to course-correct later when it doesn't work. Meanwhile, teams that spend time getting quality participants upfront get clear insights the first time. They make decisions confidently and move forward quickly because they trust what they learned. The bottleneck isn't the time spent recruiting quality participants. It's the back-and-forth that comes from unclear results based on poor participants.

‍

‍

‍

What do we really mean by quality participants? 

‍

‍

When you're under pressure to deliver research quickly, it's tempting to view participants as interchangeable. You need 8 people. Any 8 people who vaguely fit the criteria will do. But that’s not actually the case at all. The whole point of user research is to understand your specific users. Their context, their mental models, their workflows, their pain points. Generic "users" don't exist. There are only specific people with specific needs trying to accomplish specific things. If the participants in your study don't actually represent your target users, you're not doing research. You're doing work that looks like research but doesn't provide real insights. When we say quality participants we mean: 

‍

1. They match your target criteria.  This seems obvious, but it's where most compromises happen. Every compromise in targeting dilutes the relevance of your insights. Quality participants don't just technically qualify. They deeply represent the actual people you're designing for.
2. They're engaged and thoughtful. A quality participant shows up prepared, gives full attention during the session, thinks carefully about questions, and provides detailed responses based on real experience. Engagement matters as much as targeting. A perfectly targeted participant who phones it in provides almost no value.
3. They show up. Seems basic, but no-shows are a massive problem. Quality participants honor their commitments. Consistent show rates mean you can actually plan research without padding your schedule with backup participants and hoped-for reschedules.
4. They're honest. Participants who tell you what they think you want to hear are worse than useless. You need people who'll be direct about confusion, frustration, and problems. Quality participants don't try to be nice or avoid hurting feelings. They give genuine feedback even when it's critical.

‍

‍

‍

The panel problem

‍

‍

Many teams rely on user research panels, databases of people willing to participate in studies for compensation,  which are often limited by the platform that they’ve purchased to one, proprietary panel for their research. Panels solve the recruitment problem by providing quick access to participants. But panels come with significant limitations.

‍

1. You're limited to who's in the panel. Need product managers at Series B startups in fintech? Need parents of children with specific developmental needs? If they're not in the panel, you can't reach them. You end up compromising your targeting to fit who's available rather than finding who you actually need.
2. Professional participants. Some people do user research studies regularly, almost as a side job. They're good at interviews. They know what researchers want to hear. They've done enough studies to unconsciously game the process. These "professional participants" might give you data, but they don't represent typical users. Their feedback is shaped by their experience participating in dozens of studies.
3. Quality inconsistency.  Panel quality varies dramatically. Some panels carefully vet participants and maintain high standards. Others will provide anyone who roughly matches your screener to hit the numbers you've requested. 

‍

When you're locked into a single panel provider, you're stuck with whatever quality standards they maintain.

‍

‍

‍

The panel ecosystem approach

‍

‍

The alternative to depending on a single panel is having access to multiple sources for participants. This means you're not limited by one panel's database. When you need specific, hard-to-reach audiences, you can access specialized panels that focus on those groups. When you need B2B professionals, you use networks that focus on business users. When you need consumers with specific characteristics, you access consumer panels with better targeting. The ecosystem model provides flexibility, better matching, and higher quality because you're not forcing every recruitment need through the same funnel. By the way, this is the way Optimal has intentionally chosen to offer participant recruitment via our platform for our customers (a panel ecosystem approach). 

‍

‍

‍

What changes when recruitment isn't the constraint

‍

‍

Imagine recruitment takes two days instead of two weeks. Imagine you can specify exactly the targeting you need and trust you'll get quality participants who match. How does your research change?

‍

1. You run more studies. When recruitment isn't a weeks-long process, research becomes more viable for smaller questions. More research means more informed decisions across the board.
2. You're more rigorous about targeting. When getting participants is easy, you don't have to compromise on criteria. You can be specific about exactly who you need and actually get them. Your insights become more reliable because they're based on truly representative participants.
3. You test more variations. Instead of showing 5 participants one design and hoping it works, you can test multiple variations with appropriate sample sizes for each. You can run A/B comparisons. You can validate results across different user segments. Better participant access enables more sophisticated research.
4. You move faster. Your timeline shrinks dramatically when recruitment isn't the bottleneck. Research becomes a viable input for time-sensitive decisions, not just long-term strategic work.

‍

Poor participant quality isn't a minor annoyance. It's the difference between research that drives confident decisions and research that creates false confidence in bad decisions. Quality in, quality out isn't just a principle. It's the foundation that determines whether your research is worth doing at all. 

‍

The recruitment bottleneck is real. But it's solvable. Teams that solve it don't just do more research. They do research that's actually worth acting on.

‍