Usability Testing
Scope
Covers
- Designing task-based usability studies tied to a specific product decision
- Testing live flows, prototypes, and “faked” implementations (fake door, Wizard of Oz)
- Running moderated sessions (remote or in-person) and capturing high-quality evidence
- Turning findings into a prioritized fix list (including high-ROI microcopy/CTA improvements)
When to use
- “Create a usability test plan and script for.”
- “We need to test a prototype with 5–8 users next week.”
- “Validate a value proposition before building (fake door / Wizard of Oz).”
- “Help me synthesize usability findings into a prioritized backlog.”
When NOT to use
- You need statistically reliable estimates or causal impact (use analytics/experimentation)
- You need open-ended discovery (“what problems do users have?”) → use
conducting-user-interviews - You’re working with high-risk populations or sensitive topics (medical, legal, minors) without appropriate approvals/training
- You don’t have a concrete scenario/flow to evaluate (clarify the decision first)
Inputs
Minimum required
- Product + target user segment (who, context of use)
- The decision this test should inform (what will change) + timeline
- What you’re testing (flow/feature) + prototype/build link (or “recommend stimulus”)
- Platform + environment (web/mobile/desktop; remote/in-person)
- Constraints: session type, number of participants, incentives, recording policy, privacy constraints
Missing-info strategy
- Ask up to 5 questions from references/INTAKE.md.
- If still unknown, proceed with explicit assumptions and list Open questions that would change the plan.
Outputs (deliverables)
Produce a Usability Test Pack in Markdown (in-chat; or as files if requested):
- Context snapshot (decision, users, what’s being tested, constraints)
- Test plan (method, prototype strategy, hypotheses/risks, success criteria)
- Participant plan (criteria, recruiting channels, schedule + backups)
- Moderator guide + task script (neutral tasks, probes, wrap-up)
- Note-taking template + issue log (severity/impact, evidence)
- Synthesis readout (findings, prioritized issues, recommendations, quick wins)
- Risks / Open questions / Next steps (always included)
Templates: references/TEMPLATES.md Expanded heuristics: references/WORKFLOW.md
Workflow (8 steps)
1) Frame the decision and the “why now”
- Inputs: User context; references/INTAKE.md.
- Actions: Define the decision, primary unknowns, and the minimum you need to learn to make the call.
- Outputs: Context snapshot + research questions/hypotheses.
- Checks: You can answer: “What will we do differently after this test?”
2) Choose the right stimulus (real vs prototype vs faked)
- Inputs: What’s being tested; constraints.
- Actions: Select the cheapest valid setup: live product, clickable prototype, fake door, Wizard of Oz, or concierge flow.
- Outputs: Prototype strategy + what will be real vs simulated.
- Checks: The setup tests the core value/behavior (not pixel perfection).
3) Define tasks and success criteria (keep it neutral)
- Inputs: User goals + scenarios.
- Actions: Write 5–8 realistic tasks (each with a starting state), success criteria, and key observables (hesitation, errors, workarounds).
- Outputs: Task list (draft) + observation plan.
- Checks: Tasks don’t reveal UI labels (“Click the X button”); they reflect real intent.
4) Pick participants + recruiting plan (include buffers)
- Inputs: Target segment, access to users.
- Actions: Set inclusion/exclusion criteria; choose channels; build a schedule with backups and slack for no-shows and busy participants.
- Outputs: Participant plan + recruiting copy/screener (as needed).
- Checks: Participants match the scenario (behavior/context), not just demographics.
5) Build the moderator guide + instrumentation
- Inputs: Task list + prototype.
- Actions: Create the script (intro/consent, warm-up, tasks, probes, wrap-up). Assign note-taker roles; decide what to record.
- Outputs: Moderator guide + notes template + issue log.
- Checks: The guide avoids leading questions and includes “what would you do next?” probes.
6) Run sessions and capture evidence (optional “reality checks”)
- Inputs: Guide, logistics, participants.
- Actions: Run sessions; capture verbatims, errors, rough time-on-task, and moments of confusion. Optionally observe comparable flows “in the wild.”
- Outputs: Completed notes per session + populated issue log.
- Checks: Every issue has at least one concrete example (quote/screenshot/time/step) attached.
7) Synthesize into prioritized fixes (micro wins count)
- Inputs: Notes + issue log.
- Actions: Cluster issues; label severity and frequency; connect to funnel/business impact; propose fixes (including microcopy/CTA tweaks).
- Outputs: Synthesis readout + prioritized recommendations/backlog.
- Checks: Each recommendation ties to evidence and an expected impact (directional).
8) Share, decide, and run the quality gate
- Inputs: Draft pack.
- Actions: Produce a shareable readout, propose next steps (design iteration, follow-up test, experiment). Run references/CHECKLISTS.md and score references/RUBRIC.md.
- Outputs: Final Usability Test Pack + Risks/Open questions/Next steps.
- Checks: A stakeholder can make a “ship / fix / retest” decision asynchronously.
Quality gate (required)
- Use references/CHECKLISTS.md and references/RUBRIC.md.
- Always include: Risks, Open questions, Next steps.
Examples
Example 1 (Prototype test): “Create a usability test plan + moderator guide to evaluate our new onboarding flow (web) with 6 first-time users next week.” Expected: full Usability Test Pack with neutral tasks, recruiting criteria, session logistics, and a synthesis structure.
Example 2 (Wizard of Oz): “We want to test an ‘AI auto-triage’ feature before building it. Design a Wizard of Oz usability test plan and script for 5 sessions.” Expected: stimulus plan defining what’s simulated, tasks focused on value, and an issue log + readout.
Boundary example: “Run a usability test to prove the redesign will increase retention by 10%.” Response: explain limits of small-n usability; recommend pairing with instrumentation/experimentation for causality and use usability to diagnose friction.