UX Researcher & Designer
Overview
Apply systematic UX research and design methods to understand users, validate assumptions, and create evidence-based designs. This skill covers the full research-to-design pipeline: discovery research, persona creation, journey mapping, information architecture, usability testing, and heuristic evaluation.
Phase 1: Discovery Research
- Define research objectives and questions
- Select appropriate research methods
- Recruit participants (5-8 per segment for qualitative)
- Conduct research sessions
- Synthesize findings using affinity mapping
STOP — Present research plan with objectives and methods for user approval.
Research Method Selection Decision Table
Generative (Discovery) Methods
| Method | When to Use | Participants | Duration | Cost |
|---|
| User Interviews | Understanding motivations, behaviors, pain points | 5-8 per segment | 45-60 min each | Medium |
| Contextual Inquiry | Observing users in their natural environment | 4-6 | 1-2 hours each | High |
| Diary Studies | Longitudinal behavior patterns | 10-15 | 1-4 weeks | Medium |
| Surveys | Quantitative validation of qualitative findings | 100+ | 5-10 min | Low |
| Focus Groups | Exploring attitudes and preferences | 6-10 per group | 60-90 min | Medium |
Evaluative Methods
| Method | When to Use | Participants | Duration | Cost |
|---|
| Usability Testing | Validating designs against tasks | 5-8 | 30-60 min each | Medium |
| A/B Testing | Comparing two design variants | 1000+ per variant | 1-4 weeks | Low |
| Card Sorting | Organizing information architecture | 15-30 | 20-30 min | Low |
| Tree Testing | Validating navigation structure | 50+ | 10-15 min | Low |
| First Click Testing | Evaluating initial user instincts | 30+ | 5-10 min | Low |
| Heuristic Evaluation | Expert review without users | 3-5 evaluators | 1-2 hours | Low |
Method Selection Decision Table
| Situation | Recommended Method | Why |
|---|
| No idea who users are | Interviews + contextual inquiry | Deep understanding needed |
| Have assumptions to validate | Surveys + usability testing | Quantitative confirmation |
| Redesigning navigation | Card sorting + tree testing | Structure-focused |
| Evaluating existing product | Heuristic evaluation + usability test | Find problems fast |
| Comparing two designs | A/B testing | Statistical comparison |
| Limited budget/time | Heuristic evaluation | No participants needed |
| Long-term behavior understanding | Diary study | Captures patterns over time |
Interview Guide Template
1. Introduction (5 min)
- Thank participant, explain purpose
- Get consent for recording
- "There are no wrong answers"
2. Warm-up (5 min)
- Background questions about role/context
- Current tools and workflows
3. Core Questions (30 min)
- Open-ended questions about behaviors
- Follow-up probes: "Tell me more about..."
- Critical incident: "Describe a time when..."
- Avoid leading questions
4. Wrap-up (5 min)
- "Is there anything I didn't ask that you think is important?"
- Thank and explain next steps
Phase 2: Analysis and Modeling
- Create user personas from research data
- Map user journey for key scenarios
- Define information architecture
- Identify pain points and opportunities
- Prioritize using impact/effort matrix
STOP — Present personas and journey map for review before design validation.
Persona Template
# [Persona Name]
## Demographics
- Age: [range]
- Occupation: [role]
- Technical proficiency: [low/medium/high]
- Usage frequency: [daily/weekly/monthly]
## Goals
1. Primary goal: [what they are trying to achieve]
2. Secondary goal: [supporting objective]
3. Tertiary goal: [nice-to-have]
## Pain Points
1. [Frustration with current process]
2. [Unmet need]
3. [Workaround they have created]
## Behaviors
- [How they currently solve the problem]
- [Tools and methods they use]
- [Decision-making patterns]
## Quotes (from research)
- "[Verbatim quote that captures their perspective]"
- "[Another representative quote]"
## Scenario
[A paragraph describing a typical day/task where they would use the product]
Persona Quality Decision Table
| Check | Pass | Fail |
|---|
| Based on real research data | Quotes and behaviors from interviews | Invented or assumed behaviors |
| Actionable for design | Specific goals and pain points | Vague "wants to be productive" |
| Distinct from other personas | Different goals, behaviors, constraints | Overlapping with another persona |
| Number of personas | 2-4 primary | More than 5 (too many to design for) |
Journey Map Structure
Stages: Awareness -> Consideration -> Onboarding -> Usage -> Advocacy
| | | | |
Actions: [What they do at each stage]
| | | | |
Thoughts: [What they are thinking]
| | | | |
Emotions: [Frustration/neutral/delight mapped to each stage]
| | | | |
Pain Points: [Friction and frustration points]
| | | | |
Opportunities: [Design opportunities to improve]
| | | | |
Touchpoints: [Channels and interfaces involved]
Journey Map Elements
- Moments of Truth: Critical points where users form lasting impressions
- Service Blueprints: Front-stage actions mapped to back-stage processes
- Emotion Curve: Visual line showing emotional highs and lows
- Gap Analysis: Difference between current and desired experience
Heuristic Evaluation (Nielsen's 10)
| # | Heuristic | What to Look For |
|---|
| 1 | Visibility of system status | Loading indicators, progress bars, save confirmations |
| 2 | Match with real world | Natural language, familiar metaphors, logical order |
| 3 | User control and freedom | Undo, cancel, back, escape hatches |
| 4 | Consistency and standards | Same action = same result, platform conventions |
| 5 | Error prevention | Confirmation dialogs, constraints, smart defaults |
| 6 | Recognition over recall | Visible options, contextual help, recent history |
| 7 | Flexibility and efficiency | Shortcuts, customization, bulk actions |
| 8 | Aesthetic and minimalist design | No unnecessary information, clear hierarchy |
| 9 | Help users with errors | Plain language errors, specific cause, suggest fix |
| 10 | Help and documentation | Searchable, task-oriented, concise |
Severity Rating Scale
| Rating | Description | Action |
|---|
| 0 | Not a usability problem | No action |
| 1 | Cosmetic only | Fix if time allows |
| 2 | Minor problem | Low priority fix |
| 3 | Major problem | High priority, fix before launch |
| 4 | Usability catastrophe | Must fix immediately |
Phase 3: Design Validation
- Create testable prototypes (low or high fidelity)
- Plan usability testing sessions
- Conduct tests with 5+ participants
- Analyze results and iterate
- Document findings and recommendations
STOP — Present usability test results and recommendations for review.
Prototype Fidelity Decision Table
| Situation | Fidelity | Tool | Why |
|---|
| Early concept validation | Low (paper/wireframe) | Balsamiq, paper | Fast iteration, low commitment |
| Navigation testing | Medium (clickable) | Figma prototype | Test flow without visual polish |
| Visual design validation | High (pixel-perfect) | Figma, coded prototype | Test actual look and feel |
| Interaction validation | High (coded) | HTML/CSS/JS prototype | Test real interactions |
A/B Testing Methodology
| Step | Details |
|---|
| Hypothesis | "Changing [X] will [improve/decrease] [metric] because [reason]" |
| Sample size | Power analysis (95% confidence, 80% power) |
| Duration | Minimum 2 full business cycles (2+ weeks) |
| Variable control | Test one change at a time |
| Analysis | Statistical significance (p < 0.05) |
Common UX Metrics
| Metric | What It Measures | Benchmark |
|---|
| Task success rate | % completing target task | > 78% (acceptable) |
| Time on task | Duration to complete action | Varies by task |
| Error rate | Mistakes per task | < 10% |
| System Usability Scale (SUS) | Overall usability score | 68 = average |
| Net Promoter Score (NPS) | Likelihood to recommend | > 0 = good, > 50 = excellent |
| Customer Effort Score (CES) | Ease of experience | > 5/7 |
Information Architecture
Card Sort Analysis Decision Table
| Sort Type | When to Use | Analysis Method |
|---|
| Open sort | Discovery — users create categories | Similarity matrix, dendrogram |
| Closed sort | Validation — sort into predefined categories | Category agreement percentage |
| Hybrid sort | Both — predefined with ability to add new | Combined analysis |
Navigation Patterns
| Pattern | Use Case |
|---|
| Global navigation | Persistent across all pages |
| Local navigation | Within a section |
| Contextual navigation | Related content links |
| Utility navigation | Settings, account, help |
| Breadcrumbs | Location within hierarchy |
Deliverables Checklist
- Research plan with objectives and methods
- Participant recruitment screener
- Interview/test script
- Affinity map of findings
- Personas (2-4 primary)
- Journey map for key scenario
- Information architecture diagram
- Usability test report with severity ratings
- Prioritized recommendations with evidence
Anti-Patterns / Common Mistakes
| Anti-Pattern | Why It Is Wrong | What to Do Instead |
|---|
| Designing without research | Assumptions lead to wrong designs | Start with discovery research |
| Testing with colleagues | Biased, know too much about product | Recruit external participants |
| Asking users what they want | Users cannot predict behavior | Observe what they do instead |
| Confirmation bias | Only seeing what supports beliefs | Use structured analysis, multiple evaluators |
| Too many personas (5+) | Cannot design for everyone | Keep to 2-4 primary personas |
| Skipping synthesis | Raw data is not insights | Always do affinity mapping |
| Underpowered A/B tests | Results are meaningless noise | Calculate sample size before starting |
| Presenting findings without recommendations | Research without action is wasted | Always include prioritized next steps |
Integration Points
| Skill | Integration |
|---|
ui-ux-pro-max | UX guidelines and design patterns |
mobile-design | Mobile usability testing patterns |
planning | Research plan is part of the implementation plan |
spec-writing | User research informs JTBD specifications |
prd-generation | Personas and journey maps feed into PRDs |
llm-as-judge | Evaluate design quality with rubrics |
Skill Type
FLEXIBLE — Select and combine research methods based on project constraints (budget, timeline, access to users). Lightweight methods (heuristic evaluation, guerrilla testing) are acceptable when full research is impractical.
