Software Ux Research

Software UX Research Skill — Quick Reference

Use this skill to identify problems/opportunities and de-risk decisions. Use software-ui-ux-design to implement UI patterns, component changes, and design system updates.

---

Mar 2026 Baselines (Core)

• Human-centred design: Iterative design + evaluation grounded in evidence (ISO 9241-210:2019) https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html
• Usability definition: Effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction in context (ISO 9241-11:2018) https://www.iso.org/standard/63500.html
• Accessibility baseline: WCAG 2.2 is a W3C Recommendation (12 Dec 2024) https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
• WCAG 3.0 preview: Working Draft published Sep 2025; introduces Bronze/Silver/Gold conformance tiers and enhanced cognitive accessibility; not expected before 2028-2030 https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/wcag3-intro/
• EU shipping note: European Accessibility Act applies to covered products/services after 28 Jun 2025 (Directive (EU) 2019/882) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0882

When to Use This Skill

• Discovery: user needs, JTBD, opportunity sizing, mental models.
• Validation: concepts, prototypes, onboarding/first-run success.
• Evaluative: usability tests, heuristic evaluation, cognitive walkthroughs.
• Quant/behavioral: funnels, cohorts, instrumentation gaps, guardrails.
• Research Ops: intake, prioritization, repository/taxonomy, consent/PII handling.
• Demographic research: Age-diverse, cultural, accessibility participant recruitment.
• A/B testing: Experiment design, sample size, analysis, pitfalls.
• Non-technical user research: Digital literacy assessment, simplified-flow validation, low-tech-confidence usability testing.

When NOT to Use This Skill

• UI implementation → Use software-ui-ux-design for components, patterns, code
• Analytics instrumentation → Use marketing-product-analytics for tracking plans and qa-observability for implementation patterns
• Accessibility compliance audit → Use accessibility-specific checklists (WCAG conformance)
• Marketing research → Use marketing-social-media or related marketing skills
• A/B test platform setup → Use experimentation platforms (Statsig, GrowthBook, LaunchDarkly)

---

Operating Mode (Core)

If inputs are missing, ask for:

• Decision to unblock (what will change based on this research).
• Target roles/segments and top tasks.
• Platforms and contexts (web/mobile/desktop; remote/on-site; assisted tech).
• Existing evidence (analytics, tickets, reviews, recordings, prior studies).
• Constraints (timeline, recruitment access, compliance, budget).

Default outputs (pick what the user asked for):

• Research plan + output contract (prefer ../software-clean-code-standard/assets/checklists/ux-research-plan-template.md; use assets/research-plan-template.md for skill-specific detail)
• Study protocol (tasks/script + success metrics + recruitment plan)
• Findings report (issues + severity + evidence + recommendations + confidence)
• Decision brief (options + tradeoffs + recommendation + measurement plan)

Required Output Sections

Every research output — plans, protocols, evaluations, reports — must include these sections. They represent the skill's core value beyond standard UX knowledge: governance, confidence calibration, and ethical research practice.

1. Method Justification: Name the chosen method AND explain why alternatives were rejected. Do not just describe the method; explain why it was selected over at least 2 alternatives given the specific context (stage, timeline, sample, question type).

2. Confidence & Triangulation Assessment: Tag every recommendation or finding with a confidence level:

3. Consent & Data Handling: Include a PII/consent section in every plan or protocol. Research that involves participants requires explicit attention to:

• Minimum PII collection
• Identity stored separately from study data
• Name/email redaction before broad sharing
• Recording access restricted to need-to-know
• Consent, purpose, retention, and opt-out documented

4. Decision Framework: For evaluations and analysis outputs, provide a structured decision table with options, confidence levels, timelines, and risks — not just a single recommendation.

5. Pre-Decision Checklist: For experiment evaluations (A/B tests, etc.), include a verification checklist of confounds and data quality checks to complete before any ship/kill decision.

---

Method Chooser (Core)

Decision Tree (Fast)

What do you need?
  ├─ WHY / needs / context → interviews, contextual inquiry, diary
  ├─ HOW / usability → moderated usability test, cognitive walkthrough, heuristic eval
  ├─ WHAT / scale → analytics/logs + targeted qual follow-ups
  └─ WHICH / causal → experiments (if feasible) or preference tests

When selecting a method, always justify the choice by explaining why 2+ alternatives were rejected given the user's specific context. This is a key differentiator — generic "we'll do interviews" without justification is insufficient.

---

Research by Product Stage

Stage Framework (What to Do When)

Discovery Outputs: Beyond Basic JTBD

Discovery research should produce more than job statements. Include:

• Forces of Progress diagram: Map the four forces acting on switching behavior — Push (current pain), Pull (new solution appeal), Anxiety (fear of change), Habit (inertia). These forces explain why users do or don't adopt, which directly informs positioning and onboarding.
• Pain Point Severity Matrix: Score each pain point by Frequency × Impact × Breadth to prioritize objectively. A pain that affects 3 roles weekly outranks one that affects 1 role monthly, even if the single-role pain feels more dramatic in interviews.

---

Research for Complex Systems (Workflows, Admin, Regulated)

Complexity Indicators

Evaluation Methods (Core)

• Contextual inquiry: observe real work and constraints.
• Task analysis: map goals → steps → failure points.
• Cognitive walkthrough: evaluate learnability and signifiers.
• Error-path testing: timeouts, offline, partial data, permission loss, retries.
• Multi-role walkthrough: simulate handoffs (creator → reviewer → admin).

Multi-Role Coverage Checklist

• [ ] Role-permission matrix documented.
• [ ] “No access” UX defined (request path, least-privilege defaults).
• [ ] Cross-role handoffs tested (notifications, state changes, audit history).
• [ ] Error recovery tested for each role (retry, undo, escalation).

---

Research Ops & Governance (Core)

Intake (Make Requests Comparable)

Minimum required fields:

• Decision to unblock and deadline.
• Research questions (primary + secondary).
• Target users/segments and recruitment constraints.
• Existing evidence and links.
• Deliverable format + audience.

Prioritization (Simple Scoring)

Use a lightweight score to avoid backlog paralysis:

• Decision impact
• Knowledge gap
• Timing urgency
• Feasibility (recruitment + time)

Repository & Taxonomy

• Store each study with: method, date, product area, roles, tasks, key findings, raw evidence links.
• Tag for reuse: problem type (navigation/forms/performance), component/pattern, funnel step.
• Prefer “atomic” findings (one insight per card) to enable recombination [Inference].

Consent, PII, and Access Control

Follow applicable privacy laws; GDPR is a primary reference for EU processing https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj

PII handling checklist:

• [ ] Collect minimum PII needed for scheduling and incentives.
• [ ] Store identity/contact separately from study data.
• [ ] Redact names/emails from transcripts before broad sharing.
• [ ] Restrict raw recordings to need-to-know access.
• [ ] Document consent, purpose, retention, and opt-out path.

Research Democratization (2026 Trend)

Research democratization is a recurring 2026 trend: non-researchers increasingly conduct research. Enable carefully with guardrails.

Guardrails for non-researchers:

• [ ] Pre-approved research templates only
• [ ] Central review of findings before action
• [ ] No direct participant recruitment without ops approval
• [ ] Mandatory bias awareness training
• [ ] Clear escalation path for unexpected findings

---

Researching Non-Technical User Segments (2026)

Quick checklist for research involving users with low digital literacy or low tech confidence. Full guidance in references/non-technical-user-research.md.

• [ ] Assess digital literacy tier (excluded → dependent → hesitant → capable → confident)
• [ ] Recruit via offline-first channels (community centers, libraries, phone outreach)
• [ ] Use plain-language screening questions (no jargon, no self-rating scales)
• [ ] Adapt methods: moderated-only testing, shorter sessions (30-40 min), read tasks aloud
• [ ] Measure: unassisted task completion (>=80%), time-to-first-value (<2 min), error recovery rate
• [ ] Frame findings as "inclusion improvements," not "dumbing down"
• [ ] Cross-reference with simplification audit template

---

Measurement & Decision Quality (Core)

Research ROI Quick Reference

Rules of thumb:

• 1 usability finding that prevents 40 hours of rework = $6,000 value
• 1 discovery insight that prevents 1 wasted sprint = $50,000-100,000 value
• Research that improves conversion 0.5% on 100k visitors × $50 LTV = $25,000/month

When NOT to Run A/B Tests

Common Confounds (Call Out Early)

Always check for these in experiment evaluations. List each relevant confound with its risk level and how to verify — do not just name them:

• Selection bias (only power users respond) — check segment composition.
• Survivorship bias (you miss churned users) — compare with cohort-level data.
• Novelty effect (short-term lift) — plot daily metrics to check for trend decay.
• Instrumentation changes mid-test (metrics drift) — confirm no concurrent deployments.
• Sample ratio mismatch (SRM) — run chi-square on assignment counts.
• Peeking / multiple looks — confirm test was not checked before pre-set end date.
• Feature interaction — check if other experiments ran concurrently on same surface.

---

Optional: AI/Automation Research Considerations

Use only when researching automation/AI-powered features. Skip for traditional software UX.

>

2026 benchmark: Trend reports consistently highlight AI-assisted analysis. Use AI for speed while keeping humans responsible for strategy and interpretation. Example reference: https://www.lyssna.com/blog/ux-research-trends/

Key Questions

Error Taxonomy (User-Visible)

Optional: AI-Assisted Research Ops (Guardrailed)

• Use automation for transcription/tagging only after PII redaction.
• Maintain an audit trail: every theme links back to raw quotes/clips.

Synthetic Users: When Appropriate (2026)

Trend reports frequently mention synthetic/AI participants. Use with clear boundaries. Example reference: https://www.lyssna.com/blog/ux-research-trends/

Critical rule: Synthetic outputs are hypotheses, not evidence. Always validate with real users before shipping.

---

Navigation

Resources

Core Research Methods:

• references/research-frameworks.md — JTBD, Kano, Double Diamond, Service Blueprint, opportunity mapping
• references/ux-audit-framework.md — Heuristic evaluation, cognitive walkthrough, severity rating
• references/usability-testing-guide.md — Task design, facilitation, analysis
• references/ux-metrics-framework.md — Task metrics, SUS/HEART, measurement guidance
• references/customer-journey-mapping.md — Journey mapping and service blueprints
• references/pain-point-extraction.md — Feedback-to-themes method
• references/review-mining-playbook.md — B2B/B2C review mining

Demographic & Quantitative Research:

• references/demographic-research-methods.md — Inclusive research for seniors, children, cultures, disabilities
• references/non-technical-user-research.md — Research methods for non-technical and low-digital-literacy users
• references/ab-testing-implementation.md — A/B testing deep-dive (sample size, analysis, pitfalls)

Competitive UX Analysis & Flow Patterns:

• references/competitive-ux-analysis.md — Step-by-step flow patterns from industry leaders (Wise, Revolut, Shopify, Notion, Linear, Stripe) + benchmarking methodology

Research Operations & Methods:

• references/research-repository-management.md — Repository architecture, taxonomy, atomic research, PII handling, adoption metrics
• references/survey-design-guide.md — Question types, bias prevention, sampling, sample size, distribution, platform comparison
• references/remote-research-patterns.md — Moderated remote, unmoderated testing, async methods, recruitment, tool comparison

Feedback Collection & Analysis:

• references/bigtech-feedback-patterns.md — How top companies collect and act on user feedback
• references/feedback-tools-guide.md — Feedback collection tool setup guides and selection matrix

Evaluative Iteration:

• references/evaluative-research-loop.md — Prototype-parity polishing loop (two-surface audit, drift classification, fast iteration)

Data & Sources:

• data/sources.json — Curated external references

---

Domain-Specific UX Benchmarking

IMPORTANT: When designing UX flows for a specific domain, you MUST use WebSearch to find and suggest best-practice patterns from industry leaders.

Trigger Conditions

• "We're designing [flow type] for [domain]"
• "What's the best UX for [feature] in [industry]?"
• "How do [Company A, Company B] handle [flow]?"
• "Benchmark our [feature] against competitors"
• Any UX design task with identifiable domain context

Domain → Leader Lookup Table

Required Searches

When user specifies a domain, execute:

1. Search: "[domain] UX best practices 2026" 2. Search: "[leader company] [flow type] UX" 3. Search: "[leader company] app review UX" site:mobbin.com OR site:pageflows.com 4. Search: "[domain] onboarding flow examples"

What to Report

After searching, provide:

• Pattern examples: Screenshots/flows from 2-3 industry leaders
• Key patterns identified: What they do well (with specifics)
• Applicable to your flow: How to adapt patterns
• Differentiation opportunity: Where you could improve on leaders

Example Output Format

DOMAIN: Fintech (Money Transfer)
BENCHMARKED: Wise, Revolut

WISE PATTERNS:
- Upfront fee transparency (shows exact fee before recipient input)
- Mid-transfer rate lock (shows countdown timer)
- Delivery time estimate per payment method
- Recipient validation (bank account check before send)

REVOLUT PATTERNS:
- Instant send to Revolut users (P2P first)
- Currency conversion preview with rate comparison
- Scheduled/recurring transfers prominent

APPLY TO YOUR FLOW:
1. Add fee transparency at step 1 (not step 3)
2. Show delivery estimate per payment rail
3. Consider rate lock feature for FX transfers

DIFFERENTIATION OPPORTUNITY:
- Neither shows historical rate chart—add "is now a good time?" context

---

Trend Awareness Protocol

IMPORTANT: When users ask recommendation questions about UX research, you MUST use WebSearch to check current trends before answering.

Tool/Trend Triggers

• "What's the best UX research tool for [use case]?"
• "What should I use for [usability testing/surveys/analytics]?"
• "What's the latest in UX research?"
• "Current best practices for [user interviews/A/B testing/accessibility]?"
• "Is [research method] still relevant in 2026?"
• "What research tools should I use?"
• "Best approach for [remote research/unmoderated testing]?"

Tool/Trend Searches

1. Search: "UX research trends 2026" 2. Search: "UX research tools best practices 2026" 3. Search: "[Maze/Hotjar/UserTesting] comparison 2026" 4. Search: "AI in UX research 2026"

Tool/Trend Report Format

After searching, provide:

• Current landscape: What research methods/tools are popular NOW
• Emerging trends: New techniques or tools gaining traction
• Deprecated/declining: Methods that are losing effectiveness
• Recommendation: Based on fresh data and current practices

Example Topics (verify with fresh search)

• AI-powered research tools (Maze AI, Looppanel)
• Unmoderated testing platforms evolution
• Voice of Customer (VoC) platforms
• Analytics and behavioral tools (Hotjar, FullStory)
• Accessibility testing tools and standards
• Research repository and insight management

---

Templates

• Shared plan template: ../software-clean-code-standard/assets/checklists/ux-research-plan-template.md — Product-agnostic research plan template (core + optional AI)
• assets/research-plan-template.md — UX research plan template
• assets/testing/usability-test-plan.md — Usability test plan
• assets/testing/usability-testing-checklist.md — Usability testing checklist
• assets/audits/heuristic-evaluation-template.md — Heuristic evaluation
• assets/audits/ux-audit-report-template.md — Audit report

---

Evaluative Research Loop

For prototype-parity polishing (fast iteration when product is "almost ideal"), see references/evaluative-research-loop.md. Covers: two-surface audit, drift classification (layout/density/control/content/state), friction-based prioritization, banner/loading guardrails, localization-readiness checks, and fast iteration cadence.

Fact-Checking

• Use web search/web fetch to verify current external facts, versions, pricing, deadlines, regulations, or platform behavior before final answers.
• Prefer primary sources; report source links and dates for volatile information.
• If web access is unavailable, state the limitation and mark guidance as unverified.

Heuristic Evaluation Template

Copy-paste template for conducting systematic heuristic evaluations.

---

Evaluation Setup

Product/Feature: ____________________ Evaluator: ____________________ Date: ____________________ Scope: [ ] Full product [ ] Specific flow: ____________________

Screens/Pages Evaluated: 1. ____________________ 2. ____________________ 3. ____________________

---

Nielsen's 10 Heuristics Checklist

H1: Visibility of System Status

Issues Found: -

Screenshots: [Link/attach]

---

H2: Match Between System and Real World

Issues Found: -

Screenshots: [Link/attach]

---

H3: User Control and Freedom

Issues Found: -

Screenshots: [Link/attach]

---

H4: Consistency and Standards

Issues Found: -

Screenshots: [Link/attach]

---

H5: Error Prevention

Issues Found: -

Screenshots: [Link/attach]

---

H6: Recognition Rather Than Recall

Issues Found: -

Screenshots: [Link/attach]

---

H7: Flexibility and Efficiency of Use

Issues Found: -

Screenshots: [Link/attach]

---

H8: Aesthetic and Minimalist Design

Issues Found: -

Screenshots: [Link/attach]

---

H9: Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors

Issues Found: -

Screenshots: [Link/attach]

---

H10: Help and Documentation

Issues Found: -

Screenshots: [Link/attach]

---

Accessibility Quick Check

---

Severity Rating Guide

---

Summary

Issue Count by Severity

Issues by Heuristic

Top 5 Priority Issues

1. [Issue] - Severity: __ - Heuristic: __ 2. [Issue] - Severity: __ - Heuristic: __ 3. [Issue] - Severity: __ - Heuristic: __ 4. [Issue] - Severity: __ - Heuristic: __ 5. [Issue] - Severity: __ - Heuristic: __

---

Recommendations

Quick Wins (< 1 day effort)

1. 2. 3.

Short-term Fixes (< 1 week)

1. 2. 3.

Requires Investigation

1. 2.

---

Evaluator Notes

[Additional observations, context, or considerations]

UX Audit Report Template

Full audit report structure for communicating findings to stakeholders.

---

UX Audit Report: [Product Name]

Prepared by: [Name/Team] Date: [Date] Version: [1.0]

---

Executive Summary

Overview

UX Health Score

Overall Score: [X/100]

Key Findings

Priority Recommendations

1. [Recommendation 1] - Est. impact: [X%], Effort: [S/M/L] 2. [Recommendation 2] - Est. impact: [X%], Effort: [S/M/L] 3. [Recommendation 3] - Est. impact: [X%], Effort: [S/M/L]

---

Audit Methodology

Approach

[Brief description of methods used]

• Heuristic Evaluation: Reviewed against Nielsen's 10 heuristics + extended principles
• Cognitive Walkthrough: Evaluated [X] critical user flows
• Accessibility Audit: Tested against WCAG 2.2 Level AA
• Competitive Benchmarking: Compared to [Competitor A, B, C]

Scope

Included:

• [Screen/feature 1]
• [Screen/feature 2]
• [Screen/feature 3]

Excluded:

• [Out of scope item 1]
• [Out of scope item 2]

Limitations

• [Limitation 1: e.g., "Did not include user testing"]
• [Limitation 2: e.g., "Mobile version not evaluated"]

---

Findings by Severity

Critical Issues (Fix Immediately)

Finding #1: [Title]

Location: [Screen/flow name] Heuristic: [Which principle violated] Severity: Critical (4)

Description: [Detailed description of the issue]

Evidence: [Screenshot or recording link]

User Impact: [How this affects users - quantify if possible]

Business Impact: [Revenue, support tickets, churn risk]

Recommendation: [Specific solution]

Effort Estimate: [S/M/L/XL]

---

Finding #2: [Title]

[Same structure as above]

---

Major Issues (Fix This Sprint)

Finding #3: [Title]

Location: [Screen/flow name] Heuristic: [Which principle violated] Severity: Major (3)

Description: [Detailed description]

Evidence: [Screenshot]

User Impact: [Impact description]

Recommendation: [Solution]

Effort Estimate: [S/M/L]

---

Minor Issues (Fix Next Sprint)

---

Cosmetic Issues (Backlog)

---

Findings by Area

Navigation

Issues Found: [X] Overall Assessment: [Good/Needs Work/Poor]

---

Forms & Inputs

Issues Found: [X] Overall Assessment: [Good/Needs Work/Poor]

---

Error Handling

Issues Found: [X] Overall Assessment: [Good/Needs Work/Poor]

---

Accessibility

WCAG 2.2 Level AA Compliance: [X%]

---

Competitive Context

How We Compare

Competitive Gaps

1. [Gap 1]: Competitors have [X], we don't 2. [Gap 2]: We're behind on [Y]

Competitive Strengths

1. [Strength 1]: We lead in [X] 2. [Strength 2]: Better than competitors at [Y]

---

Prioritized Roadmap

Phase 1: Quick Wins (Week 1-2)

Expected Outcome: [e.g., "Reduce support tickets by 20%"]

---

Phase 2: Core Fixes (Month 1)

Expected Outcome: [e.g., "Improve task completion by 25%"]

---

Phase 3: Enhancements (Quarter 1)

Expected Outcome: [e.g., "Reach accessibility compliance"]

---

Metrics to Track

Success Metrics

How to Measure

1. Task Success: Implement analytics tracking on key flows 2. SUS Score: Survey users monthly 3. NPS: Quarterly survey

---

Appendix

A. Full Issue Log

[Complete list of all issues found]

B. Screenshots

[All evidence screenshots]

C. Methodology Details

[Detailed evaluation criteria]

D. Evaluator Information

---

Next Steps

1. [ ] Review findings with product team 2. [ ] Prioritize roadmap items 3. [ ] Assign owners to fixes 4. [ ] Schedule follow-up audit (date: ________)

---

Report Prepared By: [Name] Contact: [Email] Date: [Date]

Competitive UX Matrix Template

Copy-paste template for systematic competitive UX analysis.

---

Competitive UX Analysis: [Your Product]

Analysis Date: ____________________ Analyst: ____________________ Focus Area: [ ] Full product [ ] Specific feature: ____________________

---

Competitors Analyzed

---

Feature Comparison Matrix

Core Features

Legend: Full = fully supported | Partial = limited | No = missing

Differentiating Features

---

UX Quality Scoring (1-5)

Onboarding Experience

Navigation & IA

Core Task Flow

Mobile Experience

Visual Design

---

Overall UX Score Summary

Rank: 1. ____ | 2. ____ | 3. ____ | 4. ____

---

UX Pattern Analysis

Patterns to Adopt

Patterns to Avoid

Our Unique Strengths

---

Detailed Competitor Notes

[Competitor A]

Strengths: - -

Weaknesses: - -

Key Takeaways: -

Screenshots: [Link]

---

[Competitor B]

Strengths: - -

Weaknesses: - -

Key Takeaways: -

Screenshots: [Link]

---

[Competitor C]

Strengths: - -

Weaknesses: - -

Key Takeaways: -

Screenshots: [Link]

---

Gap Analysis

Gaps to Close (Table Stakes)

Gaps to Lead (Differentiation)

---

Recommendations

Immediate Actions (0-30 days)

Short-term (1-3 months)

Strategic (3+ months)

---

Metrics to Track

---

Evidence & Sources

---

Update Schedule

Competitor Review Matrix Template

Extract competitive intelligence from user reviews. Identify gaps and opportunities.

---

Competitor Review Analysis: [Category/Market]

Analysis Date: YYYY-MM-DD Competitors Analyzed: [List] Sources: [G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, App Store, etc.] Period: [Date range]

---

Overview

---

Pain Point Comparison

Which pain points affect which competitors?

Legend: Strength | Neutral/Mixed | Weakness

---

Feature Gap Analysis

Features users request that competitors have/don't have.

---

Switching Analysis

Why do users switch between products?

Switching TO Us (From Competitors)

Switching FROM Us (To Competitors)

Top Switching Triggers

1. [Trigger 1] — [N] mentions — Affects: [Us / Competitor] 2. [Trigger 2] — [N] mentions 3. [Trigger 3] — [N] mentions

---

Quote Bank by Competitor

[Competitor A] Pain Points

From G2 "What do you dislike?":

• "[Quote 1]" — [Company size], [Industry]
• "[Quote 2]" — [Company size], [Industry]
• "[Quote 3]" — [Company size], [Industry]

From App Store 1-2 star reviews:

• "[Quote 1]" — [Date]
• "[Quote 2]" — [Date]

[Competitor B] Pain Points

From G2 "What do you dislike?":

• "[Quote 1]" — [Company size], [Industry]
• "[Quote 2]" — [Company size], [Industry]

---

Opportunities Summary

Where We Can Win

Where We Need to Catch Up

Where We're Already Winning

---

Recommendations

Immediate (This Month)

1. [Action] — Addresses: [Competitor gap] — Owner: [Name] 2. [Action] — Addresses: [Gap] — Owner: [Name]

Short-term (This Quarter)

1. [Action] — Competitive impact: [Description] 2. [Action] — Competitive impact: [Description]

Long-term (Roadmap)

1. [Feature/Initiative] — Why: [Competitive reasoning] 2. [Feature/Initiative] — Why: [Reasoning]

---

Methodology

Sources:

• G2: [N] reviews per competitor
• TrustRadius: [N] reviews per competitor
• App Store: [N] reviews per competitor

Extraction Process: 1. Collected "What do you dislike?" from G2 2. Collected 1-3 star reviews from app stores 3. Categorized by theme 4. Counted frequency 5. Mapped to our product gaps

Limitations:

• [Any sampling bias, date limitations, etc.]

---

Template Usage Notes

How to use: 1. Copy entire document 2. Fill competitor names 3. Research each competitor's reviews 4. Fill pain point comparison table 5. Extract representative quotes 6. Identify opportunities

Update frequency:

• Quarterly for stable markets
• Monthly for fast-moving markets
• After major competitor releases

Output feeds:

• Product roadmap prioritization
• Marketing positioning
• Sales battlecards

Pain Point Report Template

Copy and fill for your product. Output feeds software-ui-ux-design for pattern selection.

---

Pain Point Report: [Product Name]

Analysis Date: YYYY-MM-DD Analyst: [Name] Sources Analyzed: [App Store, G2, Zendesk, NPS, etc.] Total Feedback Items: [N] Period: [Date range]

---

Executive Summary

Overall Sentiment: [Positive/Mixed/Negative] Total Pain Points Identified: [N] Critical Issues: [N] Immediate Actions Required: [N]

Top 3 Priorities: 1. [Pain point 1] — [Impact summary] 2. [Pain point 2] — [Impact summary] 3. [Pain point 3] — [Impact summary]

---

Critical (Immediate Action Required)

Issues causing user churn, crashes, or data loss. Fix within 24-48 hours.

Recommended Actions:

---

High Priority (This Sprint / Next Sprint)

Issues causing significant friction or frustration. Address within 1-2 weeks.

Recommended Actions:

---

Medium Priority (Backlog)

Issues causing minor friction. Address within 1-3 months.

---

Low Priority (Monitor)

Infrequent issues or nice-to-haves. Track but don't prioritize.

---

Feature Requests

User-requested features extracted from feedback.

---

Pain Point → UI Pattern Mapping

Quick reference for design fixes.

---

Source Breakdown

---

Trend Analysis

Compared to Last Period

New Pain Points (Not seen before)

Resolved Pain Points (No longer appearing)

---

Methodology

Data Collection:

• [Source 1]: [Collection method, date range]
• [Source 2]: [Collection method, date range]

Analysis Method:

• Categorization: [Manual / Tool-assisted / Both]
• Severity scoring: Frequency × Severity × Business Impact
• Theme extraction: [Manual coding / Tool-assisted / Both]

Optional: AI/Automation Notes

Complete this section ONLY if AI/automation was used in analysis.

• Tools used: [Names + versions]
• Guardrails: PII redacted, traceability preserved, no fabricated quotes

Limitations:

• [Any biases or gaps in data]

---

Next Steps

1. [ ] Critical fixes: [Owner] to address by [Date] 2. [ ] High priority review: Product team to triage [Date] 3. [ ] Feature requests: PM to evaluate for roadmap 4. [ ] Next report: Schedule for [Date]

---

Appendix: Raw Data

Sample Quotes by Theme

Theme: [Theme Name]

• "[Quote 1]" — [Source, Date, Rating]
• "[Quote 2]" — [Source, Date, Rating]
• "[Quote 3]" — [Source, Date, Rating]

Theme: [Theme Name]

• "[Quote 1]" — [Source, Date, Rating]
• "[Quote 2]" — [Source, Date, Rating]

---

Template Usage Notes

How to use this template: 1. Copy entire document 2. Replace all [bracketed] placeholders 3. Delete sections not applicable 4. Add rows as needed to tables 5. Link to design pattern resources

Output feeds:

• software-ui-ux-design skill for pattern selection
• Product roadmap for feature prioritization
• Engineering for bug triage

Update frequency:

• Weekly for high-volume products
• Bi-weekly for medium volume
• Monthly for low volume

Customer Journey Canvas

Copy-paste template for mapping end-to-end customer journeys.

---

Customer Journey Map: [Journey Name]

Product/Service: ____________________ Persona: ____________________ Journey Scope: [Start point] → [End point] Created by: ____________________ Date: ____________________

---

Persona Summary

Job to be Done:

"When [situation], I want to [action], so I can [outcome]."

---

Journey Overview

[AWARENESS] → [CONSIDERATION] → [PURCHASE] → [RETENTION] → [ADVOCACY]
     ↓              ↓               ↓             ↓             ↓
  Discover       Evaluate        Commit         Use          Share

---

Stage 1: Awareness

User Mindset: "I have a problem/need"

Touchpoints

User Actions

1. 2. 3.

User Thoughts

"[What are they thinking?]"

"[Questions they have?]"

User Emotions

[ ] 1 Very frustrated [ ] 2 Frustrated [ ] 3 Neutral [ ] 4 Satisfied [ ] 5 Delighted

Emotion Score: [1-5] ____

Pain Points

Opportunities

- -

---

Stage 2: Consideration

User Mindset: "I'm evaluating options"

Touchpoints

User Actions

1. 2. 3.

User Thoughts

"[What are they thinking?]"

"[Comparisons they're making?]"

User Emotions

[ ] 1 Very frustrated [ ] 2 Frustrated [ ] 3 Neutral [ ] 4 Satisfied [ ] 5 Delighted

Emotion Score: [1-5] ____

Pain Points

Opportunities

- -

---

Stage 3: Purchase/Conversion

User Mindset: "I'm ready to commit"

Touchpoints

User Actions

1. 2. 3.

User Thoughts

"[What are they thinking?]"

"[Concerns at this stage?]"

User Emotions

[ ] 1 Very frustrated [ ] 2 Frustrated [ ] 3 Neutral [ ] 4 Satisfied [ ] 5 Delighted

Emotion Score: [1-5] ____

Pain Points

Opportunities

- -

---

Stage 4: Retention/Use

User Mindset: "I'm using this regularly"

Touchpoints

User Actions

1. 2. 3.

User Thoughts

"[What are they thinking?]"

"[Ongoing concerns?]"

User Emotions

[ ] 1 Very frustrated [ ] 2 Frustrated [ ] 3 Neutral [ ] 4 Satisfied [ ] 5 Delighted

Emotion Score: [1-5] ____

Pain Points

Opportunities

- -

---

Stage 5: Advocacy

User Mindset: "I want to share this"

Touchpoints

User Actions

1. 2. 3.

User Thoughts

"[What motivates sharing?]"

"[What would they tell others?]"

User Emotions

[ ] 1 Very frustrated [ ] 2 Frustrated [ ] 3 Neutral [ ] 4 Satisfied [ ] 5 Delighted

Emotion Score: [1-5] ____

Pain Points

Opportunities

- -

---

Emotional Curve

Emotion
   5 |
   4 |
   3 |
   2 |
   1 |____________________________________________
        Aware   Consider  Purchase  Retain   Advocate

Plot points: A=__ C=__ P=__ R=__ A=__

Peak Moment: [Stage and what happens] Low Point: [Stage and what happens]

---

Key Insights

Moments of Truth

Critical moments that define the experience:

1. [Moment Name] - Stage: ____ - Why it matters: ____ 2. [Moment Name] - Stage: ____ - Why it matters: ____ 3. [Moment Name] - Stage: ____ - Why it matters: ____

Critical Pain Points (Top 5)

Delight Opportunities (Top 3)

---

Action Plan

Quick Wins (< 2 weeks)

Strategic Improvements (1-3 months)

Future Initiatives

---

Journey Metrics

---

Data Sources

---

Version History

Service Blueprint Template

Copy-paste template for mapping frontstage/backstage service delivery.

---

Service Blueprint: [Service Name]

Service: ____________________ Scope: [Start] → [End] Created by: ____________________ Date: ____________________

---

Blueprint Overview

Primary User: ____________________ Service Goal: ____________________ Success Criteria: ____________________

---

Blueprint Layers Key

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                     PHYSICAL EVIDENCE                             |
| What customers see and interact with                              |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                     CUSTOMER ACTIONS                              |
| What customers do                                                 |
+==================================================================+
|                   LINE OF INTERACTION                             |
+==================================================================+
|                   FRONTSTAGE ACTIONS                              |
| Visible employee/system actions                                   |
+==================================================================+
|                   LINE OF VISIBILITY                              |
+==================================================================+
|                   BACKSTAGE ACTIONS                               |
| Hidden employee/system actions                                    |
+==================================================================+
|                LINE OF INTERNAL INTERACTION                       |
+==================================================================+
|                   SUPPORT PROCESSES                               |
| Systems, policies, partners                                       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

MARKERS:
(F) = Fail point - where errors commonly occur
(W) = Wait point - where customers wait
(D) = Decision point - where paths diverge
(!) = Pain point - known friction
(+) = Delight opportunity

---

Stage 1: [Stage Name]

Physical Evidence

Customer Actions

1. 2. 3.

--- LINE OF INTERACTION

---

Frontstage Actions

--- LINE OF VISIBILITY

---

Backstage Actions

--- LINE OF INTERNAL INTERACTION

---

Support Processes

Markers

• (F) Fail points:
• (W) Wait points:
• (D) Decision points:
• (!) Pain points:
• (+) Delight opportunities:

---

Stage 2: [Stage Name]

Physical Evidence

Customer Actions

1. 2. 3.

--- LINE OF INTERACTION

---

Frontstage Actions

--- LINE OF VISIBILITY

---

Backstage Actions

--- LINE OF INTERNAL INTERACTION

---

Support Processes

Markers

• (F) Fail points:
• (W) Wait points:
• (!) Pain points:
• (+) Delight opportunities:

---

Stage 3: [Stage Name]

Physical Evidence

Customer Actions

1. 2. 3.

--- LINE OF INTERACTION

---

Frontstage Actions

--- LINE OF VISIBILITY

---

Backstage Actions

--- LINE OF INTERNAL INTERACTION

---

Support Processes

Markers

• (F) Fail points:
• (W) Wait points:
• (!) Pain points:
• (+) Delight opportunities:

---

Stage 4: [Stage Name]

[Repeat structure as needed]

---

Summary Analysis

All Fail Points (F)

All Wait Points (W)

All Pain Points (!)

Delight Opportunities (+)

---

Cross-Functional Dependencies

---

Technology Stack

---

Metrics by Stage

---

Improvement Priorities

High Priority (Fail Points)

Medium Priority (Wait Points)

Lower Priority (Enhancements)

---

Version History

UX Metrics Dashboard Template

Copy-paste template for tracking and reporting UX metrics.

---

UX Metrics Dashboard: [Product Name]

Reporting Period: ____________________ Last Updated: ____________________ Owner: ____________________

---

Executive Summary

Health Status

Overall UX Score: ____/100

Key Insight: [One sentence summary of most important finding]

---

North Star Metric

Primary Metric

Metric Name: ____________________

Definition: [Clear description of what this measures]

Current Value: __________

Target: __________

Trend (last 4 periods):

North Star Breakdown

Input Metrics:

---

HEART Framework Metrics

H - Happiness

Primary Metric: SUS Score

SUS Grade: [ ] A (>80) [ ] B (68-80) [ ] C (51-68) [ ] D (38-51) [ ] F (<38)

NPS Breakdown:

• Promoters (9-10): ___%
• Passives (7-8): ___%
• Detractors (0-6): ___%

E - Engagement

Feature Engagement:

A - Adoption

Activation Funnel:

R - Retention

Cohort Retention (last 4 weeks):

T - Task Success

Task Success Trend:

---

Behavioral Metrics

Conversion Funnel

Funnel Visualization:

Visitors     [==========] 100%
Signups      [========  ] __%
Activated    [======    ] __%
Engaged      [====      ] __%
Converted    [===       ] __%
Retained     [==        ] __%

Drop-off Analysis

Biggest Drop-offs:

---

Error & Support Metrics

Error Rates

Support Metrics

Top UX Issues (from support):

---

Usability Study Results

Recent Studies

Issue Tracking

Issue Resolution Rate: __% of Critical/Major issues resolved this period

---

Competitive Benchmarks

Industry Comparison

Competitor Tracking

---

Action Items

Critical (This Week)

High Priority (This Month)

Experiments Running

---

Alerts & Thresholds

Current Alerts

Alert History

---

Data Sources

---

Appendix

Metric Definitions

Historical Data

Change Log

UX Research Plan Template

Comprehensive research planning template covering stage selection, method choice, consent handling, and output contracts.

---

Project Overview

---

Research Context

Business Question

What decision will this research inform?

[Describe the business decision that depends on this research]

Research Questions

Existing Knowledge

---

Product Stage Assessment

Current Stage (Check One)

• [ ] Discovery - Problem-market fit, opportunity sizing
• [ ] MVP/Concept - Solution-problem fit, early validation
• [ ] Launch - Usability, onboarding, first-run success
• [ ] Growth - Adoption, retention, habit formation
• [ ] Maturity - Optimization, satisfaction, expansion

Stage-Appropriate Methods

---

Method Selection

Primary Method

Method Selection Rationale

Secondary Methods (If Applicable)

---

Participant Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria

Recruitment

---

Consent & Ethics

Consent Checklist

• [ ] Research purpose explained
• [ ] Data usage described
• [ ] Recording consent obtained (if applicable)
• [ ] Right to withdraw stated
• [ ] Contact information provided
• [ ] Incentive terms clear
• [ ] Consent form signed/recorded

Data Handling Plan

PII Handling

• [ ] Remove names from transcripts
• [ ] Blur faces in screenshots/recordings
• [ ] Use participant codes (P1, P2)
• [ ] Store consent separately from data
• [ ] Document legal basis where applicable (e.g., GDPR Article 6 for EU processing)

---

Research Protocol

Session Structure

Materials Needed

• [ ] Consent form
• [ ] Discussion guide / Task list
• [ ] Prototype / Product access
• [ ] Recording setup (Zoom/Lookback/etc.)
• [ ] Note-taking template
• [ ] Incentive tracking sheet

Facilitation Notes

---

Output Contract

Deliverables

Analysis Framework

Reporting Template

## Finding: [Title]

**Theme**: [Category]
**Severity**: Critical / Major / Minor
**Participants**: P1, P3, P7 (n=3)

**Evidence**:
- "Quote from P1" (timestamp 12:34)
- "Quote from P3" (timestamp 8:15)

**Recommendation**:
[Specific, actionable recommendation]

**UI Pattern**: [Link to software-ui-ux-design pattern if applicable]

---

Timeline

---

Risk Mitigation

---

Stakeholder Sign-Off

---

Post-Research Actions

Repository Upload Checklist

• [ ] Study tagged with product area
• [ ] Study tagged with method
• [ ] Study tagged with date
• [ ] Participant count recorded
• [ ] Key findings summarized
• [ ] Recommendations linked to backlog

Follow-Up Research (If Needed)

---

Optional: AI/Automation Features

Complete this section ONLY if the product includes automation/AI-powered features.

Additional Research Questions

Data & Evidence Requirements

• [ ] Define “ground truth” and how it will be measured.
• [ ] Log user interventions (edit/override/cancel) and recovery success.
• [ ] Keep traceability: each theme links to raw quotes/clips.
• [ ] Do not treat synthetic outputs/users as real user evidence.

---

References (Primary Sources)

• ISO 9241-210:2019 (human-centred design): https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html
• ISO 9241-11:2018 (usability definitions): https://www.iso.org/standard/63500.html
• WCAG 2.2 (W3C Recommendation, 12 Dec 2024): https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
• GDPR (EU 2016/679): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj

Think-Aloud Protocol Template

Facilitator guide for conducting think-aloud usability sessions.

---

Think-Aloud Session Guide

Product: ____________________ Session Date: ____________________ Facilitator: ____________________ Participant: P__

---

Pre-Session Checklist (5 min before)

Technical Setup

• [ ] Video conferencing joined and working
• [ ] Screen sharing enabled
• [ ] Recording ready (cloud or local)
• [ ] Audio check completed
• [ ] Test environment loaded
• [ ] Tasks/scenarios document open
• [ ] Note-taking document ready
• [ ] Backup device available

Materials Ready

• [ ] Participant profile reviewed
• [ ] Consent form (if not pre-signed)
• [ ] Task list in order
• [ ] Timer accessible
• [ ] Post-task questionnaires ready
• [ ] Thank you/incentive info ready

---

Session Flow

Phase 1: Welcome (3-5 min)

Introduction:

"Hi [Name], thank you so much for joining me today. I'm [Your name], and I'm conducting research on [product/feature]. First, how are you doing today?"

[Small talk to build rapport]

Explain Purpose:

"Today we'll be looking at [product/feature]. I'd like you to complete a few tasks while sharing your thoughts. I want to be clear upfront: we're testing the product, not you. There's no way you can do anything wrong. Any difficulties you have are feedback for us to improve."

Recording Consent:

"Before we begin, I'd like to record this session so I don't have to take lots of notes. The recording is only for our internal team. Is that okay with you?"

• [ ] Verbal consent obtained
• [ ] Recording started

Introduce Think-Aloud:

"As you work through the tasks, I'd like you to think out loud. Tell me what you're looking at, what you're thinking, what you expect to happen, and what you're trying to do. This helps me understand your experience."

>

"For example, if I were shopping online, I might say: 'I'm looking for a search box... I see it in the top right... I'll type in what I want... Now I'm looking at the results... This one looks good because of the price...'"

>

"Does that make sense? Do you have any questions before we start?"

---

Phase 2: Warm-Up Questions (3-5 min)

Background Context:

"Before we look at [product], I'd like to understand a bit about your background."

Questions (adapt to product):

1. "Can you tell me about your experience with [product category]?" 2. "What tools do you currently use for [relevant task]?" 3. "When was the last time you [relevant activity]?" 4. "What's typically most important to you when [doing task]?"

[Note responses for context during analysis]

---

Phase 3: Task Completion (25-35 min)

Task Introduction Pattern:

"Now I'm going to give you some tasks to complete. I'll read each one and you can ask any clarifying questions before you start. Once you begin, I may be quiet while you work, but please keep talking me through your thoughts."

---

Task 1: [Task Name]

Read Scenario:

"[Scenario text that sets context]"

Read Task:

"[Task instruction]"

Clarify if needed, then:

"Go ahead and start whenever you're ready."

Start timer: ____:____

Observation Notes:

Task Outcome:

• [ ] Success (unassisted)
• [ ] Success (with hint)
• [ ] Partial success
• [ ] Failure
• [ ] Abandoned

End timer: ____:____ | Total: ____ sec

Post-Task Questions:

"Thank you. On a scale of 1-7, where 1 is very difficult and 7 is very easy, how would you rate this task?"

SEQ: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ]

"Can you tell me what was most challenging about that?"

Notes: ________________________________________________

---

Task 2: [Task Name]

Read Scenario:

"[Scenario text]"

Read Task:

"[Task instruction]"

"Go ahead whenever you're ready."

Start timer: ____:____

Observation Notes:

Task Outcome:

• [ ] Success (unassisted)
• [ ] Success (with hint)
• [ ] Partial success
• [ ] Failure
• [ ] Abandoned

End timer: ____:____ | Total: ____ sec

Post-Task Questions:

SEQ: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ]

"What went through your mind during that task?"

Notes: ________________________________________________

---

Task 3: [Task Name]

Read Scenario:

"[Scenario text]"

Read Task:

"[Task instruction]"

"Go ahead whenever you're ready."

Start timer: ____:____

Observation Notes:

Task Outcome:

• [ ] Success (unassisted)
• [ ] Success (with hint)
• [ ] Partial success
• [ ] Failure
• [ ] Abandoned

End timer: ____:____ | Total: ____ sec

Post-Task Questions:

SEQ: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ]

Notes: ________________________________________________

---

Phase 4: Post-Test Questions (8-10 min)

Overall Impressions:

"Now that you've gone through those tasks, I have a few questions about your overall experience."

1. > "What was your overall impression of [product]?"

Notes: ________________________________________________

2. > "What, if anything, was frustrating or confusing?"

Notes: ________________________________________________

3. > "What did you like most about the experience?"

Notes: ________________________________________________

4. > "If you could change one thing, what would it be?"

Notes: ________________________________________________

5. > "How would you describe this to a friend or colleague?"

Notes: ________________________________________________

SUS or Other Questionnaire:

"Finally, I have a short questionnaire for you. Please rate each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)."

[Administer SUS or other standardized questionnaire]

---

Phase 5: Wrap-Up (2-3 min)

Open Floor:

"Is there anything else you'd like to share that we haven't covered?"

Notes: ________________________________________________

Thank and Close:

"Thank you so much for your time today. Your feedback is incredibly valuable and will directly help us improve [product]. You'll receive [incentive details] within [timeframe]."

"Do you have any questions for me?"

• [ ] Session ended
• [ ] Recording stopped
• [ ] Notes saved

---

Facilitator Prompts

When Participant Goes Silent

Use these to encourage continued verbalization:

• "What are you thinking right now?"
• "What are you looking at?"
• "What do you expect to happen?"
• "Talk me through what you're doing."
• "What's going through your mind?"

When Participant Gets Stuck

Level 1 - Encourage (no help):

• "What would you try next?"
• "What options do you see?"
• "Where might you look for that?"

Level 2 - Hint (general direction):

• "The option you're looking for is in the [general area]."
• "Try looking at the [section of page]."

Level 3 - Direct (show location):

• "Let me point you to [specific element]."
• Mark task as "Success with assistance"

When Participant Asks Questions

Redirect without answering:

• "What do you think?"
• "What would you expect?"
• "How would you find out?"
• "What would you do if I weren't here?"

Only answer if:

• It's about the study itself (not the product)
• They're completely blocked and it's not a research question
• It's a prototype limitation

When Participant Goes Off-Track

• "That's interesting. For the purpose of this task, let's focus on [objective]."
• "Good observation. Can you show me how you'd complete [original task]?"

When Participant Makes an Error

Don't:

• Say "That's wrong"
• Correct them immediately
• Show frustration

Do:

• Note the error silently
• Let them discover and recover (or not)
• Ask: "What did you expect to happen there?"

---

Observation Codes

Quick notation system during sessions:

---

Post-Session Checklist

Immediately After Session:

• [ ] Recording saved and named (P#_YYYY-MM-DD)
• [ ] Review notes for legibility
• [ ] Note top 3 observations while fresh
• [ ] Rate overall session quality
• [ ] Flag key moments for highlight reel
• [ ] Reset environment for next participant

Key Observations (capture now):

1. ________________________________________________ 2. ________________________________________________ 3. ________________________________________________

Highlight Moments (timestamps for reel):

---

Session Quality Self-Assessment

Rate yourself after each session:

What went well: ________________________________

What to improve: ________________________________

---

Quick Reference: Things to Avoid

AVOID:

• "Do you like this?"
• "This feature lets you..."
• "That's right/wrong"
• "Most people find this easy"
• "You should click on..."

USE:

• "What do you think of this?"
• "What would you expect this to do?"
• "What happened there?"
• "Tell me what you're thinking"
• "What would you try?"

---

Emergency Protocols

Technical Failure: 1. Stay calm: "Let me troubleshoot this quickly" 2. Try backup device/method 3. If unrecoverable: "I apologize, let's reschedule" 4. Document incident

Participant Distress: 1. Pause tasks: "Let's take a break" 2. Reassure: "Remember, we're testing the product, not you" 3. Offer to skip or end 4. Thank them regardless

Running Over Time: 1. Prioritize remaining tasks 2. Ask: "We're running a bit long—do you have a few more minutes?" 3. Skip lower-priority tasks if needed 4. Always complete wrap-up

Usability Test Plan Template

Copy-paste template for planning and executing usability tests.

---

Usability Test Plan: [Product/Feature Name]

Test Date(s): ____________________ Test Lead: ____________________ Version: Draft / Final

---

Executive Summary

Objective: [One sentence describing what you're testing and why]

Test Type: [ ] Moderated Remote [ ] Unmoderated Remote [ ] In-Person [ ] Guerrilla

Timeline:

---

Research Questions

Primary Question: [What is the main question this study will answer?]

Secondary Questions: 1. [Question 2] 2. [Question 3] 3. [Question 4]

Success Criteria:

---

Participants

Target Profile

Persona: [Primary persona name]

Characteristics:

Sample Size: __ participants

Recruitment Source: [ ] Internal panel [ ] UserTesting [ ] Respondent.io [ ] Social media [ ] Customer list [ ] Other: ____

Screener Questions

Question 1: [Qualifying question]

• [ ] Qualified answer
• [ ] Disqualified answer

Question 2: [Qualifying question]

• [ ] Qualified answer
• [ ] Disqualified answer

Question 3: [Demographic/quota question]

• [ ] Option A (need __ participants)
• [ ] Option B (need __ participants)

Participant Schedule

---

Test Tasks

Task 1: [Task Name]

Scenario:

[Realistic scenario that sets context without leading the user]

Task Instruction:

[Clear instruction of what to accomplish, without revealing how]

Success Criteria:

• [ ] [Specific completion indicator]
• [ ] [Optional: secondary success indicator]

Starting Point: [URL or screen]

Metrics to Collect:

• [ ] Success/Failure
• [ ] Time on task
• [ ] Errors/Attempts
• [ ] Assistance requests
• [ ] Post-task rating (SEQ)

---

Task 2: [Task Name]

Scenario:

[Realistic scenario]

Task Instruction:

[Clear instruction]

Success Criteria:

• [ ] [Completion indicator]

Starting Point: [URL or screen]

Metrics to Collect:

• [ ] Success/Failure
• [ ] Time on task
• [ ] Errors/Attempts
• [ ] Post-task rating (SEQ)

---

Task 3: [Task Name]

Scenario:

[Realistic scenario]

Task Instruction:

[Clear instruction]

Success Criteria:

• [ ] [Completion indicator]

Starting Point: [URL or screen]

Metrics to Collect:

• [ ] Success/Failure
• [ ] Time on task
• [ ] Errors/Attempts
• [ ] Post-task rating (SEQ)

---

Test Materials

Environment Setup

Test Platform: [ ] Production [ ] Staging [ ] Prototype URL/Access: ____________________ Required Accounts: [ ] Test account created [ ] Participant's own

Device Requirements:

• [ ] Desktop (specify browser: ____)
• [ ] Mobile (specify: iOS / Android)
• [ ] Tablet

Tools Needed:

Test Assets

• [ ] Prototype/environment configured
• [ ] Test data seeded
• [ ] Recording permissions ready
• [ ] Consent form prepared
• [ ] Incentive/compensation ready

---

Session Structure

Pre-Session (5 min before)

• [ ] Join meeting early
• [ ] Check recording settings
• [ ] Open prototype/test environment
• [ ] Have task script ready
• [ ] Prepare note-taking document

Session Flow

Total Duration: ~55 minutes

Facilitator Script

Welcome:

"Thank you for joining today. I'm [name], and I'm conducting research on [product]. We'll be looking at [feature/flow] and I'd like you to complete some tasks while sharing your thoughts. There are no right or wrong answers—we're testing the product, not you."

Recording Consent:

"I'd like to record this session for my notes. The recording will only be used by our team. Is that okay with you?"

Think-Aloud Instructions:

"As you work through the tasks, please think out loud. Tell me what you're looking at, what you're thinking, and what you're trying to do. This helps me understand your experience."

Task Transition:

"Great. Now I'd like you to try the next task. [Read scenario]. Go ahead and start whenever you're ready."

Non-Leading Prompts:

• "What are you thinking?"
• "What did you expect to happen?"
• "Can you tell me more about that?"

Closing:

"Thank you so much for your time today. Your feedback is incredibly valuable. Do you have any questions for me?"

---

Post-Test Questionnaire

Single Ease Question (After Each Task)

"Overall, how easy or difficult was this task?"

System Usability Scale (End of Session)

Rate each statement 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree):

1. I think that I would like to use this system frequently. 2. I found the system unnecessarily complex. 3. I thought the system was easy to use. 4. I think that I would need technical support to use this system. 5. I found the various functions in this system were well integrated. 6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system. 7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system quickly. 8. I found the system very cumbersome to use. 9. I felt very confident using the system. 10. I needed to learn a lot before I could get going with this system.

Open-Ended Questions

1. "What was the most frustrating part of the experience?" 2. "What did you like most?" 3. "If you could change one thing, what would it be?" 4. "Is there anything else you'd like to share?"

---

Data Collection

Per-Participant Data Sheet

Observation Log Template

---

Analysis Plan

Quantitative Analysis

Task-Level Metrics:

Study-Level Metrics:

Qualitative Analysis

Affinity Mapping: 1. Extract observations/quotes from all sessions 2. Group into themes 3. Identify patterns and frequency

Issue Severity Rating:

---

Deliverables

Final Report Contents

• [ ] Executive summary (1 page)
• [ ] Methodology overview
• [ ] Participant summary
• [ ] Key findings (5-7 top issues)
• [ ] Task-by-task results
• [ ] Recommendations with priority
• [ ] Appendix: Raw data, quotes, recordings

Distribution

---

Risk Mitigation

---

Appendix

Consent Form Template

I consent to participate in this research study. I understand that:

- My session will be recorded for research purposes

- My identity will be kept confidential

- I can stop participating at any time

- My feedback will be used to improve the product

>

Signature: _____________ Date: _____________

Incentive Tracking

Usability Testing Checklist

Complete checklist for planning, executing, and analyzing usability tests.

---

Pre-Test Planning

Study Definition

• [ ] Research questions documented
• [ ] Success metrics defined (task success rate, time-on-task, error rate)
• [ ] Scope limited to a small set of core tasks
• [ ] Hypothesis stated (what we expect to find)

Task Design Checklist

Task Quality Checks

• [ ] Tasks are realistic user goals (not feature tours)
• [ ] Tasks avoid leading language ("Click the blue button")
• [ ] Tasks have clear start and end points
• [ ] Tasks are ordered from easy to hard (warm-up first)
• [ ] Tasks don't reveal answers in wording
• [ ] Tasks can be completed in session time

Participant Recruitment

Recruitment Checklist

• [ ] Screener questions drafted
• [ ] Screener tested with team member
• [ ] Incentive determined and budget approved
• [ ] Recruitment channel selected
• [ ] Calendar slots available
• [ ] Backup participants scheduled (+20%)
• [ ] Confirmation emails scheduled

---

Test Setup

Environment Checklist

For Remote Testing:

• [ ] Video conferencing tool tested (Zoom, Lookback, UserTesting)
• [ ] Screen sharing works
• [ ] Recording permissions configured
• [ ] Backup recording method ready
• [ ] Quiet environment confirmed
• [ ] Internet connection stable
• [ ] Calendar invites sent with join link

For In-Person Testing:

• [ ] Room booked
• [ ] Recording equipment tested
• [ ] Prototype/product accessible
• [ ] Observer seating arranged
• [ ] Consent forms printed
• [ ] Incentives ready
• [ ] Water/snacks available

Materials Checklist

• [ ] Discussion guide printed/accessible
• [ ] Consent form ready
• [ ] Note-taking template open
• [ ] Task scenarios prepared (no leading language)
• [ ] Prototype/product tested and working
• [ ] SUS questionnaire ready (if using)
• [ ] Post-task questions ready
• [ ] Observer instructions sent

Prototype/Product Readiness

• [ ] All task paths functional
• [ ] Realistic data populated
• [ ] Error states tested
• [ ] Mobile/responsive checked (if applicable)
• [ ] Login credentials prepared
• [ ] Reset procedure documented

---

Session Execution

Introduction Script Checklist (5 min)

• [ ] Thank participant for time
• [ ] Explain session purpose (testing product, not them)
• [ ] Review consent and recording
• [ ] Explain think-aloud protocol
• [ ] Confirm participant can stop anytime
• [ ] Ask if they have questions
• [ ] Start recording

Think-Aloud Prompts

During-Task Observation Checklist

For each task, note:

• [ ] Task success (Complete / Partial / Fail)
• [ ] Time to complete
• [ ] Errors made (count and type)
• [ ] Hesitations/confusion points
• [ ] Verbalized thoughts
• [ ] Workarounds attempted
• [ ] Help sought
• [ ] Emotional reactions

Post-Task Questions

After each task: 1. "How easy or difficult was that?" (1-5 scale) 2. "What made it [easy/difficult]?" 3. "Was there anything you expected to find but didn't?"

Session Close Checklist (5 min)

• [ ] Overall impressions asked
• [ ] SUS questionnaire administered (if using)
• [ ] Open questions invited
• [ ] Next steps explained
• [ ] Incentive provided/sent
• [ ] Thank participant
• [ ] Stop recording

---

Post-Session Processing

Immediate (Within 24 Hours)

• [ ] Notes reviewed and cleaned
• [ ] Key observations highlighted
• [ ] Video timestamps noted for key moments
• [ ] Task success recorded
• [ ] SUS score calculated (if applicable)
• [ ] Urgent issues flagged

Data Recording Template

Legend: [check] = Complete, [x] = Fail, ~ = Partial

---

Analysis Framework

Quantitative Metrics

Issue Identification

For each issue found:

Severity Rating Guide

Pattern Recognition Checklist

• [ ] Grouped issues by task
• [ ] Grouped issues by page/screen
• [ ] Grouped issues by issue type (navigation, labeling, feedback, etc.)
• [ ] Identified issues affecting multiple participants
• [ ] Noted positive feedback and successes
• [ ] Compared novice vs. expert performance

---

Synthesis & Reporting

Findings Report Structure

# Usability Test Report: [Product/Feature]

## Executive Summary
- **Date**:
- **Participants**: n=X
- **Tasks tested**: X
- **Overall task success rate**: X%
- **SUS score**: X
- **Critical issues found**: X
- **Top recommendation**: [One sentence]

## Methodology
- [Method description]
- [Participant criteria]
- [Tasks tested]

## Key Findings

### Critical Issues (Fix Before Launch)
1. [Issue + Evidence + Recommendation]

### Major Issues (Next Sprint)
1. [Issue + Evidence + Recommendation]

### Minor Issues (Backlog)
1. [Issue + Evidence + Recommendation]

## What Worked Well
1. [Positive finding]

## Recommendations Summary
| Priority | Issue | Recommendation | Effort |
|----------|-------|----------------|--------|
| P0 | | | |
| P1 | | | |
| P2 | | | |

## Next Steps
- [Action items]

## Appendix
- Task success by participant
- SUS responses
- Session recordings (links)

Stakeholder Presentation Checklist

• [ ] Executive summary on first slide
• [ ] Video clips prepared (3-5 key moments)
• [ ] Issues prioritized by severity
• [ ] Recommendations are specific and actionable
• [ ] Design solutions proposed (link to software-ui-ux-design patterns)
• [ ] Next steps clear
• [ ] Q&A time allocated

---

Repository Upload

Tagging Checklist

• [ ] Product area tagged
• [ ] Method: "Usability Testing"
• [ ] Date recorded
• [ ] Participant count
• [ ] Tasks tested listed
• [ ] Key findings summarized
• [ ] Recommendations linked to backlog items
• [ ] Video clips stored (with consent)

Artifact Storage

---

Quality Standards

Study Quality Checklist

• [ ] Research questions clearly stated
• [ ] Tasks realistic and unbiased
• [ ] Participant criteria documented
• [ ] Sample size justified for risk/segments
• [ ] Findings tied to evidence (quotes, timestamps)
• [ ] Recommendations actionable
• [ ] Severity ratings applied consistently
• [ ] Report uploaded within 2 weeks

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

---

Optional: AI/Automation Features

Complete this section ONLY if the product includes automation/AI-powered features.

Scenario Coverage Checklist

• [ ] Test “good” outputs and clearly wrong outputs.
• [ ] Include “ambiguous” cases where the right answer is uncertain.
• [ ] Validate user control: edit/override/cancel.
• [ ] Validate recovery: fallback path completes the task.
• [ ] Validate feedback loops: user can report issues and see outcomes.

Additional Metrics (If Applicable)

---

References (Primary Sources)

• ISO 9241-11:2018 (usability definitions): https://www.iso.org/standard/63500.html
• ISO 9241-210:2019 (human-centred design): https://www.iso.org/standard/77520.html

A/B Testing Implementation Guide

Comprehensive guide to designing, running, and analyzing A/B tests.

Last Updated: January 2026 References: Google Experimentation, Netflix Experimentation, Statsig Documentation

---

A/B Testing Fundamentals

When to A/B Test

GOOD CANDIDATES:
- Clear, measurable primary metric
- Sufficient traffic (see sample size)
- Isolated change (not part of larger release)
- Reversible change
- Adequate runtime possible (7+ days)

POOR CANDIDATES:
- Major redesigns (too many variables)
- Legal/compliance changes (must ship)
- Bug fixes (obvious improvement)
- Low-traffic pages (<1000/week)
- Already optimal (marginal gains)

A/B Test Types

---

Test Design

Hypothesis Framework

STRUCTURE:
[Observation]
leads us to believe that
[Change]
will cause
[Effect]
for
[Segment]
measured by
[Metric].

EXAMPLE:
We observed that 35% of users abandon checkout at shipping step
leads us to believe that
showing estimated delivery dates on product pages
will cause
increased checkout completion
for
mobile users
measured by
checkout completion rate (+5% MDE).

Sample Size Calculation

Key Variables

Sample Size Formula (per variant)

n = 2 × (Zα + Zβ)² × p(1-p) / (MDE × p)²

Where:
- Zα = 1.96 (for 95% confidence)
- Zβ = 0.84 (for 80% power)
- p = baseline conversion rate
- MDE = minimum detectable effect (as decimal)

Quick Reference Table

Per variant, 95% confidence, 80% power

Runtime Calculation

Minimum Runtime = Sample Size / Daily Traffic per Variant

Additional Requirements:
- Minimum 7 days (weekly cycle)
- Minimum 2 weeks (recommended)
- Capture full business cycle
- Avoid holidays/anomalies

---

Implementation

Technical Setup

Assignment Logic

// Deterministic user assignment
function getVariant(userId, experimentId, variants) {
  const hash = md5(`${userId}:${experimentId}`);
  const bucket = parseInt(hash.substring(0, 8), 16) % 100;

  let cumulative = 0;
  for (const variant of variants) {
    cumulative += variant.percentage;
    if (bucket < cumulative) {
      return variant.name;
    }
  }
  return variants[0].name; // fallback
}

Event Tracking

// Track experiment exposure
trackEvent('experiment_viewed', {
  experiment_id: 'checkout_v2',
  variant: 'treatment',
  user_id: userId,
  session_id: sessionId,
  timestamp: Date.now()
});

// Track conversion
trackEvent('purchase_completed', {
  experiment_id: 'checkout_v2',
  variant: 'treatment',
  user_id: userId,
  order_value: 99.99,
  timestamp: Date.now()
});

Randomization Requirements

CRITICAL:
- User sees SAME variant on return
- Assignment before exposure
- Independent of other experiments
- Even distribution verification

CHECKS:
- Sample ratio mismatch (SRM) test
- Pre-experiment metrics balance
- No systematic bias

Experiment Configuration

# Experiment config example
experiment:
  id: checkout_v2_delivery_date
  name: Delivery Date on Product Page
  hypothesis: |
    Showing delivery dates on product pages
    will increase checkout completion by 5%

  traffic_allocation: 100%
  variants:
    - name: control
      percentage: 50
    - name: treatment
      percentage: 50

  targeting:
    platform: [web, mobile_web]
    country: [US, CA, UK]
    user_segment: [new_users, returning_users]

  metrics:
    primary: checkout_completion_rate
    secondary:
      - add_to_cart_rate
      - revenue_per_visitor
    guardrail:
      - page_load_time
      - error_rate

  runtime:
    min_days: 7
    max_days: 28
    sample_size_per_variant: 15000

  rollout:
    auto_stop_on_harm: true
    harm_threshold: -5%

---

Analysis

Statistical Methods

Frequentist (Traditional)

Hypothesis Test:
- H0: Treatment = Control
- H1: Treatment ≠ Control

Result:
- p-value < 0.05 → Reject H0 (significant)
- p-value ≥ 0.05 → Fail to reject H0

Confidence Interval:
- 95% CI for effect size
- If CI excludes 0 → significant

Bayesian

Output:
- Probability that treatment > control
- Expected effect size distribution
- Risk assessment

Advantages:
- More intuitive interpretation
- Better for low-traffic tests
- Continuous monitoring OK

Metric Calculations

Conversion Rate

CR = Conversions / Visitors

CR_lift = (CR_treatment - CR_control) / CR_control

Standard Error = sqrt(p(1-p) × (1/n_control + 1/n_treatment))

Revenue Per Visitor

RPV = Total Revenue / Visitors

RPV_lift = (RPV_treatment - RPV_control) / RPV_control

Result Interpretation

---

Common Pitfalls

Peeking Problem

PROBLEM:
Checking results multiple times inflates false positive rate

EXAMPLE:
- Check at day 3: 14% false positive rate
- Check at day 7: 19% false positive rate
- Check at day 14: 25% false positive rate

SOLUTIONS:
1. Pre-set runtime, don't peek
2. Use sequential testing (SPRT)
3. Use Bayesian methods
4. Apply alpha spending (Pocock, O'Brien-Fleming)

Multiple Comparisons

PROBLEM:
Testing multiple metrics increases false positives

EXAMPLE:
- 20 metrics tested
- Expected false positives: 1 (at α=0.05)

SOLUTIONS:
1. Declare ONE primary metric
2. Bonferroni correction: α/n
3. False Discovery Rate (FDR) control
4. Pre-register metrics

Simpson's Paradox

PROBLEM:
Overall results hide segment-level reversal

EXAMPLE:
- Overall: Treatment +2%
- Mobile: Treatment -5%
- Desktop: Treatment +8%
- Mobile users increased → masked loss

SOLUTION:
Always segment analysis by device, user type, etc.

Sample Ratio Mismatch (SRM)

PROBLEM:
Uneven split indicates implementation bug

CHECK:
- Expected: 50/50
- Actual: 52/48
- Chi-square test: p < 0.001 → SRM detected

CAUSES:
- Bot filtering differences
- Assignment bugs
- Redirect issues
- Caching problems

ACTION:
Invalidate test, fix bug, restart

Novelty/Primacy Effects

PROBLEM:
Initial lift fades over time (novelty)
or users need time to adapt (primacy)

DETECTION:
Plot conversion over time by variant
Look for converging/diverging trends

SOLUTION:
Run tests long enough (2+ weeks)
Segment by new vs. returning users

---

Experimentation Maturity

Level 1: Ad-hoc Testing

CHARACTERISTICS:
- One-off tests
- Manual analysis
- No documentation
- Results often ignored

IMPROVEMENTS:
- Test documentation template
- Centralized results tracking
- Basic statistical training

Level 2: Standardized Process

CHARACTERISTICS:
- Consistent methodology
- Proper sample sizes
- Pre/post analysis
- Results shared

IMPROVEMENTS:
- Experiment review process
- Central experiment catalog
- Automated statistical checks

Level 3: Automated Platform

CHARACTERISTICS:
- Dedicated experimentation tool
- Real-time dashboards
- Automatic significance
- Feature flags integrated

IMPROVEMENTS:
- Sequential testing
- Automated guardrails
- Machine learning for targeting

Level 4: Culture of Experimentation

CHARACTERISTICS:
- Most changes tested
- Data-driven decisions
- Rapid iteration
- Learning documented

IMPROVEMENTS:
- Meta-analysis
- Causal inference
- Long-term holdouts

---

Tools & Platforms

Experimentation Platforms

DIY Components

---

Templates

Experiment Plan Template

## Experiment: [Name]

### Hypothesis
[Observation] leads us to believe [Change] will cause [Effect]
for [Segment] measured by [Metric].

### Design
- Type: A/B
- Traffic: 100%
- Split: 50/50
- Variants:
  - Control: [Description]
  - Treatment: [Description]

### Metrics
- Primary: [Metric] (MDE: [X]%)
- Secondary: [Metrics]
- Guardrail: [Metrics]

### Sample Size
- Required per variant: [N]
- Daily traffic: [N]
- Minimum runtime: [N] days

### Targeting
- Platform: [All/Web/Mobile]
- User segment: [All/New/Returning]
- Geography: [Countries]

### Timeline
- Start: [Date]
- Decision: [Date]
- Maximum runtime: [Date]

### Success Criteria
- Primary metric +[X]% with p < 0.05
- No guardrail degradation > [X]%

### Risks
- [Risk 1]
- [Risk 2]

Results Report Template

## Results: [Experiment Name]

### Summary
- Result: [WIN/LOSS/INCONCLUSIVE]
- Primary metric: [+X%] (p=[X], 95% CI: [X, Y])
- Runtime: [X] days, [N] users

### Key Findings
1. [Finding 1]
2. [Finding 2]

### Segment Analysis
| Segment | Control | Treatment | Lift | Significant |
|---------|---------|-----------|------|-------------|
| All | X% | Y% | +Z% | Yes |
| Mobile | X% | Y% | +Z% | Yes |
| Desktop | X% | Y% | +Z% | No |

### Secondary Metrics
| Metric | Lift | Significant |
|--------|------|-------------|
| [Metric 1] | +X% | Yes |
| [Metric 2] | +X% | No |

### Guardrails
| Metric | Change | Status |
|--------|--------|--------|
| Page load | +50ms | OK |
| Error rate | +0.1% | OK |

### Decision
[Ship treatment / Keep control / Iterate]

### Learnings
[What did we learn? What's next?]

---

Related Resources

• CRO Framework - Conversion optimization
• UX Metrics Framework - Metric selection
• Research Frameworks - Qualitative methods

Evaluative Research Loop for Prototype-Parity Polishing

Use this loop when product says "almost ideal" and needs fast, high-signal iteration.

1) Run a two-surface audit

Audit desktop and mobile separately for the same flow using:

• hierarchy and first-focus clarity,
• control consistency,
• duplication of meaning,
• whitespace efficiency,
• perceived compactness.

2) Compare prototype intent vs production reality

For each module, classify mismatch:

• layout drift (pairing/alignment/reflow),
• density drift (too much space/too many wrappers),
• control drift (mixed styles/duplicated actions),
• content drift (duplicate labels/text),
• state drift (loading/banner behavior unlike intended UX).

3) Prioritize by felt friction, not by component count

Prioritize issues users notice immediately: 1. Empty-space imbalance and broken rhythm. 2. Hidden or noisy critical actions. 3. Repetitive banners or repeated copy. 4. Non-compact disclosure patterns. 5. Mobile alignment and contrast misses.

4) Validate compaction with acceptance checks

• No persistent dead-right area after fold on desktop.
• Intentional 2-up pair modules remain paired.
• Expanded cards do not create opposite-column voids.
• Day selector and week control remain aligned and readable on mobile.

5) Banner and loading research guardrails

• Verify repeated-banners perception with quick evaluative checks; persistent banners quickly feel like clutter.
• Validate loading trust: users should recognize final layout from skeleton structure.
• Treat mismatched loading compositions as usability defects, not cosmetic debt.

6) Localization-readiness check in every evaluative pass

• Flag any hardcoded UI text immediately.
• Confirm all labels/CTAs/helper text map to locale keys.
• Ensure no mixed-language fragments on localized screens.

7) Fast iteration cadence (recommended)

1. Screenshot-based audit. 2. 5-issue max fix batch. 3. Re-check desktop + mobile side by side. 4. Update canonical principles doc. 5. Repeat until no high-severity visual/interaction drift remains.