agentleFS
memi-designmemi-design/design-skills/skills/usability-testing/SKILL.md

usability-testing

Skill7 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Usability testing frameworks — test planning, task scenarios, moderated and unmoderated protocols, analysis frameworks, and insight synthesis for Mémoire research pipeline

6 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Every test starts with 3-5 focused research questions.

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Write scenarios, not instructions.

    line 57
  3. Distinctive:

    Avoid leading language. Do not mention UI elements by name.

    line 58
  4. Distinctive:

    Use the think-aloud protocol: "Tell me what you are thinking as you go."

    line 97
  5. Distinctive:

    Never answer questions about the interface.

    line 98
  6. Distinctive:

    If participant is stuck for more than 2 minutes, offer a hint.

    line 101
  7. Distinctive:

    Write each observation on a virtual sticky (Figma, FigJam, or Miro)

    line 212

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Usability Testing -- Research Skill Pack

Structured methodology for planning, executing, and analyzing usability tests. Integrates with the Memoire research pipeline to transform raw observations into actionable design decisions.


Test Planning Methodology

1. Define Research Questions

Every test starts with 3-5 focused research questions. Format:

RQ1: Can users complete [task] without assistance?
RQ2: Where do users hesitate or make errors during [flow]?
RQ3: How does [new pattern] compare to [existing pattern] in efficiency?

2. Choose Test Type

MethodBest ForParticipantsDuration
Moderated in-personComplex flows, emotional reactions5-845-60 min
Moderated remoteGeographic diversity, screen sharing5-830-45 min
Unmoderated remoteHigh volume, simple tasks15-3010-20 min
GuerrillaQuick validation, low-fidelity prototypes5-105-15 min
A/B comparisonComparing two design variants10-20 per variant15-30 min

3. Determine Fidelity

FidelityToolWhen to Use
Paper / wireframeSketches, BalsamiqEarly concept validation
Mid-fidelityFigma prototype (no animation)Flow and IA validation
High-fidelityFigma prototype (full interactions)Visual design and micro-interaction testing
ProductionStaged deploymentPre-launch validation

Task Scenario Design

Anatomy of a Good Task

Context:  You are shopping for a birthday gift for a friend.
Trigger:  You want to find a book under $30 and add it to your cart.
Goal:     Complete the purchase using the saved payment method.

Rules

  1. Write scenarios, not instructions. Say "Find a book under $30" not "Click the search bar, type books, click filter."
  2. Avoid leading language. Do not mention UI elements by name.
  3. Include realistic context. Why is the user doing this?
  4. Define clear completion criteria. What state means success?
  5. Order tasks from simple to complex. Build confidence before testing harder flows.

Task Template

FieldContent
Task IDT-001
Scenario[Context + trigger + goal]
Success Criteria[Observable outcome]
Max Time[Minutes before intervention]
Priority[Critical / Important / Nice-to-have]
Related RQ[RQ1, RQ2, etc.]

Moderated Testing Protocol

Before the Session

  1. Pilot test with 1 internal participant -- fix unclear tasks
  2. Prepare consent form (recording, data usage)
  3. Set up recording (screen + audio minimum; camera optional)
  4. Prepare facilitator guide with exact script

Facilitator Guide Structure

1. Welcome and consent          (2 min)
2. Background questions         (3 min)
3. Task scenarios               (25-35 min)
4. Post-task questionnaire      (5 min)
5. Debrief and open questions   (5 min)

Facilitation Rules

  • Use the think-aloud protocol: "Tell me what you are thinking as you go."
  • Never answer questions about the interface. Redirect: "What would you expect to happen?"
  • Note moments of confusion, hesitation, backtracking, and verbal frustration.
  • Record timestamps for each task start and task completion.
  • If participant is stuck for more than 2 minutes, offer a hint. After 3 minutes, assist and note the failure.

Unmoderated Testing Protocol

Platform Setup

Configure in tools such as UserTesting, Maze, or Lookback:

  1. Welcome screen with consent and instructions
  2. Screener questions to validate participant fit
  3. Task sequence with success URLs or click targets
  4. Post-task single ease question (SEQ) after each task
  5. Final SUS questionnaire
  6. Thank-you screen with compensation details

Task Validation

  • Define success paths (correct click sequence)
  • Define failure indicators (wrong page, timeout, abandon)
  • Set maximum task duration
  • Include at least one baseline task that should be trivially easy

Metrics

Core Metrics

MetricFormulaTarget
Task Success Rate(Successful completions / Total attempts) * 100> 80%
Time on TaskMedian seconds from task start to completionContext-dependent
Error RateErrors per task per participant< 1.0
Lostness(N/S - 1) + (R/N - 1) where N=pages visited, S=minimum path, R=revisits< 0.4
Task-Level SatisfactionSingle Ease Question (SEQ), 1-7 scale> 5.0

Standardized Questionnaires

InstrumentMeasuresScaleBenchmark
SUS (System Usability Scale)Overall usability0-100> 68 is above average
SEQ (Single Ease Question)Per-task difficulty1-7> 5.0 is acceptable
UMUX-LiteUsability + usefulness0-100> 65 is acceptable
NASA-TLXCognitive workload0-100 (lower is better)Context-dependent

SUS Calculation

1. For odd-numbered questions (1,3,5,7,9): score - 1
2. For even-numbered questions (2,4,6,8,10): 5 - score
3. Sum all adjusted scores
4. Multiply by 2.5
5. Result is 0-100

Recruitment and Sampling

Sample Size Guidelines

GoalParticipantsRationale
Find major usability issues5Discovers ~85% of problems (Nielsen/Landauer)
Quantitative confidence20+Statistical significance for task metrics
A/B comparison15-20 per variantEnough for between-subjects comparison
Accessibility audit3-5 per disability typeSpecialized needs require targeted recruitment

Screener Design

  1. Demographics (age, location, occupation)
  2. Technology proficiency (devices, frequency)
  3. Domain experience (relevant product/service usage)
  4. Disqualifiers (employees, competitors, recent participants)
  5. Availability and compensation agreement

Recruitment Sources

  • User database / CRM (existing users)
  • Panel services (UserTesting, Respondent, Prolific)
  • Social media and community channels
  • Intercept / pop-up on live product
  • Internal team members (pilot only, never for real data)

Analysis Frameworks

Rainbow Spreadsheet

ParticipantTaskObservationSeverityTheme
P1T-001Could not find filter buttonHighDiscoverability
P2T-001Found filter but expected different behaviorMediumMental model mismatch
P3T-002Completed easily----

Color-code rows by participant. Cluster observations by theme. Count frequency across participants.

Severity Rating

LevelLabelDefinition
1CosmeticNoticed but no impact on task completion
2MinorSlows users down but they recover
3MajorCauses errors or significant confusion; some fail
4CriticalBlocks task completion for most users

Affinity Mapping

  1. Write each observation on a virtual sticky (Figma, FigJam, or Miro)
  2. Group stickies by similarity without pre-defined categories
  3. Name each group with a theme label
  4. Rank themes by frequency and severity
  5. Map themes to design recommendations

Report Template

# Usability Test Report: [Feature/Product Name]

## Executive Summary
- [2-3 sentence overview of findings]
- [Key metric: e.g., "Task success rate was 65%, below the 80% target"]

## Methodology
- Participants: [N], recruited via [source]
- Method: [Moderated remote / Unmoderated / etc.]
- Date: [Range]
- Tasks: [Count]

## Key Findings

### Finding 1: [Theme Name]
- Severity: [Critical / Major / Minor / Cosmetic]
- Frequency: [X of Y participants]
- Evidence: [Quote or observation]
- Recommendation: [Specific design change]

### Finding 2: ...

## Metrics Summary
| Task | Success Rate | Median Time | Error Rate | SEQ |
|------|-------------|-------------|------------|-----|
| T-001 | 80% | 45s | 0.4 | 5.2 |
| T-002 | 60% | 120s | 1.8 | 3.1 |

## SUS Score: [XX] ([Adjective rating])

## Recommendations (Prioritized)
1. [Critical fix] -- Expected impact: [metric improvement]
2. [Major improvement] -- Expected impact: [metric improvement]
3. [Minor enhancement] -- Expected impact: [metric improvement]

## Appendix
- Task scenarios
- Screener questionnaire
- Raw data tables

Integration with Memoire Research Pipeline

Data Flow

Usability test data (Excel/CSV/Stickies)
  --> memi research from-file <data>
  --> memi research synthesize
  --> memi research report
  --> Dashboard / Figma stickies

Supported Input Formats

FormatCommandNotes
Excel spreadsheetmemi research from-file results.xlsxRainbow spreadsheet format
CSV exportmemi research from-file results.csvFrom Maze, UserTesting
Figma stickiesmemi research from-stickiesAffinity map in FigJam
Manual notesmemi research from-file notes.mdMarkdown observation log

Synthesis Pipeline

  1. Import: Parse raw data into structured observations
  2. Classify: Tag each observation by severity, task, and theme
  3. Cluster: Group observations into findings using affinity analysis
  4. Quantify: Calculate metrics (success rate, error rate, SUS)
  5. Prioritize: Rank findings by severity * frequency
  6. Report: Generate markdown report and dashboard components

Remote Testing Tools and Setup

Tool Comparison

ToolModeratedUnmoderatedPrototype TestingAnalyticsPrice Tier
UserTestingYesYesYesAdvancedEnterprise
MazeNoYesYes (Figma)GoodMid
LookbackYesYesLimitedBasicMid
HotjarNoSurveys onlyNoHeatmapsLow
Lyssna (UsabilityHub)NoYesFirst-click, preferenceBasicLow

Remote Session Checklist

  • Confirm participant has stable internet and a quiet environment
  • Test screen-sharing and recording before the session
  • Share prototype link (not the Figma editor link)
  • Disable notifications on facilitator and participant machines
  • Have a backup communication channel (phone number)
  • Record both screen and audio; get consent before starting
  • Prepare a post-session backup plan if technology fails

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.