USER RESEARCH

July 2016 - February 2019

 

Before moving to Montréal in 2019, I worked as a UX Researcher and Designer at Institutos Lactec in Curitiba, Brazil. I worked primarily with one large multinational appliances company conducting varied research methods.

Although I can’t share specifics of the work, as it is confidential, I will share here the PROCESS we usually followed in these projects, the METHODS we used to answer the client’s questions, and two CASE STUDIES exemplifying a couple of those methods. I am open to discussing these and other projects more in depth.

THE Process

(the experience of the teams allowed us to overlap steps whenever possible to make the process more efficient)

  • Brief: the client (usually the design department of the company) would send us a research brief that consisted in a PDF file explaining and documenting: the product, the users, the team questions, the objective, the budget and the timeline.

  • Questions: we asked all the questions we had about the brief through emails or phone calls and, when the project was bigger or more complex, we would set up a meeting with the designers involved in the project to get a better understanding.

  • Method: we would decide, with the client, the best method to apply to answer the questions they were looking for. With an experienced team, both in the design and research sides, the choice of method was often clear and decided before the brief was created.

  • Research protocols: we created the documents necessary to conduct the study. In tests involving participants (usability tests, field research, lean UX tests etc), they would consist of a script for the moderator (with tasks and scenarios for the participant to interact with the product, as well as interview questions), a spreadsheet for the observer, background questionnaires, consent form, satisfaction questionnaires, and any other document relevant to each study.

  • Lab setup: the lab was modified to fit the needs of each product, making sure the cameras were well positioned to capture both the use of the product and the expression of the participants.

  • (The participants’ recruitment and sessions scheduling were done through a specialized company)

  • Pilot test: we always ran a pilot session at least one day before the test, to make sure the script was covering everything we needed, the product was working well, and everything else was according to our expectations to start the test.

  • Pre-session: the moderator met the participant outside the lab to explain the study, make the participant feel comfortable and assure them that it was not them, but the product, what was being tested.

  • Sessions: each session lasted from 20-30 minutes (in lean UX tests) to 1-2 hours, in field research they could last even longer if the participant had to cook something. In the lab, the moderator would ask the participant to complete a set of tasks using the product, always investigating deeply what was happening, and then would ask them to complete a satisfaction questionnaire and answer a few interview questions. The design team was invited to watch the sessions through a live stream and a two-way mirror.

  • Analysis: after taking notes of the behavior and the verbalizations of the participants, the observer would organize the document and group the problematic behaviors in usability issues. Using a method created on-site to determine the severity of the problems encountered. The other data, such as the questionnaires, was also compiled at the same time.

  • Report: the team created a report in the format of PowerPoint file that included the answers to all the design questions and also any other information needed by the design team to move forward. The report included images of the sessions and any graphical element that could help communicate the information.

  • Presentation: the report was presented in person to the design team so they could ask any questions and discuss elements of it with the whole team together. Videos exemplifying the usability issues were also presented so they could visualize the issue if they weren’t able to watch the sessions.

METHODS

Without participants:

  • Heuristic evaluation - using Nielsen’s heuristics¹ as well as Bastien & Scapin’s ergonomic criteria² to analyze the interface. This method was requested very often as it is a cheaper and faster method that can help improve the interface before moving to a full usability test.

  • Ergonomic evaluation - the products were analyzed ergonomically, using tools that simulate both ends of the percentile defined in the brief.

With participants:

  • Usability test - both in the lab and in the field, in which we would conduct the test in the participants' houses to include the context of use.

  • Lean UX test - a lab test with the goal of analyzing one specific aspect of the product. It could be usability of a button, the interaction model, the perception of a feature, anything as long as it can be analyzed in less than 30-minute sessions. All the sessions happen in one morning and the design/engineering/marketing team are the observers. In the afternoon, everyone meet and discuss the results, facilitated by the user researcher who moderated the sessions.

  • Ergonomic test - the products were analyzed ergonomically, with participants from both ends of the percentile defined in the brief.

  • Field User Research - in this study, the goal was to understand how the participants used one specific product in their daily lives. So, for example, the participants would have different brands and types of refrigerators and the researchers aimed to understand how they store the food, how they buy food for the refrigerator, and anything related to the use of the refrigerator. This type of research was used to inform future products of the company.


¹Nielsen, J. (1994a). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. Proc. ACM CHI'94 Conf.(Boston, MA, April 24-28), 152-158.

²J.M. Christian Bastien, Dominique L. Scapin. Ergonomic criteria for the evaluation of human-computer interfaces. RT-0156, INRIA. 1993, pp.79.

CASE STUDIES

FIELD USER RESEARCH FOR A NEW REFRIGERATOR

Participants: 10 in Curitiba, 9 in Sao Paulo

Sample recruited based on three lifestages: young couples without children, families with at least 1 small child, older couple with grandchildren.

The goals were to understand how users organize their refrigerator, to map the place where the food is stored and to relate the refrigerator organization to the participant’s lifestage.

Methodology:

Two visits with diary studies to investigate both primary and secondary users.

In the first visit, the participants were taken to the supermarket to shop for groceries so we could understand the entire context of the refrigerator appropriation.

Before moving to the visits in Sao Paulo, the script was adapted to gather as much qualitative information as possible.

Impact:

This study resulted in a long detailed document with enough data to inspire and inform the designers in the upcoming refrigerators projects.

LEAN UX TEST FOR A WATER PURIFIER

The goal was to investigate the perception of the user when using a water purifier with ice maker.

The Lean UX test happens in only one day, and, at the end of the day, the design or engineering team has the results.

Methodology:

Six participants, 30 minutes each, all in one morning.

The design and engineering team observed and took notes during all the sessions.

After lunch, as the moderator of the test, I facilitated the discussion and helped the design team share their notes and discuss the painpoints observed.

Impact:

This study showed the design and engineering teams that, although the product was usable, some aspects were very negatively viewed by the users, such as its performance, size and price range (which was informed to the participants in the end of the session). For those reasons, this project was archived until the issues could be resolved.