Usability Testing Without Borders

So remote usability testing is pretty cool.

Instead of sitting next to users in a lab and observing how they use websites, remote testing allows us to run the same one-on-one sessions with users anywhere in the world.

The idea that you can get an intimate look at how people use websites in the actual places they use them is a pretty incredible thing that wasn’t possible just a few years ago.

There are multiple advantages to running remote usability testing vs. in-person:

You can cast a wider recruitment net.
Instead of being restricted to a particular geographic area, testing candidates can be sourced from anywhere in the world.

No lab rental or travel required.

Usability testing facilities are expensive to rent and require both moderators and candidates to be physically present at a single location. Further, users are more likely to suffer less from the feeling of being watched (the “moderator effect”) when they are in their natural environment.

You can move faster.

Usability testing can now be conducted in a matter of days instead of weeks. Without facilities to reserve, travel schedules to sync, and by using a larger recruitment pool, remote testing can happen much quicker.

So does that mean in-person testing is dead?

Maybe, but it’s important to understand that remote usability testing comes with its own unique set of challenges:

Bad connectivity can cause big problems.

Internet connectivity is probably the single biggest “wildcard” in remote testing. There WILL be connectivity issues given all the variables — bandwidth, network conditions, device and operating system compatibility, etc. Be ready to adapt and make the best of the situation to get the feedback you need.

The platforms aren’t yet perfect.

Due to the relatively immature state of remote usability testing platforms, bugs and unexpected software problems are common. Platforms such as Lookback and FocusVision are still considered “first generation” and often have unforeseen technical issues.

There’s nothing quite like “being there.”

Moderating usability testing sessions in-person requires patience as well as excellent listening and communication skills. The need for these skills is more pronounced with remote testing due to the amount of technical factors that can create challenges during the session.

In all, remote usability testing should be considered a viable preference when planning research. As the software platforms evolve and connectivity disruptions become less frequent, we believe in-person testing just might become a thing of the past.

Do you agree that in-person usability testing will fade into obscurity? Are there any situations you can think of where remote usability testing wouldn’t fit the bill?

We’d love to get your take in the comments!