12 usability testing methods you can use in your research

Ideal user experiences don’t just happen. They’re a result of excellent human-centred design. Creating these experiences relies on deep and varied user research, breaking down the steps of a user journey and evaluating the functionality at each touchpoint. 

The goal here is to get inside the minds of your users, travel with them through the experiences you want to present and create a truly user-centric journey. This means you need to gather insights from real users and develop every stage based on these insights. This article will break down some of the most important and useful methods of determining the pleasure and pain points a user encounters while interacting with your product. 

12 usability testing methods explained

1) Concept testing

Before you even begin designing a product or page, it’s vital to test the concept it’s based on. This gives insights into potential appeal, feasibility and success before you’ve spent money on the build phase. You want to make sure your idea is useful, before it is usable.

Concept testing is typically a moderated process that uses low-fidelity prototypes such as wireframes, sketches, or simple models. It focuses on assessing the usefulness of the concept before refining usability. While higher-fidelity prototypes can be used, concept tests often rely on abstraction and may require a moderator to provide context and guide discussions.

It can be conducted in-person or remotely, depending on the available resources and participants. The aim is for your concept to align with user needs and expectations, helping to validate or refine assumptions before development begins.

Pros: Gain insight and refine concepts before you start to build.

Cons: Relies on the vision, imagination and analytical ability of users and the facilitator’s ability to paint a clear picture of the vision. Especially for very innovative products that try to disrupt the status quo, it can be hard to bring this vision to life using simplified supporting materials. 

2) In-person usability testing

This is the classic approach where users are brought into a controlled setting to interact with your product. A researcher observes the user's actions and asks questions to gain insights.

Pros: Rich, detailed data can be gathered through observation and direct questioning.

Cons: Can be expensive and time-consuming, and the lab environment might not reflect real-world usage.   

3) Remote usability testing

Effective remote work has been a fact of life for some time so of course remote usability testing has become increasingly popular. Users participate in tests from their own homes or offices and can either do so alone or over a video link with a researcher/moderator.

Pros: Cost-effective, reaches a wider audience, and can be conducted quickly.   

Cons: Lack of control over the testing environment, and potential technical difficulties.   

4) Moderated usability testing

In moderated testing, a researcher guides the user through the test, asking questions and providing instructions. This is a thorough method that allows for variation in direction, contextual follow-up questions, and a deeper data set to work with.

While moderated testing may seem to require more expertise due to the risk of bias—such as leading questions or unintentional interference—it doesn’t inherently demand more experience than other methods. 

Unmoderated testing, often perceived as easier, actually relies heavily on well-structured tasks, clear instructions, and proper setup. If these elements are poorly designed, results can be misleading, and the bias may go unnoticed, as there is no moderator to course-correct.

Pros: Allows for real-time feedback and clarification and can be adapted based on user behaviour.   

Cons: Requires experienced researchers and can be time-consuming.  

5) Unmoderated usability testing

In unmoderated testing, users complete tasks independently without a researcher present. They work through the questions given in their own time and usually remotely. This is best done with a video recording of both the user and their screen as they complete the tasks.

One key advantage is that unmoderated testing is time-efficient, as multiple participants can take part simultaneously. Unlike moderated methods, where the researcher is a limiting factor, unmoderated testing allows for a larger volume of responses without increasing research time proportionally.

Pros: Cost-effective, can reach a large number of participants. 

Cons: Less control over the testing process, and it can be difficult to gather in-depth insights. 

6) Card sorting

Card sorting is a technique used to understand how people categorize information. Participants are given cards with items or features and asked to group them based on similarity.   Card sorting is a great way to ensure your information architecture works for your target user group and meets their expectations. Card sorting can be moderated or unmoderated, depending on budgets and participant availability. 

Pros: Helps to inform information architecture and navigation.   

Cons: Can be time-consuming to analyze results.   

7) Tree testing

Similar to card sorting, tree testing evaluates how easy it is for a user to find the information they need within a hierarchical structure. Participants are given tasks and must find the correct information within a simulated website or app. Good systems allow users to reach the information or item they need in as few clicks as possible, so follow direct and intuitive paths from general to specific. 

Pros: Helps to optimize information architecture and navigation.

Cons: Can be challenging to set up and analyze.

8) A/B testing

A/B testing compares two versions of a design to determine which performs better. It’s often used to optimize website elements like buttons, headlines, or images. It’s best deployed when a design process is fairly well advanced and it’s a question of optimisation rather than design overhaul. 

A/B testing can seem straightforward, but it often requires technical expertise to build the test versions and data expertise to set up tracking and analyse the results. Additionally, gathering statistically significant results can take time, depending on traffic volume and the level of difference between variations.

Pros: Provides quantitative data on performance.

Cons: Can require longer periods of time to get significant results and may need technical and data expertise to implement effectively.

9) Guerilla testing

A less formal approach, guerrilla testing involves testing your product with random people in public places. The researcher approaches potential users in a coffee shop, shopping mall or other public space and asks them to complete a short usability test, usually in exchange for a small gift or incentive. It’s a quick-and-dirty way to gather large quantities of data in a relatively short time but the randomness of the sample users can work against it.

Pros: Quick and inexpensive way to gather feedback.

Cons: Data can be inconsistent and less reliable.

10) Usability audit

This method involves usability experts evaluating a product or design. They use their experience and established usability principles to assess against heuristic evaluation criteria. By bringing in experts, you ensure your design is based on solid theoretical and practical methods.

Usability audits can be conducted on the default version of a product to uncover existing issues before making improvements. They are also valuable after a major design iteration, but it’s recommended to follow up with usability testing to validate changes with primary data and ensure the improvements align with user needs.

Pros: Can identify major usability issues quickly.

Cons: Doesn't provide insights into user behavior.

11) Eye tracking

This form of testing relies on setting up specialist eye-tracking hardware and software to watch a user’s eyes while they interact with your product. It shows how the design draws a user’s attention and lets you understand issues like information hierarchy on a page, placement of calls to action and other key design considerations.

Because eye tracking is a highly technical and specialized method, most teams work with external providers who offer the necessary expertise and tools. Companies such as RealEye specialize in remote eye-tracking studies, and there are other providers offering advanced solutions for in-depth analysis. Partnering with these services can make eye-tracking research more accessible while ensuring high-quality results.

Pros: Can give you great insight into what captures people’s attention, even subconsciously. 

Cons: Requires accurate eye-tracking tools or the exercise is not worthwhile. It also produces a very large amount of data so collating and analyzing it may take some time.

12) 5-second test

This one is all about first impressions. You show a user a representative page to see whether they can quickly grasp its purpose or intention. As the name implies, the researcher shows a user the page for five seconds then follows up with short and direct questions based around initial impressions. 

Pros: Quick and simple testing for new products or pages which can easily weed out oversights in design.

Cons: Questions need to be designed and delivered well and, of course, you only get one shot at a first impression.

Test, learn, and repeat for better UX

There’s no one-size-fits-all approach to user testing. Some methods give detailed insights, others provide quick feedback, but they all help you make better design decisions. The trick is knowing when to use which. Pick the right method for the job, keep things practical, and let real user insights do the heavy lifting.