Usability Testing That Finds the Friction Before Your Conversion Rate Does

Analytics show where users drop off. They do not show why. The user who abandoned checkout may have been confused by the shipping calculator, unable to find the promo code field, or frustrated by a form that cleared itself on a validation error. SIS International runs moderated task-based usability studies, eye-tracking research, and accessibility audits with recruited users who match your target customer profile. The output is a prioritized fix list with severity ratings, not a heatmap with no explanation.

Usability testing: moderated task-based study with eye-tracking for e-commerce checkout optimization

Moderated Task-Based Usability Studies

SIS recruits 8-15 participants per round who match your target user profile by demographics, technical proficiency, and product familiarity. Each session follows a structured task protocol: participants complete specific workflows while thinking aloud, and a trained moderator probes on confusion points, workarounds, and abandonment triggers. Jakob Nielsen’s research at Nielsen Norman Group established that 5 users uncover 85% of usability issues. SIS typically runs 8-12 per round because the additional participants surface severity patterns that small samples miss, distinguishing a one-off confusion from a systemic design failure.

Eye-Tracking and Attention Mapping

SIS uses Tobii eye-tracking hardware to measure fixation duration, saccade patterns, and first-fixation time on critical interface elements. The research answers specific questions: Does the user see the primary CTA? How long do they spend reading the pricing table? Where do their eyes go when the page first loads? A financial services client discovered through SIS eye-tracking that users spent 4.2 seconds scanning their mortgage rate comparison table but never fixated on the “Apply Now” button because it was positioned below the scroll fold on a 1366×768 viewport. The button was relocated. Conversion increased within the first two-week measurement window.

Mobile and Responsive UX Evaluation

Mobile usability testing requires device-specific protocols. SIS tests on actual handsets, not browser emulators, because touch target accuracy, scroll behavior, and thumb-zone reachability differ between physical devices and simulated environments. We evaluate navigation hierarchy, form input friction, load-time tolerance, and gesture conflicts. A retail e-commerce client found through SIS mobile testing that their filter panel overlay on iOS devices intercepted the swipe-back gesture, trapping users in the filter state. The analytics showed high exit rates on category pages. The usability study showed why.

Accessibility Audits and WCAG Compliance

SIS conducts WCAG 2.1 AA and AAA compliance audits combining automated scanning with manual testing by users who rely on assistive technologies. Automated tools like axe-core and WAVE catch code-level violations: missing alt text, insufficient color contrast ratios, and improper ARIA labels. But automated scans miss interaction-level failures: screen reader navigation traps, keyboard focus order issues, and form error messages that are not announced. SIS recruits screen reader users, keyboard-only navigators, and users with motor impairments to test the actual assistive technology experience, not just the code compliance.

Prototype and Wireframe Validation

SIS tests clickable prototypes built in Figma, Sketch, or InVision before development begins. Early-stage usability testing costs a fraction of post-launch remediation. We run task-completion studies on wireframes and interactive prototypes to validate information architecture, navigation logic, and workflow sequencing before the engineering team writes code. Google’s design sprint methodology advocates testing prototypes on Day 5 for exactly this reason. SIS extends that principle into formal usability research with recruited external users who have no familiarity with the product, eliminating the internal knowledge bias that design sprints with colleagues cannot avoid.

Cross-Cultural and International UX Research

Interface patterns that work in the US fail in Japan, Germany, and the Middle East for reasons that have nothing to do with translation. Japanese users expect information-dense layouts that US users find overwhelming. German users prioritize data privacy disclosures that US users skip. Arabic-language interfaces require RTL layout adaptation that breaks navigation patterns designed for LTR reading. SIS conducts in-market usability studies with local users in their native language and cultural context. Airbnb and Uber both invested in cross-cultural UX research after discovering that localization is not translation.

UX RESEARCH INTELLIGENCE

Three Testing Gaps That Turn Fixable Problems into Post-Launch Redesigns

DIAGNOSIS 01 //

ANALYTICS WITHOUT BEHAVIORAL EXPLANATION

The Heatmap Interpretation Problem

The analytics dashboard shows a 68% drop-off rate on the checkout page. The heatmap shows clicks concentrated on the shipping section. The product team assumes users want more shipping options and adds three new delivery tiers. Drop-off stays the same. SIS moderated testing with 10 users reveals the actual cause: the zip code field throws a validation error that clears the entire form, forcing users to re-enter all fields. The friction was in the form behavior, not the shipping options. Analytics measures where users fail. Usability testing explains why.

DIAGNOSIS 02 //

INTERNAL TESTING WITH PRODUCT-FAMILIAR USERS

The Colleague Test Illusion

The design team ran the prototype past 6 colleagues and the VP of Product. Everyone completed the tasks. The product launched. New users could not find the settings menu, misidentified the primary CTA, and abandoned onboarding at Step 3. Internal testers carry product knowledge that external users do not have. They know the navigation logic because they designed it. SIS recruits participants who have never seen the product, screening by the same demographics and technical proficiency as the target user. The test measures learnability, not recall.

DIAGNOSIS 03 //

AUTOMATED ACCESSIBILITY SCANS WITHOUT USER TESTING

The WCAG Checkbox Trap

The development team ran axe-core, fixed the flagged violations, and declared the product WCAG 2.1 AA compliant. A blind user testing the same product with JAWS screen reader could not complete the checkout flow because the modal dialog trapped keyboard focus and the close button was not reachable via Tab navigation. Automated scanning catches code violations. It does not catch interaction-level failures that only surface when a real assistive technology user attempts the workflow. The DOJ’s increased ADA enforcement against digital properties has made the distinction between code compliance and actual usability legally significant.

PRIMARY RESEARCH DELIVERABLES

What SIS Delivers to Product, Design, and Engineering Teams

Task-Based Usability Reports with Severity Ratings

8-12 moderated sessions per round with recruited external users. Each finding is classified by severity (critical, major, minor, cosmetic) and mapped to the specific task and screen where it occurred. The deliverable is a prioritized fix list engineering teams can enter directly into their sprint backlog, not a PDF of observations.

Eye-Tracking Studies with Fixation and Attention Analysis

Tobii-based eye-tracking measuring first fixation time, fixation duration, and gaze path on critical interface elements. Heatmaps, gaze plots, and areas of interest (AOI) analysis with statistical comparison across design variants. The output tells the design team exactly what users see, what they miss, and where visual hierarchy fails.

WCAG Compliance Audit with Assistive Technology User Testing

Automated scanning (axe-core, WAVE) combined with manual testing by screen reader users, keyboard-only navigators, and users with motor impairments. Each finding maps to the specific WCAG 2.1 success criterion violated and includes a remediation recommendation. The deliverable satisfies both legal compliance review and actual assistive technology usability.

Pre-Development Prototype Validation

Task-completion studies on Figma, Sketch, or InVision prototypes with recruited external users before engineering begins. We validate information architecture, navigation logic, and workflow sequencing. Each round identifies design failures that cost hours to fix in a prototype and weeks to fix in production code.

THE SIS DIFFERENCE

당사가 제공하는 서비스는 다음과 같습니다.