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.
Six Research Lanes for Product and UX Teams
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.
Three Testing Gaps That Turn Fixable Problems into Post-Launch Redesigns
What SIS Delivers to Product, Design, and Engineering Teams
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.
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.
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.
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
Our service offerings include:
Recommended
Consumer Product Testing in New York
Cosmetic Product Testing in New York
Cosmetics Market Research
Medical Device Product Testing in NYC
New Product Concept Testing Methods
New Product Focus Group in New York
New Product Testing in New York
Product Launch Research in New York
Product Sensory Testing
Product Sensory Testing in Market Research
Product Testing for Companies
Product Testing for Consumer Products
Product Testing Services
Product Testing Services in New York
Retail Product Testing in New York
Retail Product Testing in NYC
Sensory Evaluation Services in New York
Sensory Product Testing in New York
Sensory Testing Research
The Advantage of Product Testing in New York Over LA
The Advantage of Retail Product Testing in NYC over LA
Usability testing Company
EN 
AR 
ZH 
ZH_HK 
NL 
FR 
DE 
IT 
JA 
KO 
PL 
PT 
ES