Caveats, caveats, caveats
Summary: The answer is 5, except when it's not.
Most arguments for using more test participants
are wrong, but some tests should be bigger and
“Testing with one
person is 100% better
than testing with none”
steve krug ~ “rocket surgery made easy” ~ tinyurl.com/oufm9ao
HOW IT WORKS:
We ask you to carry out a couple of simple tasks using a new website, and we learn if we've
designed it correctly. It will take no more than 15 minutes of your time and as a thank you we'll
give you £15 cash.
Monday 17th November // Time slots available 12-1.30pm and 2.30-4pm
Amaze, 1st Floor, Royal Liver Building
We're looking for a few people to help us test a new website.
Participants must be female and use a smartphone to browse the internet.
Email email@example.com with your current make of smartphone, and preferred testing slot.
1 day to write *
* or less if you make notes between test sessions
Hardware ≈ £55 (one-off cost)
Software ≈ £10 (one-off cost)
Recruitment ≈ £75 (per round of testing)
≈ £140 for one round of testing
And how long have you spent debating
the cost of running tests?
“But you should probably read more”
Anyone Can Usability Test, Part 1: On a Shoestring
How Many Test Users in a Usability Study?
The Art of Guerrilla Usability Testing
New to Usability Testing? You’re not alone!
User Experience Survey 2013
Econsultancy & WhatUsersDo
UX Challenge: how to choose the right approach to user research
WhatUsersDo & Ian Franklin
“Don’t make me think” & “Rocket Surgery Made Easy” and more…