I've been involved with user-centered design for more than 20 years, and I am convinced there is no better way to get feedback on the design and development process than sitting and watching a customer use (or try to use) an application. The traditional usability lab test - where users (or respondents resembling your users) go through a series of tasks - is hard to beat for unearthing issues and attitudes about a software application, a website, or a new device. Usability testing helps a design or development team (or managers or senior executives) adjust their thinking about a feature, specific prompts or language, or an interaction that may be confusing to users.

Remote Usability Not for Everyone

Remote usability testing - where users are shown a site or application through a Web-based conferencing system, and/or interviewed by phone - is often used in place of in-person usability testing. But remote testing can be very frustrating. I've yet to observe a round of remote research that didn't have some major issue: either a respondent had a hard time signing in or accessing the system, or someone was unable to download a plug-in, or the recording software itself had problems. It's just not the same as being there.

On the other hand, in-person usability testing can be expensive, especially if you want to conduct it on an ongoing basis to aid your development effort. By the time you hire a research firm to a) recruit users, b) provide cash incentives, c) set up at the lab, d) design the moderator guide, e) conduct the research, and f) analyze and present findings, you have generally run up a bill of $1,200 to $2,000 per user, depending on the market and difficulty of the recruit. With eight to 10 users needed per round of testing, and multiple rounds needed to prove out the viability of an application, budget-minded managers may choose to forgo the entire process.

Testing on Your Own Premises

But hang on. There are ways to keep the costs down with in-person usability research, and still reap all its rich benefits. The biggest cost saver is probably conducting research on your own premises.

When we do onsite testing for clients, we usually set up in a conference room. I call this setup our "mobile lab." The respondent will be on one side of the room, with his or her back to (a small number of) observers. (See Fig. 1.)

For far less money than testing at an outside facility, an in-house (mobile) lab offers the same quality input to a design and development team. So in one fell swoop you have:

• High-quality feedback
• Low cost
• Convenience
• Mobility (you can take this setup to your users, if you want to)

Advances in Recording Technologies

To get the most out of usability research, test sessions should be recorded. The most popular and useful form of recording is "picture-in-picture," which shows a small image of the respondent, and a large image of what he or she is doing on the screen. Not long ago, picture-in-picture was an expensive proposition, requiring some fancy equipment and/or crew.

Now, with digital recording technology, all you need to capture picture-in-picture of a usability session is:

• Windows computer with 2 GB of memory
• Webcam
• Usability software such as TechSmith Morae

I couldn't recommend setting up an in-house lab without TechSmith's Morae 3 (www.techsmith.com/morae.asp). This Windows application captures picture-in-picture of respondents as well as what they do on the screen, using what they call a Rich Recording Technology, which allows you to annotate a compressed video file.

The application consists of three modules: Recorder (which does the work of recording,) Manager (which allows you to analyze the results and export the video files), and Observer (which allows multiple observers to make notes during the research on the same file).

What I like about Morae is its robustness and dependability: it captures sessions without fail. For Mac shops, it can also run on a virtual Windows machine. The current version (3) also now allows two-camera or dual-monitor recording, as well as the option to have a fully automatic (unmoderated) test mode, and a range of on-screen survey options.

I recommend dedicating a workstation to Morae so you don't have to worry about potential memory conflicts with other software applications.

Some Notes on Process

Usability research generally involves more than simply recording your respondents in front of your application. You also have to get them there.

The steps in the usability test process include:

1. Planning the test

2. Screening and recruiting respondents

3. Designing a Moderator Guide

4. Conducting and recording the test

5. Analyzing the results

6. Presenting the findings

Software like Morae can help with steps 4, 5, and 6. But what about recruiting users? How do you get users to your test session?

Traditionally, recruiting is done either from a list (a database of users or prospective users who match your user profile), from an ad, or from a pop-up questionnaire on a website. All forms of recruiting generally necessitate the use of a screener - questions that weed out some respondents so you get the demographics you want (i.e., just 35- to 40-year-old women who use digital cameras and have more than one child, for example).

Fortunately, even this step has a software tool to help you. I've recently discovered a Web-recruiting tool called Ethnio (www.ethnio.com). This ingenious Web-based tool, which is offered free to most users (advertisers are excluded) allows you to screen users and recruit directly from your website. Ethnio's creators are, of course, ready, willing, and able to help out should you need more assistance in any of the above areas. Regardless of how you get respondents to your location, you generally need to provide them with some form of compensation or incentive. It's much easier to get people to show up at your test sessions if you're handing them cash ($50 to $150, depending on market, location, and length of the test) for participating. Usability testing used to be an expensive proposition requiring considerable hands-on expertise and extensive equipment to get feedback to a design and development team. Now, with tools like Morae 3 and Ethnio, you can set up an in-house usability lab for less than what one round of testing used to cost. You can always outsource this process if you want to; but now the capability to incorporate this important step into your development process has gotten a whole lot easier.

Meryl Enerson is founder and principal of Enervision Media, which focuses on user-centered research and design. She has designed consumer, B2B, and enterprise applications for a wide range of platforms and technologies. Learn more about Meryl and Enervision at www.enervisionmedia.com.