Skip to main content

Usability Testing with UserVue: A mixed bag

Every developer loves to test, right? Well, ok, maybe some more than others. But when you're introducing a new product or trying out a new user interface, it's always valuable to get user feedback and see how it all works out.

Now, Microsoft and other larger companies have "usability labs", big rooms with two-way mirrors and video recorders, but this is usually out of the realm of possibility for most companies. TechSmith, makers of Camtasia, Snagit had introduced Morae a few years back which was a desktop-tool that made it easy. They now have introduced a new tool named UserVue, that offers remote user testing.

I did up a quick screencast on how it works. It's very cool, intuitive and very non-intrusive.

There's no question it's a valuable tool - but I do have some issues with it:

1. Markers are for Morae use only. I've told Techsmith about this and I will continue to harp on it. Without making markers available to the user directly from the web interface without having to use Morae, UserVue ends up being a very useful and usable but very expensive screen recorder.

2. The price. $149/month prices UserVue out of the market for many smaller companies to use it on a regular basis.

How often should you test your application's usability? Well, some would say do it during the design or testing phase and then close it off. If that's your approach then the $149 is definitely well worth it - but it does mean that you have to plan on when you do your testing. At that price, you might be better off considering free recording tools such as GoToMeeting which lets you record your sessions, albeit without the "usability testing" feel to it. But GoTo is only about $49/month.

I've used both - UserVue will get better, of that I'm sure but I also know that right now, a company needs to invest in Morae to get the full value out of it. If you aren't doing usability testing, and are building applications, it's something you need to consider. If you are, and need to find a tool that makes it easy to record "test" sessions remotely, UserVue is great - a bit expensive, but very useful.

My suggestion to TechSmith is to offer a hosted version of Morae with the $149/month or build a series of reports based on the output markers from each session. Then the $149/month UserVue becomes an even more indispensable tool for usability testing.

Without it, you're not really offering anything that's not already available for less than $149/month.

This post may sound negative but it's not - I really like UserVue and it's got huge potential. I just want to make sure that potential gets realized!

If you are doing usability testing with your applications, what tools are you using?

Comments

Anonymous said…
hey andrew, we'll have to get you a trial for ethnio so you can compare. it's also a complete remote user research app.

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...

Friend vs Therapist vs LLM: Shades of Grey

The conversations with AI series brings up a single point and then compares it between different LLM engines. These types of conversations were one of the many contributing factors to my writing of " Towards Consciousness " that explores the benefits and issues of creating a conscious AI. In this scenario, I was interested in seeing how an LLM might differ from a friend or therapist on issues that may have nuanced responses or contexts. In doing so, I came up with an interesting discussion on shades of grey. My Premise: Is it a bit strange to be using an LLM as a sober second thought? Every time I walk down this path of “why use an LLM to do certain things”, I come back to the alternatives that people like to say. “Why not bring it up with a friend?” A friend typically has your back or will say whatever to support their own agenda. “A therapist?” That’s someone who is “trained” to be impartial. But a computer? A computer is impartial based on two logical outcomes. If you say ...