We sometimes have clients come to us who want a rich, descriptive understanding of their users’ behaviour and motivations, whilst at the same time expecting statistics and hard figures to go with this. If time and budget had no limits this could most definitely be achieved. However, we often find ourselves giving clients a mini rundown of the limitations and benefits of each approach so they are in the best position to understand our proposed solution.

The Pros:

The Cons:

Understanding the why’s and the process of something is essentially what qualitative research can unveil, however if it is numbers and statistics that you are after then quantitative is the best approach to take. It would not make sense to run a series of in-depth interviews with a focus on user needs and then use this information to say 66% of users want X and 25% of users don’t need Y. It simply does not make sense. What you can do is provide a summary of the users’ mental model, the process they take when approaching a task and the information they need to support this. Or map out the customer journey that highlights user needs during each stage.

While it is generally agreed that each approach is distinct and has unique properties, they are often used to complement each other. For example, when a quantitative analysis identifies that the customer conversion rate has dropped 30% in a re-designed website, it often uses qualitative research (i.e. moderated user testing) to understand why. Similarly, when a quantitative survey is delivered, the questions it asks have most likely been informed from qualitative research preceding it (i.e. depth interviews).

While there is much debate around which is the better research technique and why, what isn’t attested is that the most accurate results occur when a triangulated approach is taken – that is, when they are used together.

We recently conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews on behalf of a Client who was looking to break in to a very well established segment.  Findings from our work indicated that there was a a high reliance on search in the segment – as a result, traffic in the segment is predominantly driven towards one existing and very well SEO’d website.  Interestingly, however, was that the site’s brand recognition was extremely low.  By name, users were not able to identify the site, yet were able to instantly identify the site on viewing one of its listings pages.

Naturally, implementing a thorough SEO strategy was one of our top recommendations coming out of the project.  But that wasn’t the most important outcome of the study.

There was a more nefarious impact of the users’ habits.  Due to the large proportion of traffic being dominated by this one site, its characteristics tended to dominate when we explored what participants were looking for in a website for this category.

So, is this a bad thing?  Well, not necessarily.  On the one hand, we were able to very clearly identify those features which support task fulfilment in the segment.  But on the other hand, users tended to gravitate to that particular site’s visual design in describing their preferences.  When we probed further on the issue, it became clear to us that these preferences were the result of familiarity only.

UsabilityOne doesn’t ascribe to the school of ‘design by rote’.  Having a site with a visual appeal that is exactly the same as your competitors’ sites may help drive acceptance in the short term, but without a unique positioning, there is little to drive repeat visitation or brand recognition.  And in the case of this particular segment, we feel the market dominance of the existing site is clearly at risk, when it could easily be toppled by a similarly designed site with a better SEO strategy.

We spent a lot of time analysing the data from our fieldwork, and were able to provide our Client with a clear picture of the users’ needs, which they’ve used to drive their design approach to producing a site that will be clearly focused on user task fulfilment, while also being unique in its design approach.  Lesson learned here:  Your (potential) customers only know what they know – beware of taking their feedback too literally, or risk creating plenty of bland ‘me-too’ websites that lack stickiness.

It will come as no surprise to  you that a recent article from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8562801.stm) noted Facebook is the 5th most visited website in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Brazil, US and Australia. Twitter comes in at 24th, closely followed by Skype at 25th.

Organisations have been quick to explore ways the can increase the reach and speed by which they communicate with their target audience through the use of social networks.

In focus groups and one-on-one interviews, more often than not we observe users rejecting attempts from organisations to infiltrate social networks. In order to sign up to a Facebook group, encourage their friends to do so, follow someone on Twitter or read a blog, users need to feel some level of affinity or relevance. While users may have a pre-existing off-line relationship with an organisation, it does not necessarily follow suit that they will want to see this relationship extended to their social network. For example, if I am an avid bicycle rider I may want to link with a local bicycle riders association and a particular brand of bike that I really identify with, and let others know about this. However, I am less likely to identify with my insurance company, an organisation I only have a relationship with out of necessity.

In our experience, those organisations which put serious thought into how they might make themselves relevant to their target audience in the context of a social network, reap the benefits.

A common misconception about Usability and research, is that focus groups are essentially design by committee. Focus groups are commonly used by usability practitioners to understand user needs and requirements of an interface.  While they are about obtaining a variety of users’ opinions (potentially conflicting) and feedback we would argue that the feedback is not ‘design by committee’.

Design by committee is a term generally used to describe a process in which the design is compromised by attempting to meet all needs and in effect, meeting none.  In a web context, this may mean that in an attempt to appeal to many, the homepage becomes ineffective due to a lack of clarity and/or focus.

While it is possible for the outcomes from focus group research to become design by committee, it is the skill of a trained Usability practitioner that ensures this does not happen.  A truly effective focus group asks appropriate questions which aid in understanding users and their underlying needs. Often it is about understanding user behavior, rather than asking direct questions about what people like and dislike.  For example, by asking users about the process of buying a new home it was possible for us to identify that maps were of the utmost importance and that people were motivated by attempting to emulate their own childhood neighborhoods.

When run properly, focus groups are an ideal means of eliciting user feedback to ensure that designs do meet both the user and business needs.