We discussed fundamentals and quantitative user research in part one of this series. In this part, we are going to talk about qualitative user research. Below, you can see where we are on the road map of this series.

Qualitative user research

This kind of research focuses on the motivations and the main reasons behind an action. The qualitative data is more descriptive than numeric. This approach generally helps to make better design decisions with better usability factors. We can perform these methods at any stage of the system production cycle [10].

A. Eye-tracking

In eye-tracking, we use certain devices like cameras and special software to monitor and track where the user looks most. Like other kinds of tracking, it would make a heatmap. In heatmaps, white areas are places that the user looks at the most. And, as the user's attention drops, the color will change to red, orange, yellow, and ultimately black shades. Eye-tracking needs expensive hardware and in-person meetings, so we can not do it on a large scale to gather a lot of data. That's why it is considered a qualitative research method.

In 2006, the Nielsen-Norman group conducted an eye-tracking experiment on 232 users. Overall results indicate that users generally read the page in an F-shape pattern.

They read or scan the page horizontally. They first see the first row, which makes the top bar of the F. Then they scan downwards and start reading the new line horizontally again. It makes the lower bar of an F. Finally, they scan the rest of the page vertically.

If they do it slowly, the F-shape will be thicker. The result isn't always F-shape. If users scan a horizontal line at the bottom of a page, the heatmap shape looks more like an E. If they skip the second line, the result is similar to an upside-down L.

🕣 When to use this method?

After implementation stage, to test content visibility and placement

Eye-tracking has some pros and cons.

Pros:

1. High Accuracy: It accurately tracks the exact location in which the user has looked.
2. Open dialog: It provides an opportunity for researchers to have an open dialog with users. Users can speak to researchers about their motivations. These dialogs will keep researchers from guessing about the reasons for the results.

Cons:

1. Requires hardware to track eye movements
2. High costs: It needs hardware, and it is done in person
3. Limited scope: The number of participants is limited.
4. Not completely natural: Its biggest problem is that the presence of an observer may cause users not to operate naturally.

B. Interviews

During interviews, we ask users about several topics. Such as their habits and behaviors and how they use our system. We can conduct interviews during many stages of the project. A person or a camera is responsible for recording the session to capture all the emotions, acts, words, etc. And an interviewer is constantly controlling the conversation to prevent any deviation from the main purpose.

🕣 When to use this method?

Early stages of the design process, to gather knowledge about users

Interviews have some pros and cons.

Pros:

1. Informative and helpful
2. Captures emotions and behaviors

Cons:

1. Manual data entry
2. Time and resource consuming
3. High costs and small sample size

C. Focus groups

Focus groups are a lot like interviews. The number of users is different between them. There are 6 to 9 users in focus groups. But in interviews, there is only one user per session. In focus group sessions, participants talk about topics like user interface. The session typically lasts 2 hours. And we record the session.

🕣 When to use this method?

Early stages of the design process, to gather knowledge about users

Focus groups have some pros and cons.

Pros:

1. More time-saving than interviews
2. Faster information generation

Cons:

1. Difficulty in controlling sessions
2. Occurrence of irrelevant topics: This might cause time wate
3. Biased opinions: Participants’ opinions may be biased toward a person who talks more.
4. Limited sample size

D. Think-aloud

In think-aloud sessions, we ask participants to perform specific tasks in the system. While completing tasks, they should express their thoughts and experiences loudly. We record the session and the system screen. And we control their eye movement. [3]. Think aloud protocols are divided into two categories:

Concurrent think-aloud protocols (CTA): In this method, participants should explain their thoughts while using the system. A facilitator in the meeting always reminds them to express their thoughts. [4], [5].

Retrospective think-aloud protocols (RTA): In this method, participants silently use the system while we record their actions with a camera. Then, at the end of the session, they express their thoughts aloud while watching their tape [3].

🕣 When to use this method?

After implementation stage, to observe users behaviors and thoughts when using the system

Think aloud method has some pros and cons.

Pros:

1. Easy to learn the process for participants
2. The researcher understands many important and useful usability issues

Cons:

1. The presence of a researcher or camera makes participants uncomfortable expressing all their thoughts
2. Participants may forget some thoughts before saying them

Summary

This is the end of the second part of this three-part series. Feel free to share it with any of your friends if you think it will be helpful. Comment below if you have any questions or any suggestions for future articles.💭 You can follow and subscribe to my email listto get notified when the next helpful part is out. If you liked this article, please give it a clap.👏🏼

Stay tuned; I'll be waiting for you on the last part!😃

References

[1] J. Nielsen, F-Shaped Pattern For Reading Web Content (original study),
Apr. 16, 2006. Accessed on: Nov. 9, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/f-shaped-pattern-reading-web-
content-discovered

[2] K. Pernice, User Interviews: How, When, and Why to Conduct
Them, Oct. 7, 2018. Accessed on: Nov. 10, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/user-interviews/

[3]M.J. Van den Haak, M.D.T de Jong, P.J. Schellens "Exploring Two Methods of Usability Testing: Concurrent versus Retrospective Think-
Aloud Protocols," Behaviour and Information Technology, vol. 22, Mar.7, pp. 285–287, 2003

[4] S. Elling, L. Lentz, and M. D. Jong, P.J. Schellens "Combining Con-
current Think-Aloud Protocols and Eye-Tracking Observations: An Analysis of Verbalizations and Silences," Behaviour and Information
Technology, vol. 55, no. 3, Sept. 7, pp. 206–220, 2012

[5] L. Cooke "Assessing Concurrent Think-Aloud Protocol as a Usability Test Method: A Technical Communication Approach," IEEE TRANS-
ACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, vol. 53, no. 3,