Recruiting test subjects is a pain
Published December 13th, 2006 in Accessibility, Consulting, IA, UsabilityLately, I’ve been thinking about recruiting users (or I could don a lab coat and call them subjects) for usability testing.
I’ve spent the last year focused on intranets, which when it comes to this, are a breeze. You have a captive audience which can be defined quite well—in terms of job roles and information needs—through a bit of ethnographic research, they are usually close by and are usually quite happy to participate (if it comes to it you can always get their boss to make them do it…<evil laugh>).
Now, working on a website is a whole different ball game. There’s a lot of talk about usability testing—who to test, how many subjects, how to run the sessions—but not a lot on how to find a good source of representative subjects.
In the past, I’ve used two techniques when working on public projects: guerrilla style and external testing. By guerrilla (I just love that word) I mean low-cost, in-house testing where you make use of carefully selected colleagues/friends/family. At the other extreme we almost totally outsourced the recruitment and provision of test labs. Each is a valid technique, if applied appropriately, but both have obvious drawbacks.
Your client might already be in contact with key customers (such as in the case of B2B) and allow you access to their staff, but this is not that common for most projects, and more importantly, are these going to be representative users?
Probably the most popular method of recruitment is to use an external recruiter, normally a market research firm, who can get you subjects. Sometimes they even get you subjects you specify! But this is pretty bloody expensive.
A recent addition to the proverbial toolkit is Usability Exchange which makes it a bit easier by facilitating remote online sessions (specifically for accessibility). But remote testing of this nature has major drawbacks. It’s not surprising that it’s focus is on the more mechanical aspects of accessibility; so much of what you might learn from a one-on-one session is lost with this arrangement.
AGIMO have an interesting bit in their tookit on recruiting participants, although it doesn’t go into specifics. Some of their suggestions are interesting, and the list of pros and cons seems very sensible. Having never used some of these methods (such as cold calling or advertising in the newspaper) I’m not sure how practical they would would be, or how enthusiastic most clients would be to use them.
So it’s looking like the best approach is still to try a combination of methods that are suitable for the specific situation you find yourself in. No silver bullet here…or is there? Do you have a favoured technique for getting hold of usability testing subjects? C’mon let’s hear it.
(And this is just for your usual usability testing, what about cultural probes and other more ‘intrusive’ techniques? How do you find subjects for those?)
Popularity: 7% [?]
Search
Latest posts
Old favourites
Categories
- Accessibility (13)
- Automotive (10)
- Books (2)
- Conferences (33)
- Consulting (21)
- Design (6)
- Design research (24)
- Family (18)
- Humour (27)
- IA (40)
- Interactive marketing (3)
- Intranets (14)
- Music (14)
- Photos (7)
- Quotes (11)
- Ramblings (121)
- Speaking (17)
- Travel (23)
- Usability (24)
- User experience (35)
- Web 2.0 (6)
- Web design (44)
Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
Where I do what you’re doing now
Code and technology
Creative and multimedia
Design research
KM, IM and strategy
Misc
UX, IA and IxD
- 37 signals signal vs noise
- Adaptive Path entries
- Andy Rutledge : Design View
- Austin Govella : Thinking and Making
- Boxes and Arrows
- Chris Khalil’s Musing
- Christina Wodtke : Eleganthack
- Christopher Fahey : Graphpaper
- Donna Maurer : DonnaM
- findability.org
- Good Experience
- Iain Barker : Simpler is Better
- InfoDesign
- Jared Spool : Brainsparks
- Jeff Veen
- Jesse James Garrett
- Joshua Ledwell : Compete on Usability
- Leisa Reichelt : Disambiguity
- Lou Rosenfeld : blougList
- Lyle Kantrovich
- Martin Hardee : Sun.com Design
- OK/Cancel
- Peter Merholz
- Peter Van Dijck’s Guide to Ease
- Shane Morris : UXB
- Steve Baty : Doc Holds Forth
- Todd Warfel
- UsableWorld
- UX Matters
- Zef Fugaz : zef[a]media


No Responses to “Recruiting test subjects is a pain”
Please Wait
Leave a Reply