uw-ssec User Research
Method picker
| Question | Method | Time | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Why do users do X? | Interviews (5-8) | 1-2 wk | Transcripts, themes |
| How does work actually happen? | Contextual inquiry | 1-3 wk | Field notes, workflows |
| How many feel X? | Survey | 1-2 wk | Stats, distributions |
| How do users group content? | Card sort | 3-5 d | Clusters, dendrograms |
| Does the design work? | Usability test (5-8) | 1-2 wk | Task success, issues |
| Behavior over time? | Diary study | 2-4 wk | Longitudinal data |
| Which variant wins? | A/B test | 1-4 wk | Significance data |
| What patterns at scale? | Analytics review | 1-3 d | Funnels, drop-offs |
Pair one qualitative (why) with one quantitative (how many) per question.
Quick start: persona
Spend ≥ 5-8 interviews before drafting a primary persona.
- Gather raw data (transcripts, surveys, support tickets, analytics).
- Cluster by behavior, goals, frustrations (not demographics).
- Draft using template below.
- Validate with teammates who joined interviews — "does this feel like someone we talked to?"
- Socialize: pin to Figma/Confluence; reference in every review.
Template
Name: [First name + last initial]
Role: [Job title or life role]
Demographics: [Age range, location, tech comfort]
Goals: [2-3 primary]
Frustrations: [2-3 recurring]
Behaviors: [Habits, tools, workflows]
JTBD: [Job story]
Quote: [Verbatim from research]
Example output
Name: Maria T.
Role: PM, mid-stage B2B SaaS
Demographics: 32-38, urban, high tech fluency
Goals: Ship faster without sacrificing quality; align eng+design;
prove ROI to leadership
Frustrations: Disconnected tools; mid-sprint requirement churn;
feedback synthesis at scale
Behaviors: Lives in Slack/Linear; weekly user calls; async-first
JTBD: When planning next quarter's roadmap, I want to quantify
which user problems matter most, so I can defend
prioritization to the executive team.
Quote: "Gut feelings don't survive a board meeting."
More templates: persona-templates.md.
JTBD job story (one-line format)
"When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome]."
Write functional + emotional + social variants per job. Detail and switch-interview method: jtbd-framework.md.
Example HMW set (from insight "new users abandon dashboard in <15s")
- HMW make the first-login dashboard feel manageable in 5 seconds?
- HMW progressively reveal advanced features instead of showing all at once?
- HMW use empty states to teach the product instead of showing zeros?
- HMW celebrate the first completed action to anchor return visits?
- HMW personalize the dashboard based on signup-time intent?
Competitive audit (output table)
For each competitor, score 1-5 across criteria:
| Criterion | Acme | Globex | Initech | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Onboarding clarity | 4 | 2 | 3 | Acme uses progressive disclosure |
| Feature parity (core) | 5 | 4 | 3 | All cover the must-haves |
| Pricing transparency | 2 | 5 | 4 | Acme hides Enterprise tier |
| IA / findability | 3 | 4 | 2 | Initech buries reports 4 levels deep |
| Visual design polish | 5 | 3 | 2 | Globex uses stock imagery |
| Accessibility (axe pass) | 1 | 3 | 4 | Acme has 12 violations on hero |
| Mobile experience | 4 | 2 | 3 | Globex non-responsive at <768px |
| Performance (LCP) | 1.8s | 4.2s | 2.9s | Acme leads |
| Content/docs | 5 | 3 | 2 | Acme has best DX writing |
| Support channels | 3 | 5 | 2 | Globex offers 24/7 chat |
| Integrations | 5 | 2 | 3 | Acme has 80+ |
| Community | 4 | 1 | 2 | Acme runs active forum |
Gap = criteria where ALL competitors score ≤ 2 → that's your wedge. Process detail: interview-guide.md.
Inter-rater check
Two reviewers score independently. For any criterion where scores diverge by > 1 point, reconcile before publishing. Target: ≥ 80% within-1 agreement.
Synthesis workflow
- Affinity map — one observation per note; cluster; label theme.
- Validation: every cluster has ≥ 3 supporting observations from ≥ 2 different participants. Singletons go to a "parking lot," not a cluster.
- Empathy map per persona — Says / Thinks / Does / Feels.
- Insight statements (template):
"We observed [X]. We were surprised that [Y]. Because of this, we might [Z]."
- HMW questions — 3-5 per insight to seed ideation.
Example insight set (3-5)
1. We observed users abandon the settings page in <15s. We were surprised
that 8/10 could not find notification preferences. Because of this,
we might surface notification controls in the context where
notifications appear.
2. We observed users open Slack alongside our app in 7/10 sessions.
We were surprised that they use Slack to copy data out manually.
Because of this, we might add a native Slack export or integration.
3. We observed mobile users tap the export button accidentally on the
list screen. We were surprised that it had a 22% misfire rate. Because
of this, we might move primary actions out of the list scroll area.
4. We observed every interviewed admin keep a personal cheat-sheet doc.
We were surprised these docs all contained the same 6 commands.
Because of this, we might ship a built-in "common tasks" panel.
5. We observed first-month churners share a single behavior: zero
teammates invited. We were surprised that 0 of 12 saw the invite CTA.
Because of this, we might move team invite into onboarding day 1.
Methods + repository structure: synthesis-methods.md.
Rules
- Never assume — validate every hypothesis with evidence.
- Real users only — no friends/family/coworkers as participants.
- Triangulate — same finding across ≥ 2 methods = high confidence.
- Quote users directly when reporting.
Next Steps
- User Journey Mapping — map end-to-end experience per persona
- Usability Evaluation — evaluate designs against heuristics