I've been testing other people for years. I watch them hesitate, click, scroll and sometimes stare blankly at interfaces that seem perfectly logical to me. I take notes. I analyze. I recommend improvements.
Recently, it was my turn. A participant in a real usability test. Task: set up a fixed-term deposit in a Figma prototype. What followed is something I won't forget anytime soon.
The Setup: the First Stumbling Block
Even before the test began, the first surprise was waiting. The privacy notice instructed me to download Mozilla Firefox – a browser I never use. Probably intended as a control measure. In practice, though: the Figma prototype didn't run properly in it.
A reminder to myself: technical pre-information needs to be tested before it reaches participants. What we write in the privacy notice is often the first touchpoint and sometimes already the first point of frustration.
On top of that: the test ran via Zoom on mobile, with screen sharing. Links from the chat had to be manually transferred to the browser. What's second nature on desktop becomes a real obstacle on mobile. A small detail – but exactly the kind that drains concentration that should have gone to the test itself.
The Prototype: Seemingly Clear, Actually Confusing
I didn't want to play dumb. I didn't have to either. I simply didn't see that a certain area was scrollable. No acting, no simulation, I was just blind to it.
And then: the prototype was only half-clickable. Some elements responded, others didn't with no discernible logic. As a UX Researcher, I knew this was down to the prototype's limitations. As a participant, it still unsettled me. Is it me? Is it the system? Am I doing something wrong?
Participants don't rationalize. They take what they see and interpret it as their own incompetence – not as a design problem. That's something I forget too quickly when I'm the one doing the testing.
The Debrief: What It Stirred in Me
Then came the scales: "How did you find that? Very good – fairly good – fairly poor – poor."
I know these questions. I ask them myself. Still, it felt strange to answer them. Too reductive. Too abstract. Like pressing a complex emotional experience into a single number.
What I Took Away
01
Technical hurdles before the test drain participants' mental energy. Energy that's then missing during the test itself.
02
Half-clickable prototypes create genuine confusion, even for experienced users.
03
Participants look to blame themselves first, not the design.
04
Likert scales feel strangely reductive to participants, worth keeping in mind.
"Anyone who tests others should be tested themselves. At least once."
This shift in perspective has given me more than any methods training. I'd recommend it to anyone who regularly sits on the UX researcher side. Not to become better in theory, but to get a genuine sense of what the other side feels like. Vulnerable. Uncertain. And sometimes just: lost in front of a screen.