UX Researcher & Designer
Overview
Apply systematic UX research and design methods to understand users, validate assumptions, and create evidence-based designs. This skill covers the full research-to-design pipeline: discovery research, persona creation, journey mapping, information architecture, usability testing, and heuristic evaluation.
Phase 1: Discovery Research
- Define research objectives and questions
- Select appropriate research methods
- Recruit participants (5-8 per segment for qualitative)
- Conduct research sessions
- Synthesize findings using affinity mapping
STOP — Present research plan with objectives and methods for user approval.
Research Method Selection Decision Table
Generative (Discovery) Methods
| Method |
When to Use |
Participants |
Duration |
Cost |
| User Interviews |
Understanding motivations, behaviors, pain points |
5-8 per segment |
45-60 min each |
Medium |
| Contextual Inquiry |
Observing users in their natural environment |
4-6 |
1-2 hours each |
High |
| Diary Studies |
Longitudinal behavior patterns |
10-15 |
1-4 weeks |
Medium |
| Surveys |
Quantitative validation of qualitative findings |
100+ |
5-10 min |
Low |
| Focus Groups |
Exploring attitudes and preferences |
6-10 per group |
60-90 min |
Medium |
Evaluative Methods
| Method |
When to Use |
Participants |
Duration |
Cost |
| Usability Testing |
Validating designs against tasks |
5-8 |
30-60 min each |
Medium |
| A/B Testing |
Comparing two design variants |
1000+ per variant |
1-4 weeks |
Low |
| Card Sorting |
Organizing information architecture |
15-30 |
20-30 min |
Low |
| Tree Testing |
Validating navigation structure |
50+ |
10-15 min |
Low |
| First Click Testing |
Evaluating initial user instincts |
30+ |
5-10 min |
Low |
| Heuristic Evaluation |
Expert review without users |
3-5 evaluators |
1-2 hours |
Low |
Method Selection Decision Table
| Situation |
Recommended Method |
Why |
| No idea who users are |
Interviews + contextual inquiry |
Deep understanding needed |
| Have assumptions to validate |
Surveys + usability testing |
Quantitative confirmation |
| Redesigning navigation |
Card sorting + tree testing |
Structure-focused |
| Evaluating existing product |
Heuristic evaluation + usability test |
Find problems fast |
| Comparing two designs |
A/B testing |
Statistical comparison |
| Limited budget/time |
Heuristic evaluation |
No participants needed |
| Long-term behavior understanding |
Diary study |
Captures patterns over time |
Interview Guide Template
1. Introduction (5 min)
- Thank participant, explain purpose
- Get consent for recording
- "There are no wrong answers"
2. Warm-up (5 min)
- Background questions about role/context
- Current tools and workflows
3. Core Questions (30 min)
- Open-ended questions about behaviors
- Follow-up probes: "Tell me more about..."
- Critical incident: "Describe a time when..."
- Avoid leading questions
4. Wrap-up (5 min)
- "Is there anything I didn't ask that you think is important?"
- Thank and explain next steps
Phase 2: Analysis and Modeling
- Create user personas from research data
- Map user journey for key scenarios
- Define information architecture
- Identify pain points and opportunities
- Prioritize using impact/effort matrix
STOP — Present personas and journey map for review before design validation.
Persona Template
# [Persona Name]
## Demographics
- Age: [range]
- Occupation: [role]
- Technical proficiency: [low/medium/high]
- Usage frequency: [daily/weekly/monthly]
## Goals
1. Primary goal: [what they are trying to achieve]
2. Secondary goal: [supporting objective]
3. Tertiary goal: [nice-to-have]
## Pain Points
1. [Frustration with current process]
2. [Unmet need]
3. [Workaround they have created]
## Behaviors
- [How they currently solve the problem]
- [Tools and methods they use]
- [Decision-making patterns]
## Quotes (from research)
- "[Verbatim quote that captures their perspective]"
- "[Another representative quote]"
## Scenario
[A paragraph describing a typical day/task where they would use the product]
Persona Quality Decision Table
| Check |
Pass |
Fail |
| Based on real research data |
Quotes and behaviors from interviews |
Invented or assumed behaviors |
| Actionable for design |
Specific goals and pain points |
Vague "wants to be productive" |
| Distinct from other personas |
Different goals, behaviors, constraints |
Overlapping with another persona |
| Number of personas |
2-4 primary |
More than 5 (too many to design for) |
Journey Map Structure
Stages: Awareness -> Consideration -> Onboarding -> Usage -> Advocacy
| | | | |
Actions: [What they do at each stage]
| | | | |
Thoughts: [What they are thinking]
| | | | |
Emotions: [Frustration/neutral/delight mapped to each stage]
| | | | |
Pain Points: [Friction and frustration points]
| | | | |
Opportunities: [Design opportunities to improve]
| | | | |
Touchpoints: [Channels and interfaces involved]
Journey Map Elements
- Moments of Truth: Critical points where users form lasting impressions
- Service Blueprints: Front-stage actions mapped to back-stage processes
- Emotion Curve: Visual line showing emotional highs and lows
- Gap Analysis: Difference between current and desired experience
Heuristic Evaluation (Nielsen's 10)
| # |
Heuristic |
What to Look For |
| 1 |
Visibility of system status |
Loading indicators, progress bars, save confirmations |
| 2 |
Match with real world |
Natural language, familiar metaphors, logical order |
| 3 |
User control and freedom |
Undo, cancel, back, escape hatches |
| 4 |
Consistency and standards |
Same action = same result, platform conventions |
| 5 |
Error prevention |
Confirmation dialogs, constraints, smart defaults |
| 6 |
Recognition over recall |
Visible options, contextual help, recent history |
| 7 |
Flexibility and efficiency |
Shortcuts, customization, bulk actions |
| 8 |
Aesthetic and minimalist design |
No unnecessary information, clear hierarchy |
| 9 |
Help users with errors |
Plain language errors, specific cause, suggest fix |
| 10 |
Help and documentation |
Searchable, task-oriented, concise |
Severity Rating Scale
| Rating |
Description |
Action |
| 0 |
Not a usability problem |
No action |
| 1 |
Cosmetic only |
Fix if time allows |
| 2 |
Minor problem |
Low priority fix |
| 3 |
Major problem |
High priority, fix before launch |
| 4 |
Usability catastrophe |
Must fix immediately |
Phase 3: Design Validation
- Create testable prototypes (low or high fidelity)
- Plan usability testing sessions
- Conduct tests with 5+ participants
- Analyze results and iterate
- Document findings and recommendations
STOP — Present usability test results and recommendations for review.
Prototype Fidelity Decision Table
| Situation |
Fidelity |
Tool |
Why |
| Early concept validation |
Low (paper/wireframe) |
Balsamiq, paper |
Fast iteration, low commitment |
| Navigation testing |
Medium (clickable) |
Figma prototype |
Test flow without visual polish |
| Visual design validation |
High (pixel-perfect) |
Figma, coded prototype |
Test actual look and feel |
| Interaction validation |
High (coded) |
HTML/CSS/JS prototype |
Test real interactions |
A/B Testing Methodology
| Step |
Details |
| Hypothesis |
"Changing [X] will [improve/decrease] [metric] because [reason]" |
| Sample size |
Power analysis (95% confidence, 80% power) |
| Duration |
Minimum 2 full business cycles (2+ weeks) |
| Variable control |
Test one change at a time |
| Analysis |
Statistical significance (p < 0.05) |
Common UX Metrics
| Metric |
What It Measures |
Benchmark |
| Task success rate |
% completing target task |
> 78% (acceptable) |
| Time on task |
Duration to complete action |
Varies by task |
| Error rate |
Mistakes per task |
< 10% |
| System Usability Scale (SUS) |
Overall usability score |
68 = average |
| Net Promoter Score (NPS) |
Likelihood to recommend |
> 0 = good, > 50 = excellent |
| Customer Effort Score (CES) |
Ease of experience |
> 5/7 |
Information Architecture
Card Sort Analysis Decision Table
| Sort Type |
When to Use |
Analysis Method |
| Open sort |
Discovery — users create categories |
Similarity matrix, dendrogram |
| Closed sort |
Validation — sort into predefined categories |
Category agreement percentage |
| Hybrid sort |
Both — predefined with ability to add new |
Combined analysis |
Navigation Patterns
| Pattern |
Use Case |
| Global navigation |
Persistent across all pages |
| Local navigation |
Within a section |
| Contextual navigation |
Related content links |
| Utility navigation |
Settings, account, help |
| Breadcrumbs |
Location within hierarchy |
Deliverables Checklist
Anti-Patterns / Common Mistakes
| Anti-Pattern |
Why It Is Wrong |
What to Do Instead |
| Designing without research |
Assumptions lead to wrong designs |
Start with discovery research |
| Testing with colleagues |
Biased, know too much about product |
Recruit external participants |
| Asking users what they want |
Users cannot predict behavior |
Observe what they do instead |
| Confirmation bias |
Only seeing what supports beliefs |
Use structured analysis, multiple evaluators |
| Too many personas (5+) |
Cannot design for everyone |
Keep to 2-4 primary personas |
| Skipping synthesis |
Raw data is not insights |
Always do affinity mapping |
| Underpowered A/B tests |
Results are meaningless noise |
Calculate sample size before starting |
| Presenting findings without recommendations |
Research without action is wasted |
Always include prioritized next steps |
Integration Points
| Skill |
Integration |
ui-ux-pro-max |
UX guidelines and design patterns |
mobile-design |
Mobile usability testing patterns |
planning |
Research plan is part of the implementation plan |
spec-writing |
User research informs JTBD specifications |
prd-generation |
Personas and journey maps feed into PRDs |
llm-as-judge |
Evaluate design quality with rubrics |
Skill Type
FLEXIBLE — Select and combine research methods based on project constraints (budget, timeline, access to users). Lightweight methods (heuristic evaluation, guerrilla testing) are acceptable when full research is impractical.