{"id":730567,"date":"2021-03-09T10:04:19","date_gmt":"2021-03-09T18:04:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/?post_type=msr-blog-post&p=730567"},"modified":"2021-03-09T10:04:19","modified_gmt":"2021-03-09T18:04:19","slug":"research-in-the-wild-meeting-users-where-they-are","status":"publish","type":"msr-blog-post","link":"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/articles\/research-in-the-wild-meeting-users-where-they-are\/","title":{"rendered":"Research in the wild: Meeting users where they are"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Amanda Snellinger, PhD (opens in new tab)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\"A<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve all been in the position of setting up a new piece of hardware or software, trying to get familiar with it, and struggling with the process of onboarding. In an ideal world, setup and onboarding should be seamless and intuitive; this is the aim of golden path design.<\/p>\n

Yet do users follow our golden paths?<\/em> Our UX is often evaluated in the lab, with pre-designed prototypes, which are only a proxy for real user experience. We find there is value in pursuing this research from a more organic approach. Because users don’t know what our golden paths are or that they even exist, conducting research in the wild enables us to see how consumers get set up with our software and devices on their own terms and if they make it their own. This allows us to stress test the interactions\/user experiences we\u2019ve put in place. We can identify tactical level friction\/issues as well as see the larger picture of how they are navigating our product ecosystem itself and how to make that more seamless.<\/p>\n

This approach also allows researchers to dig into users\u2019 mental models (opens in new tab)<\/span><\/a> in a more nuanced way. We can understand how their previous digital experience is influencing how they think, act, and feel when interacting with our product. Obtaining both a strategic and tactical view of the users\u2019 experience also provides maximum \u2018bang for your buck,\u2019 as opposed to having to conduct separate generative and evaluative studies. Finally, golden path research provides the opportunity to work closely with data science, looking at telemetry and usage data to see if there are deeper issues that merit further study.<\/p>\n

What we learned
\n<\/em>Our findings fell into two categorial buckets: Points of friction and diversions from the pathway.<\/p>\n

Points of friction<\/strong> were apparent to participants and resulted in frustration, and occurred when they were:<\/p>\n