ux-researcher-designer

name	ux-researcher-designer
description	Use when the user needs user research methodologies, persona development, journey mapping, usability testing plans, or information architecture analysis. Triggers: user says "user research", "persona", "journey map", "usability test", "card sort", "heuristic evaluation", "information architecture", "user interview", understanding user behavior.

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

1. Define research objectives and questions
2. Select appropriate research methods
3. Recruit participants (5-8 per segment for qualitative)
4. Conduct research sessions
5. 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

1. Create user personas from research data
2. Map user journey for key scenarios
3. Define information architecture
4. Identify pain points and opportunities
5. 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

1. Create testable prototypes (low or high fidelity)
2. Plan usability testing sessions
3. Conduct tests with 5+ participants
4. Analyze results and iterate
5. 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

• Research plan with objectives and methods
• Participant recruitment screener
• Interview/test script
• Affinity map of findings
• Personas (2-4 primary)
• Journey map for key scenario
• Information architecture diagram
• Usability test report with severity ratings
• Prioritized recommendations with evidence

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.