菜单
Usability testing methodology - study design, task creation, moderation techniques, analysis, and reporting. Use when planning user tests, writing test scripts, analyzing results, or presenting findings.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
WCAG 2.1/2.2 guidelines, ARIA patterns, and inclusive design principles. Use when auditing accessibility, implementing ARIA, reviewing color contrast, or designing for screen readers, keyboard users, and cognitive accessibility.
Opinionated design critique framework grounded in business outcomes, named principles, and specific actionable feedback. Use when reviewing designs, running critique sessions, or giving feedback that actually improves the work.
Deceptive patterns (dark patterns), ethical design frameworks, persuasive vs. manipulative design, GDPR/consent UX. Use when reviewing designs for manipulation, designing consent flows, or evaluating ethical implications of design decisions.
Usability heuristics for catching real problems in interfaces, not generating busywork. Nielsen's 10 and Shneiderman's Golden Rules, reframed around business outcomes with practical severity scoring.
Design process philosophy and frameworks. When to use JTBD, Design Sprints, Double Diamond, IDEO. How to run outcome-driven design, effective critique, and recognize when process is theater. Use when planning design work, structuring discovery, or choosing the right level of rigor for the problem.
Design systems architecture - tokens, components, documentation, governance. Use when building or scaling a design system, defining component APIs, establishing token architecture, or creating contribution guidelines.
| name | usability-testing |
| description | Usability testing methodology - study design, task creation, moderation techniques, analysis, and reporting. Use when planning user tests, writing test scripts, analyzing results, or presenting findings. |
Most teams skip usability testing because they think it's slow and expensive. It's neither. Five users, one afternoon, and a prototype that doesn't even need to work. That's it. The alternative is shipping something nobody can use and spending 3 months fixing it. Testing is faster.
Auto-loaded by agents:
Use when you need:
| Type | Participants | Best For | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moderated (in-person) | 5-8 | Complex flows, early concepts, nuanced feedback | High |
| Moderated (remote) | 5-8 | Same as above, broader geography | Medium |
| Unmoderated (remote) | 15-30 | Validation, specific tasks, quantitative metrics | Low |
| Guerrilla | 3-5 | Quick feedback, low-fi prototypes, cafes/hallways | Very low |
| A/B testing | 1000+ | Comparing two specific variations, measuring conversion | Medium (time) |
Bad: "Find the settings page" Good: "You want to change your notification preferences so you only get emails about sales. How would you do that?"
| Metric | What It Measures | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Task success rate | Can users complete the task? | >78% (average benchmark) |
| Time on task | How long does it take? | Varies by complexity |
| Error rate | How many mistakes? | <2 per task |
| SUS score | Overall perceived usability | >68 (average), >80 (good) |
| Task difficulty (SEQ) | Perceived ease | >5 on 7-point scale |
Jakob Nielsen's research shows 5 users find ~85% of usability problems. Run small tests frequently rather than large tests infrequently.
The biggest mistake teams make isn't skipping testing. It's testing to validate instead of testing to learn. If you go in wanting to prove your design works, you'll ignore every signal that it doesn't. Go in wanting to find problems. They're there.
design-heuristics - Expert evaluation (complements user testing)laws-of-ux - Principles for diagnosing why users struggle