Case studies

Our approach involved a thorough heuristic evaluation. Researchers familiarized themselves with the app interface and user journeys, then independently completed a scorecard based on WCAG guidelines. The scorecard included assessing the app for perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust accessibility standards. Through multiple walkthroughs of the app’s onboarding and symptom-logging journeys, our team scrutinized every element against our adapted criteria, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation.

We developed a mixed methods approach that used IDIs, survey research, desk research, and real-time process mapping to understand the landscape of telehealth. Methodology specifically considered the wants and needs of patients and healthcare providers as well as the effects of COVID-19 on the global adoption, trust, access, and usage of telehealth technologies.

We conducted an expert evaluation of all materials. We then conducted usability testing with target user groups, including existing panel members to understand what about the panel recruitment process worked well or not.During the test, we asked participants go through the entire process from mail sorting tasks to receiving a call with the call center (which was done from the call center directly into the test room).

We conducted 90-minute individual interviews that incorporated differentiation, simulated-use tasks, and knowledge assessment tasks. Participants were patients with type 2 diabetes across a range of body mass indexes (BMIs) and nurses who administer insulin regularly. The instructions for use (IFU) was assessed and updated iteratively during week 1, and one final version of the IFU for each prototype was used during week 2.

Our team conducted expert evaluations of the app on three device platforms. On each platform, we completed tasks to evaluate the issues of concern to our client. After reviewing specification documents, we created a prototype to illustrate the optimal page flow.

All of our participants were daily users of smart speakers and some had previously used their smart speaker to make purchases. We asked them to share their opinions and evaluate several unique prototypes.
To encourage deeper discussion, we recruited pairs who were familiar with each other for dyad sessions. These sessions were followed with larger focus groups to uncover additional common insights.

We conducted global, remote, moderated usability tests with a medium-fidelity prototype across two weeks. Thirty participants consisting of engineers, quality assurance, marketing managers, and product managers were recruited from small to medium size companies in the Americas, Europe, and Asia.

We recruited representative members of surgical teams to conduct simulated implantations in porcine subjects at a simulation lab managed by a local hospital.
Our researchers observed the simulated implantations to capture the surgical team dynamics and interactions with the revised implantation procedures.

The validation study included HCP training, done by our on-staff RN to demonstrate techniques, a 24-hour decay, and a 60-min validation session, during which participants had to prepare and administer two doses of the kit.

We asked current product owners and new users to react to high-quality renderings and use the product prototypes in a consumer kitchen lab environment. We gave participants access to all tools and ingredients they have in a home kitchen and we observed them navigating the process.

During one-on-one in-person usability sessions, we asked participants to complete tasks using multiple devices and then to respond to follow-up questions and complete a set of rating scales. Following these sessions, select participants were provided with devices for a take-home diary activity. These participants completed additional tasks with their devices and recorded their feedback in a diary format.

During one-on-one usability sessions, we asked participants to complete key tasks on the mobile application prototypes. We followed up by having participants compare specific features on the two prototypes. We collected feedback on first impressions, feature discoverability, usability, and general user experience.

For this exploratory research, we simulated at-home environments in a lab setting, including a mock living room, bedroom, and bathroom. Set up in the same test space, we used room dividers, furniture, sink, and mirrors to make it feel as realistic as possible. The goal was to encourage the pediatric patient and caregiver to do what they do at home with the medical system and accompanying mobile app. They simulated the entire process to interact with the app and medication system. Test preparations unique to this study included informal interviews with child specialists familiar with this population to ensure the lab setup would make the participants feel comfortable; modifications included stress relief balls, sensory bin, and wall signs. This specialized population also required we have an on-site clinician throughout the test sessions.

We conducted 90-minute usability sessions with adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis and/or polymyalgia rheumatica and their healthcare providers. Participants completed two injection tasks, the second requiring use of the IFU to ensure comprehensive evaluation of platform materials, and then completed a series of knowledge tasks. When time permitted, patient participants completed a force assessment using prefilled syringes with placebo of differing viscosities.

To gain detailed qualitative participant feedback and assess device use over time, we used a mixed-method approach of initial in-depth interviews (IDIs) to explore setup and initial impressions, a 3-week diary study to gauge use over time, and a final IDI to further explore participants’ experiences and perceptions during the 3-week use period.

Our research focused on market dynamics, technological advancement, and consumer need. In partnership with The Office of Experience, we identified and explored seven key opportunity spaces with high growth potential in both the mobile phone and wearable AR markets.

We conducted an expert review of the devices to determine how the company’s injection device compared to other injection devices. The goal of this review was to determine whether the device has novel features and its user interface components are consistent with competitor devices currently on the market.

We conducted an ethnography study across multiple countries in which we observed laboratory technologists in-person as they interacted with the diagnostic machines. Researchers observed various sizes of laboratory operations in order to compare workflows across hospital size and geographic regions. Where possible, we asked follow up questions after observations to confirm findings.

Working with international partners, we conducted thorough desk research of current prominent technological ecosystems. We explored online resources provided directly from companies, and those from third parties and product users. Our report focused on visually illustrating the onboarding process for various products in eight countries and examining the metrics used to measure the performance of these processes.

For this global study, we employed a mixed-methods approach utilizing co-design, usability testing, panel research, IDIs, diary studies, and surveys. Beginning with exploratory co-design sessions and IDIs, this body of work expanded to mixed methods with multiple 200+ participant cohorts (1400 in all) completing diary entries, IDIs, and surveys.

Three experts were chosen by HFES to design and deliver a two-day training, including Korey Johnson (Bold Insight), Dr. Anthony Andre, and Michael Wiklund. The team presented a series of modules that included the science behind HF, such as human perception, cognition, memory, and learning, as well as best practices in root cause analysis and dealing with the biases associated with subjective data.

Our team provided a broad overview of how feedback from end users should be leveraged early and often during product development, and how that feedback should be integrated into use specifications, task analyses, risk analyses, and the overall human factors plan.

With transferees, our team conducted:

• In-home contextual inquiries to understand existing logistics and how it could translate into an app
• A multi-week longitudinal online diary study outlining the relocation journey to determine how to enhance the process
• Focus groups to gather design feedback

With relocation specialists, we conducted conference intercept research to understand barriers to app adoption.

We conducted 45-minute usability testing sessions with adult patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Participants were tasked with administering a dose of medication using the autoinjector and administered knowledge task questions to assess their understanding of the instructions for use (IFU) and labeling.

We conducted 45-minute task-based sessions with young adults and children-parent dyads and 60-minute interviews with parents of gamers. We asked participants to verify their age using different personal identification documents in a high-fidelity, functioning prototype that displayed the age verification methods and 60-minute interviews with parents of gamers. We also asked them to rank and rate their user experience, sentiment, trust, and preferences towards each method. We used statistical analysis to determine the algorithm’s accuracy in correctly categorizing each participant’s age and identifying false positives.

We utilized one-on-one moderated usability tests in a simulated-use environment. Our lab provided items commonly found in a clinical setting including a sink, personal protective equipment, trash bins, and cleaning and disinfectant solutions. Participants were instructed to do what they would do in their own practice to prepare the device for their next patient. Instructional materials were provided, but participants were not specifically directed to use them.

Throughout this research, the goals were to evaluate the new system for safety, effectiveness, and unforeseen use risks, think through touchpoints and pain points of updated releases to ensure this is accounted for in the new system, consider alternate designs to make both versions of the system more usable and understood, and bridge patients to the new app (training, integration).
To reach this specialized patient population, we tested in multiple locations across the country, both in English- and Spanish-speaking in-lab sessions. We also utilized our on-staff RN to advise on considerations during testing for this protected patient population to ensure we approached testing scenarios and environments in a way that participants will understand and respond to. One part of the research required clinician-assisted training to simulate real-world training of the system.

We asked current and past users of the drug delivery pump to evaluate images and videos of three new designs. We identified pain points and avenues for improvement by asking users about specific instances where they struggled with their current carrying accessory.

We managed concurrent studies across markets and ensured compliance with country-specific regulations and GDPR requirements regarding data privacy and permissions. Studies in each local market consisted of interviews with native speakers who completed tasks and gave language-related feedback on product language quality.

In-person one-on-one interviews were conducted with participants who were unfamiliar or had low familiarity with the specific device. Participants were asked about their current experiences and presented with a series of onboarding task scenarios to complete. They were also presented with additional onboarding concepts to understand participant preferences.

We tested the redesigned device with a surgical team trained on the current system.
We conducted in-person testing in an outpatient clinic, in the surgical team’s environment. We evaluated system setup, tool programming, and use during a simulated surgery.

We conducted 90-minute remote usability sessions with adult patients throughout the UK using mid- to high-fidelity prototypes. Participants interacted with the prototypes using remote screen control to evaluate the value of the content, the usability of the app, and their overall sentiment towards digital therapies. We worked closely with the client throughout the project to ensure information security and ethical best practices were followed at all times.

We conducted a four-day ethnographic (in situ) study in the UK and the US. In both countries, we visited a small clinic and a large hospital to capture lab technicians’ interactions with the analyzers within highly automated and manual workflow settings. Throughout the observation, we recorded friction points, troubleshooting instances and potential areas for improvement. We also worked closely with the lab technicians to create a journey map of their overall workflow, where we identified key processes involved in each stage of user interaction in both environments.

Our team conducted remote in-depth interviews with current users of mobile payment applications to explore actions within three primary task flows. Participants were given task prompts as part of a guided walkthrough of the prototype and their subsequent actions were recorded, along with their answers to probing questions.

We conducted the study at a hospital where we asked nurses to perform tasks typically executed on an EHR under simulated conditions. The nurses then provided feedback on a post-test questionnaire for qualitative and quantitative data.

We conducted 90-minute interviews asking participants to walk us through making a simulated purchase, from looking for an item to reaching the checkout screen. Throughout each purchase stage, we explored which platform elements they prefer to use over others and how these could be improved. We also investigated what guides people’s decision-making when looking for, buying, and tracking items on this platform. In addition to the live platform, we presented participants with low-fidelity mock-ups to gather their feedback on new concepts and platform design changes.

We conducted remote one-on-one interview sessions with participants of a mix of experience and from a variety of global regions. Participants were asked questions related to their roles, goals, and issues they were facing in software development, particularly in working with the development platform.

Integrating group interviews and aspects of service design, our approach involved identifying friction points and collaboration opportunities. By grounding the team in current behaviors and envisioning imagined futures, we optimized task delegation for effective testing across diverse scenarios.

Participants joined one-on-one remote video-conferencing sessions from their own kitchens. Participants were asked to complete activities and react to renderings of prospective VBL options. These sessions, each lasting 90 minutes, facilitated in-depth questioning and allowed participants’ opinions and preferences to be fully explored.

Alongside international partners, we developed a two-phase research approach. This included a five-day diary study to gauge device use and experience on a daily basis followed by in-home in-depth interviews with participants to discover more about how they used technology, when or how they asked for help with technology, and how those who self-identified as having a disability used assistive technology in their daily lives.

We developed research approaches and engaged trusted international partners to conduct in-depth interviews and usability testing with participants in each market. Participants were first asked about their interests and social media usage and their perceptions of the client’s platform. Participants then signed up for the app, performed core tasks, and were interviewed about their expectations and experiences.

We took a multi-method approach to the study. We first visited orthopedic surgeons’ offices to observe current practices while they administered intraarticular injections into the knees of patients, view the spaces in which they work, and talk to staff that assist with the injection process. After the site visits were completed, we conducted one-on-one interviews with HCPs to further learn about their routines with intraarticular injections, their thoughts on injecting to other sites, and opinions on reducing the total number of injections needed for a full dose. We concluded the sessions with the HCPs administering a simulated injection with a prototype syringe into a model of a knee and providing high-level directional feedback for future development.

We conducted 60-minute interviews, asking participants about their prior use and understanding of different search tools and how they define and categorize them. We also asked participants to walk through an example of searching online using a live product to further explore their perceptions in each stage of the search process. This included asking what goes on behind the scenes when using these tools, how they vary from each other, and how they use tools for searching different types of information.

We conducted 90-minute one-on-one interviews in four different countries. The interviews had participants share their opinions and rate 20 potential in-product support features. After identifying preferred features, they were presented high- and low-urgency scenarios and asked to describe how they would use those features to navigate each scenario. Finally, they were asked provide feedback on concepts incorporating those features.

We conducted remote exploratory interviews with patients and healthcare providers, using their journeys from diagnosis to treatment to guide the development of potential interfaces. Patient recruiting included adults and minor participants (aged 5-17) with amblyopia, a type of visual impairment; some also had additional diagnoses, such as epilepsy or cerebral palsy, which impacted their mobility and cognitive abilities.

Our research supported the client across multiple stages of a P0 to P1 product. We engaged 180 users over 6 months to identify gaps and differentiation opportunities for the product relative to competitors. Through diary, survey, and IDIs, we identified task types and moments of truth required for conversions over time. Additionally, we planned, ran, and reported on a series of 2-week iterative design and testing sprints.

We conducted one-on-one, in-depth interviews with participants currently taking the medication in pill form. We asked participants to complete a simulated-use scenario using the prototype device. We collected feedback on ease of use, physical attributes, need for instructions, and overall acceptability of the device. We also captured participant data around the new liquid formulation, including appearance, taste, and color.

We employed a multi-tactic approach to obtain feedback on experiences with current cars and reactions to the test model. Prior to fieldwork, we had participants complete homework that included taking pictures of various aspects of their current car and completing a survey. Our research sessions included a focus group discussion followed by individual stationary in-car interviews. We recruited up to eight participants for each focus group and chose two participants to move on to the in-car interviews.
We collected qualitative feedback and comments, behavioral observation, and ratings. Sessions were conducted in English and simultaneously interpreted into the client’s native language for both live observers and session recordings.

We conducted in-lab testing to determine how much feedback and involvement was acceptable and desired by the user. Using graphical cards, users identified the ideal flow to receive, store, administer, and dispose of the device. One month later, additional testing with a smaller group of new and previous testers refined the user flow based on feedback from the first session, delving deeper into features, drawing on their current journey to determine how best to utilize connectivity.

We collected information in two phases: in-resort interviews to gather feedback on aspects of the resort experience, and remote interviews to gather feedback on experiences that preceded and followed guests’ stays. These data were aggregated to understand the tasks and decisions that comprised participants’ journeys. Information about delighters, pain points, and experiences of difficulty were also gathered.

We recruited nurse educators who routinely train patients to use infusion pumps and invited them to share their insights and unique experience during 90-minute remote sessions. We evaluated their feedback about how they structure their educational sessions and about how training needs are determined.

Drawing on our expertise in user interface design and usability along with support from our UX researcher, who was trained by the client on how cyberthreats are investigated, we evaluated the various modules and features available to end users of the software. We utilized a rapid, timed approach to accurately reflect a real-world use scenario.

We conducted simultaneous in-lab sessions with both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. They each performed their normal roles in a simulated pharmacy setting we designed. Our research sessions utilized simulated pharmacy shelves with realistic distractor cartons and prescription mock-ups.

We managed multiple formative studies utilizing cognitive interviews in four different countries to assess users’ perception, comprehension, and emotional reaction to the current software feature assessment tool. Subsequently, we used the wealth of this information to shape our recommendations for a more effective and culturally sensitive software feature assessment.

We interviewed more than 500 health care professionals from the US, UK, and Ireland, ensuring variety in our sample collection.
To learn how HCPs might interact with the system, we asked them to naturally request patient data in their own words, collecting both text and voice samples of various scenarios for each participant.

Our research approach involved 75-minute in-depth interviewS with children of all reading ages, where we let them navigate various prototypes that displayed privacy and safety messages in different designs. For each design, we measured the amount of time spent on the messages, how much of the message they understood and retained, and their design preferences.

We conducted 60-minute remote usability sessions with adult patients and caregivers throughout the United States. Participants were asked to interact with the app to evaluate its ease of understanding and presentation of relevant content. We observed participants as they performed key tasks and collected their feedback as they interacted with the application.

We conducted 90-min individual interviews with specialty healthcare providers. Participants interacted with a clickable prototype of both the desktop and mobile websites. In addition to testing the usability of the site, the various types of content were also evaluated.

Because we really needed to get ‘in their heads’ we took a qualitative approach. Ten gamers participated in hour-long, in-person in-depth interviews (IDIs); half of the participants began their journey in the browser-based games store while the other half began their journey using the desktop client games store. During the IDIs, we posed tasks and scenarios and captured rich feedback.

Our research approach included a certified diabetes educator who administered a 2-hour group training session with participants. After a minimum decay period of 24 hours, we observed participants using a non-functioning prototype.

We observed participants using a prototype of the device in a consumer kitchen lab environment. We assessed the users’ ability to set up and connect the appliance to a mobile device, use the mobile device to control the appliance, as well as their reaction to error screens. We designed this in-lab test to support other streams of research being utilized by the manufacturer.

Our research approach involved a 90-minute in-depth interview with participants from the target population, who were observed as they followed the IFU to set up and used the device. We then asked them questions about their experiences and probed on any aspects of confusion at each stage of their interaction with the device.

For the US portion of this international study, we recruited MS patients for 60 minute in-person sessions. Participants were asked to complete a series of tasks with guidance from the application. After their attempts, participants were asked to evaluate the ease of understanding the application’s instructions and user interface.

We conducted a remote mobile usability study to evaluate the trip planning process. The remote lab we designed enabled us to watch participants use their own devices and screen capture each interaction.

100 participants with varying degrees of vision impairment were recruited for this two-phase study.
During contextual interviews, focus groups, and usability testing, participants completed phone tasks using 3 different phones and tested a voice-enabled prototype. Participants were given an opportunity to discuss accessibility issues related to current technology.

We recruited 9 participants with job titles related to real estate developing were recruited to participate in the study.
Both contextual interviews and usability testing were conducted. Participants completed critical use journeys using the company’s live site and then discussed specific pain points and expectations they faced while going through the journey.

Our research approach included a one-week diary study, where we asked participants to track the ads they encountered, and if and how they interacted with these ads. We then observed users in their homes and recorded how they naturally interacted with ads, followed by interviews on their general ad experience. When appropriate, we asked users their thoughts on features that can be incorporated to improve their overall experience. Throughout the study, we also managed overseas partners as they proceeded with their research.

Our 4-year program of research involved usability testing, iterative design research, and simulated-use environments. We designed and operated both low-fidelity (Wizard of Oz) and high-fidelity (scenario-based trauma center simulation) test environments over the course of 10+ projects carried out in both the United States and United Kingdom.

Before one-on-one interviews with potential users, our team conducted a heuristic evaluation of the instructions for use. We then completed a simulated-environment usability study to collect data that guided revisions and updates to the instructional materials. We then conducted a post-iterative study where we collected further feedback on the product and redesigned instructional materials.

We created and executed a documentation plan based on FDA and international HF guidance documents to fulfill regulatory agency expectations and to ensure readiness to demonstrate safe and effective use of the device. We then conducted an in-person validation study, including a training session and a test session, with healthcare providers (HCPs). ​

Pain point identification and innovation involved a mixed-method approach. We conducted remote in-depth interviews with users across platforms. And then invited participants back to engage in co-creation sessions in triad sessions.
Co-creating concepts that do not yet exist is challenging. Our approach captured insights from users who had time to reflect, which leveraged the benefits of a mixed-method approach.

Our team conducted contextual inquiries in the field with service technicians as they processed requests for installs, service, and repairs to identify opportunities to enhance efficiency and effectiveness at point of service. We also observed customer service representatives (CSRs) in the call center with an eye towards improvement at the service request level and led collaborative design sessions with the CSRs to identify workarounds that could be translated into system improvements.

We spoke with current users of in-window AC units during in-lab research; testing focused on setup of the connected system and use of application features.

We developed an HF plan and associated documentation and provided consulting on the HF development and regulatory approach. This included identification of target users and specified use cases per ANSI/AAMI/ISO 62366-1, identification of use-related risks and proposed strategies for risk mitigation, and development process documents.​

Our team conducted a series of offline (task-based) and online (live) studies with call center reps. Our client then evaluated the expected impact pre- and post-launch of the application. We collected time, motion, error data, and qualitative input.

Both studies conducted one-on-one, in-lab usability sessions with three different groups of specialized HCPs using prototypes of the portal. Our ability to adapt and be flexible, debriefing in real time, was key to successfully accomplishing the study goals: When we discovered that session time was inadequate to collect the desired data, we debriefed after the sessions to refocus testing for the following day. We already had clear trends, so it was possible to adjust the protocol and moderators guide to cover all of the manufacturer’s objectives.

We conducted interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs) from the manufacturer’s organization, as well as contextual inquiries in the field with clinical teams to understand known opportunities for improvement and current challenges.
We used these insights to create a number of simulated-use scenarios and conducted lab-based research to refine and prioritize design opportunities.

We conducted a literature review to assess the state of accessibility in K-12 computer science education and identify opportunities for improvement. Desk research consisted of scoping the current landscape of accessibility efforts in computer science education, evaluating the user experience of assistive technologies in the classroom, and identifying relevant stakeholders and ongoing research projects.

We conducted a mixed-method study involving a series of remote, individual interviews and a longitudinal online diary study with participants to gather detailed qualitative insights into patients’ treatment behaviors, preferences, use environments, and how patients use connected devices and applications in their daily disease management.

We developed approaches to conducting in-depth interviews that accommodated the unique accessibility needs of the participants. In interviews, we discussed foundational travel needs with an emphasis on booking accommodations to learn about both populations’ current processes and procedures and to discover what type of information they sought out when booking travel.

We conducted 30,000 quantitative surveys and 100 qualitative interviews with users from Brazil, Germany, Japan, Nigeria, and the United Sates to understand the relative importance of specified attributes (e.g., information source, private vs shared device, suggested vs requested information etc.) that contributed to people’s sense of how to balance information access versus safety.

Across seven countries, we conducted 60-minute remote in-depth interviews with the target population. We asked participants to describe their MP gaming experience, detailing their favorite genres and play modes, definitions of casual MPGs, and how they discovered new MPGs. We probed whether different devices and settings would impact their casual and non-casual MPG experiences. We also asked participants about their game spending habits and subscription features to identify their expectations of the price and features of a gaming subscription service.