I have a typical article page, and I am trying to include a left indented box with a "related articles" and also a bigger element at the end of the article with the same purpose. The elements are in blue in the following image:

enter image description here

I would like to test the perception of those elements, for that I will do a high fidelity prototype. Is this approach good in a remote testing? - asking the user if he noticed any visual or content element besides the article's text. - asking to choose from a list of options, the one with correct "title" regarding the element.

I just want to know if he notices it and reminds what he saw. I am looking for the most reliable test technique to do it. Thank you for your help.

2 Answers 2


Start with why you are doing this test:

...just want to know if he notices it and reminds what he saw.

Sounds to me like the proposed design is intended to help users notice the elements and remember the content.

What's your research question? It should be in question form, e.g:

Which of two "Related Articles" visual design treatments will users more likely notice and/or find memorable?

You could do a split-run test remotely using something like VerifyApp.com, specifically their memory test format.

Set up at least 2 versions of your article page design.

Except for the visual design treatments of the "Related Articles" page elements, make your A and B variants absolutely identical.

(Some people test >1 thing at a time but that's called multivariate testing and I think it's much better to start very simple if you want to stay focused on why you're doing the test.)

Then, run an experiment with the same number of participants for each of your variants.

Important: know how you intend to measure "better."

In your case, I think the more accurate details test participants mention per variant , the more effective the variant's design approach...agreed?

Also, please remember that A/B testing is kinda pointless unless you:

  1. Test only 1 thing at a time, and
  2. Have tons of sample size to make your result a non-fluke.

For example, if your A and B version are absolutely identical except for that 1 one thing (different styling OR wording OR colors OR size of the "Related Articles" element, OR nearly any other variable you can think of) any differences in the test results between A and B may be connected to whatever it was that you switched up.

If you design a simple test, even a 50:50 tie tells you something new, i.e. that the details of the 1 thing you happen to be sweating may not really matter that much, in which case you can move on to futz with some other aspects in the design.

Good luck,


Try and have page analytics enabled. You can see the conversion rate (% of viewers that clicked) for this page and the pages you go to when you click the highlighted areas. Do this before and after different versions of your prototype (A/B Testing).

Since it's a remote test it might be difficult to use eye tracking or observing the users while testing because you're not there.

  • Yes, I would prefer the observe the user natural behaviour too. I was thinking about to have different page's destinations for each clickable element and measure which is more clicked. Thanks for your help.
    – Mr. G
    Commented Jul 5, 2017 at 12:46
  • There are solutions for remote eye tracking available. Done via regular webcams. Because of the usage of the users regular device you get close the natural behavior.
    – JonnyZoo
    Commented Jul 27, 2017 at 11:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.