I am in the process of revamping a form page which the users were finding it difficult to attempt. Consequently, I have developed a prototype with some click-through interactions which is consist of about 3 screens - a form page followed by the pages for review and confirmation. The main objective is to test it with the users and see whether they will be able to answer all the questions in the form easily and move forward towards the confirmation page or not.

I have once used usertesting.com in past and what I have learnt there was when we have a set of screens (mockups) to test, we should include a description along with instructions to narrate every screen/step in the flow. However, in case of using an interactive-prototype we may not be able to guide them (or interrupt them) at the screen-level but to have only some introduction-text in the beginning. Considering these conditions, will it be effective to launch the test with a set of static-screens? Or the interactive-prototype? – Please suggest.

2 Answers 2


As you have pointed out in your question, the main objective of your testing activity is to:

test it with the users and see whether they will be able to answer all the questions in the form easily and move forward towards the confirmation page or not.

So the 'tasks' that you create for the user testing should be trying to assess both the ability of the user to

  1. Answer the questions (i.e. comprehend the input required and provide the appropriate information) as well as
  2. Progress through the workflow and get to the confirmation page

With the first point, I don't think it is necessary for the test platform to be interactive because it is centred around the way questions are asked. However, if you want to test if the validation messages are appropriate and if it will help guide the user in correcting their input then an interactive prototype is more convenient.

With the second point (that incorporates one aspect of the first point I raised), you want to make sure that all the call-to-actions are clear and that the user knows where they are in the workflow. Again this is not necessarily to do in an interactive prototype but more convenient because it can help fine-tune some of the interaction design elements.

Of course, it is probably easier having some screen shots and seeing what elements you are trying to change with the new design, but I think if you pin down the main issues that you are trying to address and if there is not a lot of interaction involved then you would question if there is the need for an interactive prototype.

Since you are actually trying to compare it to an existing design and not starting from scratch, would it be better to put it through some sort of A/B testing instead? That way you can measure task completion and comprehension using the previous designs as the baseline.


I've used usertesting.com, and there is the possibility to add further instructions / questions for each new screen.

However, if the final objective is that users will go through these screens by themselves in the end, maybe it would be best to just observe them going through the screens without additional instructions, even if they are struggling, then ask them to answer questions at the end: what did they struggle with? What were they looking for / expecting? What went well?

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.