The internet is all atwitter about ReadWriteWeb’s article on how a quirk in Google had them highly ranked for the search term “Facebook login”.

It was like we had unearthed a long-lost city, the Atlantis of the Internet. But instead of treasures and gold we’d found a steady deluge of confused and frustrated users who had tried everything they knew to do and just wanted to log in to Facebook, damnit. But how had this happened? It certainly wasn’t that thousands and thousands of people had just started searching for “facebook login” yesterday. This stream of people has been there all along and something is broken.

There is a persistent meme, which this article is only helping reinforce, that user experience professionals are needed because the average user is far less intelligent than the average designer so we need to hire some people who can “think stupid” just like the user. Such thinking doesn’t benefit anyone, developers lose respect for the user and start creating condescending, dumbed down UIs. Users continue to find the new software hard to use because it doesn’t address their core issues.

Users aren’t so much unintelligent as they are distracted and indifferent

Your average user may be perfectly competent and zip through your app like a charm when they’re in a controlled setting, focusing exclusively on your application and incentivized to succeed. But such a scenario is almost never likely to happen in the real world. What’s more realistic is that they’re devoting, at best, 10% of their attention towards your app while they have the TV blaring in the background, an IM conversation they’re also involved in, thoughts about whether that meeting with the boss tomorrow means a promotion or getting fired. Your application is at best, 5th on their priority list and they’re largely moving on autopilot as they navigate through it. Once you understand this basic reality, user behavior becomes a lot easier to understand.

A couple of years ago, a grizzled UX professional taught me one invaluable fact.

Drunk people are a pretty accurate mimic of distracted, indifferent people

This insight has lead to a wonderful technique I’ve been refining over the years that I call “The $5 Guerrilla User Test”.

The $5 Guerrilla User Test

The $5 Guerrilla User Test

Here’s the 5 second version:

  1. Bring a laptop to a bar
  2. Offer to buy someone a beer in exchange for participating in a user study
  3. Watch your application crash & burn as people do all sorts of ridiculous ass shit they would never do in a lab but constantly do in real life
  4. Go back, apply the lessons you have learnt, repeat until you have an app that is 100% drunk person proof

This is the slightly longer version for those who are interested:

  • Like conventional user studies this is best done with a group of two, one to run through the script, the other to take notes.
  • Approach in a friendly manner, explain who you are and who you work for and ask them if you can have a moment of their time.
  • If they don’t seem receptive from the get go, thank them for their time and move on to a different target
  • Explain to them that you want some insight on a piece of software you’re currently building and tell them that you’re willing to buy them a pint of beer as compensation for their participation
  • If they accept (and 90% of them will), ask them their preference of beer and then ask your partner to go off and order it
  • While you’re waiting for your partner, inform them of your data collection policies, the procedure and the standard stuff about how they can quit at any time. It doesn’t much matter what exactly you say to them, the key is to make it boring. This step is key. When you first approached them, you were something novel for the night so they’re interested and motivated to perform. 2 minutes of dull chatter is going to lose their attention and they’re back to being utterly indifferent about your problems again.
  • Once your partner gets back, run it just like any other user study.
  • At the end, hand them their beer, thank them for their time and drop off some business cards for some easy word of mouth marketing. If you offer any sort of premium features, give them a year’s access to it as a gift as well. It’s a nice surprise and converts surprisingly well.

That’s it! It’s cheap, fast, can be done by anyone and gives you insights you never would have gotten hiring a professional usability consulting firm. Go out and do it!

Here’s a couple more tips I’ve picked up over the years:

  • The first time you do it, you’re probably going to be suffering from approach anxiety. Start off approaching a group of the same sex as you so that the encounter isn’t sexualized. Next, move on to a mixed sex group and then finish the night with an opposite gender interaction so you get a nice demographic spread.
  • Focus on people who don’t normally get talked to at bars, middle aged people, homely girls, the guy sitting in the corner.
  • People alone, reading a book, have a 50% chance of agreeing to participate. People alone, reading a newspaper, have a 99% chance of agreeing to participate.
  • If you ever get the feeling that you’re being messed with, politely end the experiment, give them their beer and move on to the next round of testing.
  • Groups of all guys tend to be the only ones who ever mess with you. I avoid asking them as a rule.
  • You want someone who’s pretty drunk but not completely trashed. A good way to calibrate is to keep on asking progressively drunker people until your results become garbage, then back off one notch from there. After a few rounds, you learn to spot the signs of an ideal participant.
  • Conveniently for you, weekdays end up being more effective than weekends so you can do this after work.
  • I generally try to keep the entire session down to around an hour which works out to be roughly 4 * 15 minute user studies. Much more than that is tiring and too much data to analyze the next day.
  • While beer is good before & after the user study, try and keep beer away during the user study. Spilled beer on a laptop can be an expensive mistake.
  • Bars are wonderful at segmenting by demographic. Match the bar you’re going to with the user population you want to target. Different bars will produce slightly different results but the variation is not huge.
  • If you’re planning on regularly using one bar to do your tests, tip the bartender well from the start, like, 30 – 40%. That extra $1 you spend isn’t going to break the bank and having a bartender on your side brings all sorts of benefits.
  • edit: One extra tip from a friend, mobile app development benefits even more from this technique since mobile use tends to involve even more distraction. Users are using your app while walking down the street, driving, holding a conversation etc.

Anyway, that’s it. I’d love to hear from people how their experience with the $5 Guerrilla User Test goes.

Related Posts

  1. Oct 21st (day 9): Test driven management
  2. The User Experience of Comics is abysmally poor
  3. Not impressed with the iPhone user interaction
  4. The fallacy of the facebook redesign
  • That is really a very useful and also focused piece of writing. Though my opinion differs from that of the author, I realize that this is excellent site. I will certainly subscribe to Rss of this fabulous as well as different web log.
  • Hang, if only it was as easy as this...

    I think this is a really fun article. This method seems like it would be a lot of fun, but I think that's all it is. It may reveal some usability issues that you had not seen in other diagnostics, but anything uncovered in this method would certainly need to be examined further. I would love to know the context in which the UX Specialist said his "drunk user" quote. Like everything in usability, it depends.
    If I were designing an electronic game or music system to be used in a bar, this would be the perfect setting. Couple of beers, loud music, lots of flashing lights, sit them in front of the interaction design, see what happens. Perfect, I have no argument. I'm sure that the user group would be extremely honest too given inhibitions would be lowered.

    But, you obviously just can't take any design and apply this method. Cockpits, medical equipment etc. If you just want to "...watch your application crash & burn as people do all sorts of ridiculous ass shit they would never do in a lab but constantly do in real life" then getting drunk people in front of a computer may not be the right way to go. Drunk people are going to show you "all sorts of ridiculous ass shit they would never do in a lab but constantly do when *drunk*". If you want to test distraction and interruption then there are other much better ways to do that. If I was testing a new car dashboard design, I would give them a simulator (this would be your laptop in your example) and a cellphone. I'd keep calling it when they were driving the simulator. I don't know if I would get them drunk, because sure, they may take the car "off-roading" in the simulator when drunk, but they wouldn't do this in real life - not for the most part anyway.

    Motivation is a huge factor when people work on applications or websites. For someone to do anything, they have to be motivated to do it. This is either because they will be fired, or they want to book a flight, or a social network application because they want to communicate etc etc. Yes, they may be indifferent about the design per se, but they aren't going to use something *because* of indifference - there is always a motivation. Within the first few seconds of the person using the site or application, you need to make them understand the foundation, the layout, the concept. The discovery stage is the time of least distraction, high motivation and highest concentration. Depending on the application or motivation, it may only last a few seconds but this is the time that is the most important to test. If your participant is under the influence (Under the Influence [UI] too funny) from the onset, you are going to lose this critical mental model building time. You'll almost certainly get a lot of false negatives.

    Next, if your design is already on a laptop, you're probably too late. To me it would look like you already have your concepts and architecture rightly or wrongly figured out, and then you set someone down to evaluate the lower level user-interaction. Usability testing should be about iterative improvement, and not about about a final diagnostic to see if the product works. Testing at that stage may be, and is often too late.

    Remember that UX specialists are looking for flaws in the design. They are like quality engineers. Yes, I know this happens in the real world, but the person designing the thing shouldn't be the person testing the thing. As a former developer, I never saw anything wrong with my code, and if there was a problem, I'd be making excuses for it, and somehow deem it acceptable. The same thing happens with design. If someone uncovers a legitimate issue in a bar, what's to stop the designer and tester saying "OK, yeah, but this person was extremely trashed..." and you throw out the data. It all just seems too risky.

    Finally, the challenge of design isn't just the design - it's the politics, it's the buy-in from the development team, it's about convincing the management team that a different approach maybe necessary and that they need to invest more $$$ to make this thing work. I'm a UX specialist, and I can't imagine going to a VP with data collected from Paddy O'Shea's on Friday night with a show stopping usability issue and actually being taken seriously.

    Yes, this is an extremely cheap method, but it's like everything - in the end you get what you pay for. UX Specialists, for the most part, know what they are doing, trust them.
  • Hang
    Mark, I think everything you've said makes a lot of sense and I generally agree with it. This is not the right tool for highly specialized equipment, companies with a staff of dedicated UX professionals on board or highly conservative management structures (this sadly rules out a lot of graduate students who would never be able to get this past an IRB). I should have made more clear in my article that I was primarily writing this for the type of software companies I had typically been dealing with, small, scrappy startups with tight deadlines building mainstream consumer web apps and comprised mostly of engineers with no full time UX person on board.

    As for the laptop thing, I'm actually a huge fan of paper based prototyping but I didn't want to have to explain how to run a paper based user test in this article so I used the example of a laptop to simplify.

    Thanks for your comment, it's always great to receive this kind of reasoned & insightful feedback.

    Cheers
    Hang
  • Thank you so much for this informative response. I hope it is helpful to many others as well.
  • There are so many things I disagree with here. but most of all, this seems utterly ridiculous: "You want someone who’s pretty drunk but not completely trashed. " and "Match the bar you’re going to with the user population you want to target. ".

    And how about not pre-judging your participants: "Focus on people who don’t normally get talked to at bars, middle aged people, homely girls, the guy sitting in the corner."

    I especially like: it "gives you insights you never would have gotten hiring a professional usability consulting firm". ah that's probably because usability professionals interview people who actually fit within the target audience of the product.

    I'm all for lean usability principles, but they have to be implemented correctly or else much of your time is wasted. Let's say you interviewed 8 people over 2 hours for $40 bucks. and none of them actually fit the typical user profile for your site. You would be better interviewing 3 people who fit the profile for 20 minutes each and giving them $10... or a movie voucher. whatever seems of value to them.

    Then again, I might have completely missed the mark. perhaps this is meant to be a humerous article...
  • Hang
    Hi Lisa,

    The cost of formal usability testing is closer to $100 than $10 (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030120.html) and it costs even more when you take into account all the time required to organize (1 hour per participant!), record & analyze the results. The certainly have their place and are an invaluable tool but I think they are best used synergistically with other, cheaper tools.

    While your target audience can be helpful uncovering more of the domain specific aspects of usability, their time is valuable and you want to spend it uncovering deep issues and not superficial usability concerns.

    This is why testing people in your non-target audience is useful. They can still uncover a wide range of issues that should be fixed before you move onto formal usability testing. That way, you're not paying someone $171 for them to come in and say they can't find the button to buy the good because the language was unclear.

    I'm not saying this is the be all and end all of user testing but I think it's a valuable tool to have in your arsenal as long as you understand the context of it's use.
  • Songcarver
    "The first time you do it, you’re probably going to be suffering from approach anxiety. Start off approaching a group of the same sex as you so that the encounter isn’t sexualized."

    Erm, that may not *always* work.
  • There are so many things I disagree with here. but most of all, this seems utterly ridiculous: "You want someone who’s pretty drunk but not completely trashed. " and "Match the bar you’re going to with the user population you want to target. ".

    And how about not pre-judging your participants: "Focus on people who don’t normally get talked to at bars, middle aged people, homely girls, the guy sitting in the corner."

    I especially like: it "gives you insights you never would have gotten hiring a professional usability consulting firm". ah that's probably because usability professionals interview people who actually fit within the target audience of the product.

    I'm all for lean usability principles, but they have to be implemented correctly or else much of your time is wasted. Let's say you interviewed 8 people over 2 hours for $40 bucks. and none of them actually fit the typical user profile for your site. You would be better interviewing 3 people who fit the profile for 20 minutes each and giving them $10... or a movie voucher. whatever seems of value to them.

    Then again, I might have completely missed the mark. perhaps this is meant to be a humerous article...
  • thank you! That looks like a great resource
  • I like this idea, but can I borrow your laptop as I don't want any of my drunk friends using mine.
  • love it!
  • It's unscientific. It's creative. It's scrappy. I think I like it.

    (Though Josh Walsh has a good point about selecting the proper test group)
  • Thanks for this — I've always been uncomfortable with the artificial environment of lab-based usability evaluations and this is an interesting idea to try out :)
  • This is a great approach thanks for sharing it.
  • James
    "Users aren’t so much unintelligent as they are distracted and indifferent"

    I've seen a bunch of articles white knighting for "the users" like this recently, but I'm not buying it. They are unintelligent. They are idiots. To actually get confused by that page requires a staggering lack of awareness and ability to think.

    In the opening paragraph you say it is condescending and wrong to "think stupid" to make your UI more accessible. How different is it if you "think like a drunk, distracted, and/or indifferent person?" It's the same exact thing, you've just renamed it something less condescending.

    Hmm, a user sitting there with glazed over eyes, so distracted and indifferent to the screen he is using that he can't even identify one of 800 clues that this isn't the facebook login page, somehow bypassing all of that to find the comments section and hammer out some AOL-speak...sounds like an idiot to me. Nothing against the author of this post, I just think we should accept the fact that many people are not smart (not entirely their fault, no doubt, but that's how it is).
  • Hang
    James: Of course there are unintelligent users, I'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is there are also many smart people who end up doing stupid looking things on your application because they're distracted & indifferent.

    The difference between thinking of users as stupid vs thinking of them as distracted & indifferent comes down to one of respect. Too often, I'm talking to developers who have a subtle vein of condescension towards any suggestion I have simplify an interface because their mental image of the users who are affected by this issue is that they're drooling idiots.

    Once I hammer it into their heads that instead who they're dealing with is capable people, just like them, who simply have other things going on in their lives, the tone of the conversation changes dramatically.
  • This is such a great point, Hang. Not only does it change the tone of the conversation, but it re-orients the culture of your whole team away from one of 'techie condescension' towards a culture of genuine care for the user. It's so weird how many people spend their lives building software for people who they think are idiots...
  • This would work for some projects, but breaks the number 1 rule of usability studies. Make sure you carefully qualify the people you are testing it with to make sure they are in your target audience/demographic.

    I'll have to try this out at some point when I'm testing something rather generic, like a blog design.
  • Freakin brilliant. I can't wait to do this.
  • Brilliant, thanks for sharing. I was going to say, maybe the $5 beer reward should be given up front to increase the subject's intoxication level .. haha
  • genius.
  • Mimic
    I've been doing this for years, only on enterprise apps, using participants of office parties. It really does work wonders for your interface.
  • Well it may seem like $5 test but actually if you count the time you spend for your beer and your time in a pub it may prove to be a bit more expensive :) But nevertheless can be fun

    You can also use some free tools available to test your UI - e.g. http://www.usabilitytest.com
blog comments powered by Disqus