先说第一种：研究显意识。
目前绝大多数的研究方法都是研究用户的显意识，继续分类可以分为两类。

1）依赖用户自我报告的方法(Self-report)：比如深访，焦点小组，Diary study,可用性测试用到的think aloud，问卷调查等等。其基本的理论依据是用户能speak their mind，并且是可靠的。当然很多的理论工作者对各种方法中可能因为操作不当，导致各种误差，甚至导致完全错误的结论都有相应的方法来避免。比如焦点小组中的各种技巧来避免各种常见的错误等等。但是无论如何，其基本理论假设本身就存在很多的限制条件。
虽然目前大多数的市场研究，用户研究都用到这些方法，也确实给企业的business带来实用价值，而且也将继续并长期存在。

2）依赖用户行为的研究：比如观察法，人种学研究，眼动仪，脑电以及无干扰的可用性测试，日志分析等等。其基本的假设是用户的行为是可以信赖的，是不会撒谎的，通过科学的观察以及用户行为的跟踪，我们能更多的研究用户不能表达的东西，或者用户难以通过自身反省得到的东西。比较典型的是：通过网络日志的分析来揭示用户的行为，这给互联网公司研究用户行为以极大的方便，其对传统市场研究的冲击是很大的。

再说第二种：研究潜意识。Userfree有文章介绍了潜意识研究对用户研究，市场研究的极端重要性，可以参看http://www.uxgarden.com/tag/zmet/；如果说用户的行为只有5%是由显意识决定的，那么现在的情况是：我们基本上是把95%的精力用在研究5%的用户显意识上；
而用在另外95%的潜意识的研究上则几乎没有。多么可惜！

突破和创新也许都在这95%的潜意识研究了。

回过头来说潜意识的研究方法：隐喻引诱技术，图片投射技术，内隐等。可惜我并没有能尝试过这些，欠缺将其用在实际项目上的经验，但是任何一个鼓励创新的企业都应该勇于尝试，力争有所突破。

说这些分类有啥用？至少能帮助我们了解各种方法的局限和优势。在企业做用户研究，并不是在高校做理论研究。我们要对企业的business有作用，要帮助企业赚钱，没有投资人会喜欢一个自我欣赏的研究。作为用户研究的实践者，在工作中，根据具体项目来决定综合使用这些研究方法，多思考，多尝试，方法只是工具，研究人员自己的大脑才是最最重要的。
用户不会被你彻底了解，但也不是不可了解的:-)

After you select (or recruit) a group of participants who closely resemble your user population, you should:

1. Give each participant (or two participants working together) a set of index cards. Each card should include one topic from your Web site.
2. Ask participants to group the cards in a way that makes sense to them. Many participants start by placing the first card on the table and then look at the second card to see whether it belongs in the same group or if it deserves its own category – and so on through the set of cards.
3. After participants have grouped the cards, you can ask them to name or label each group.

Using software for card sorting

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)’s card-sorting tool, WebCAT, may be downloaded and used for free.

For a list and description of commercially-available tools, visit the Society for Technical Communication’s card sorting overview.

For an article about card sorting with links to some tools visit, UsabilityNet’s card sorting summary.

 原文：http://www.usability.gov/design/cardsort.html

评论和文章一并贴上，大家自己分析分析，或者你也可以自己实践一下。点击查看原文

评论：

“作者在第一部分介绍投射技术方面，显然是对这一领域有着一定了解的。但是没有道出投射技术的重点：投射技术作为精神分析的一个研究技术，它“被设计用于找出个体潜在的动机，无论是他们无意识的理性还是意识隐藏的努力”，一般地，投射技术由一系列的被掩饰的“测试”组成，这种测试包含不明确的刺激物，如未完成的句子、无标题的图片或漫画、墨渍、与字关联的测验、对别人的描述等。通常用于in-depth interview，有时也用于focus group，但是用于focus group并不非常合适。这一层的原因请原作者自己去细想。投射技术的理论前提是，对于同一种刺激物，被调查对象由于受到内心感受的影响会以不同的方式感知这种刺激物。因此，他们完成故事或句子实际上是他们内心想法的投射。这也是投射技术得名的原因。所谓投射，作者可以去详细了解一下弗洛伊德有关防御机制的阐述。

作者在第二部分描述了用图片进行投射技术的操作，未尝不可。但通观全部流程，我认为作者并没有完全了解投射技术的本质。如果说作者以同一张图片（没有确定主题的）呈现给不同的被试，收集每个被试对此的解释和联想，那这或许可以算作投射技术。但以作者描述的方法看，却并不是投射技术。

这实际上是隐喻分析。从操作过程看，应当是扎特曼隐喻启发技术（zmet）。关于这一方面的知识，作者可以去查询：G Zaltman, RH Coulter，Seeing the Voice of the Customer: Metaphor-Based Advertising Research，Journal of Advertising Research, 1995

尽管大可以说，只要能出结果，什么理论不都一样。但是对于心理学的技术手段，还是要更深入为好。在不同技术的背后，理论是不一样的，而对于这一技术所出结果的解释也不一样。”

文章：浅谈图片投射方法的应用

一 什么是投射

　　在心理学领域，投射是一种间接的询问调查形式，研究者利用一些无序的、模糊的刺激引导人们去回答问题，探测人们不自知的人格特性、被隐瞒的态度等。著名投射测试有罗夏克墨迹测试（RIT）、绘树测试、主题统觉测试（TAT）等，主要用于测试人格，但需要专业的研究人员来操作。在广告、品牌等市场研究中投射方法也被广泛使用，而且相对简单和实用。调研人员采用第三人提问、联想、填空、看图造句等技术，收集用户对广告、产品的态度、认知、消费的潜在动机等。下面具体介绍图片投射的应用方法。

罗夏克墨迹测试图

二 什么是图片投射

　　图片投射技术是指采用一系列图片作为投射工具，分析用户对这些图片的反应和理解，帮助获得人们内心想法。
　　在市场研究中运用图片投射技术，主要有以下几个方面优点：（1）形式较新鲜活泼，敏感度较低，便于营造有趣轻松的氛围，使被访者处于放松状态，更容易表达出内心想法；（2）图像是感性的、直觉的加工，不同于言语理性的、逻辑的加工。图片投射将被访者从理性思维中拉开，更深入地挖掘其情感及喜好；（3）对于一些受教育程度不高或习惯图像思维的被访者，图片可以突破言语表达障碍，辅助思维并传递他们的想法。
　　市场调研中，图片投射常常用于探测用户对于品牌的认知、对产品的潜在需求和偏好等。例如一个汽车品牌经过一系列包装上市了，厂商希望了解该品牌的概念是否能很好的传达给消费者。调研者给出代表高贵、经济、廉价、结实、轻便、可爱等一些列图片，让消费者从中选取他们认为与该品牌汽车类似的图片并解释他们选择的原因。使用这种方法就可以得到用户对某汽车品牌从形象到功能的认知和情感信息。
　　图片投射不仅可对已包装好的品牌进行测试，也可在最初时进行指导品牌的设计。设计中心在产品视觉风格和logo设计时常使用图片投射的方法，例如在Hummer视觉设计前通过图片投射收集目标用户对于TM的产品认知和深层需求进行风格定位，在QQ秀商城视觉风格设计时通过图片投射收集目标用户对于“时尚”感的理解以及视觉偏好等。

TM2008视觉风格推导

QQ秀视觉风格推导——主色

QQ秀视觉风格推导——质感

三 操作过程的注意事项

1 选择图片

　　投射测试的目的通过图片刺激来帮助用户挖掘和表达内心的想法，作为关键的刺激物，图片的质量直接影响测试的结果。图片的选择需要紧紧围绕测试目的。以QQ秀的视觉风格为例，调研目的有两个，一个是收集用户对“时尚”感的理解，一个是将时尚分解到不同的视觉元素上。因此准备了两个图库，一个是有实物场景的图库，包含生活态度、衣着装扮、家居装扮三类图片来投射时尚概念的理解；一个是抽象的图库，包含不同色彩丰富程度、冷乱色、不同质感的图片来投射用户在视觉元素上的偏好。另外被选图片的内涵要尽量单一，不可因为其他干扰因素转移用户的注意。

具象图库投射“时尚”概念理解

抽象图库投射视觉元素上的偏好

2测试形式

　　一般采用焦点小组的方式来进行图片投射的测试，一是因为这种方式能够节省调研时间，快速得到多个样本的结果。另一方面小组的互动形式可以激发用户的思路，有利于在深度和广度上的挖掘。

3结果分析

　　图片投射测试是一种定性分析。在分析时，除了关注被选图片之外需要关注用户对选择原因的解释。图片在选取时无法完全排除其他干扰因素，用户可能因为干扰元素选择了图片，那么我们不可以将其作为结论。另外，如果选择的原因是完全来自个别用户自身的经历，因为没有代表性，我们也不可以将其归纳到结果中。
　　在归纳总结时，我们常常关注集中趋势，例如在“时尚”感的解释中，一组用户中大多数都选择了代表“动感活力”的图片，那么我们可以认为该类用户对于时尚的理解为“动感活力”。

有个免费软件叫StickySorter，能帮助你和你的团队很好的整理那些notes。TYR IT NOW!

StickySorter允许你使用熟悉的便条界面来处理和组织大量的信息。你可以用该软件创建便条，或者从已有文件中导入数据。你可以安排和分组便条并将结果保存为csv文件，这个文件随后可以用很多其他应用程序打开和处理。

.

StickySorter支持相关关系图，这是一种数据分析方法，可用于很多领域，包括用户研究、产品规划，以及设计。

.

这张StickySorter的拷屏显示除了可以在多个输入区中编辑便条内容外，还可以将便条分组排列。

.

右键点击一个便条，查看菜单选项，包括便条颜色。

.

StickySorter允许你在一个便条中显示多个区域。使用区域编辑器命名和组织区域并对其赋值，例如一个区域是否显示在便条的前面或者后面。

Summary:
Modern day user experience research methods can now answer a wide range of questions. Knowing when to use each method can be understood by mapping them in 3 key dimensions and across typical product development phases.

The field of user experience, is blessed (or cursed) with a very wide range of research methods, ranging from tried-and-true methods such as lab-based usability studies to those that have been more recently developed, such as desirability studies (to measure aesthetic appeal).

You can’t use the full set of methods on every project, but most design teams benefit from combining insights from multiple research methods. The key question is what to do when. To better understand when to use which method, it is helpful to realize that they differ along 3 dimensions:

• Attitudinal vs. Behavioral
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative
• Context of Website or Product Use

The following chart illustrates where several popular methods appear along these dimensions:

Each dimension provides a way to distinguish between studies in terms of the questions they answer and the kinds of purposes they are most suited for.

The Attitudinal vs. Behavioral Dimension

This distinction can be summed up by contrasting “what people say” with “what people do” (very often quite different). The purpose of attitudinal research is usually to understand, measure, or inform change of people’s stated beliefs, which is why attitudinal research is used heavily in marketing departments.

While most usability studies should rely more on behavior, methods that use self-reported information can still be quite useful. For example, card sorting provides you with insights about users’ mental model of an information space, which can help you determine the best information architecture for your site. Surveys measure attitudes or collect self-reported data that can help track or discover important issues with your site. Focus groups tend to be less useful for usability purposes, for a variety of reasons.

On the other end of this dimension, methods that focus mostly on behavior usually seek to understand “what people do” with minimal interference from the method itself. A/B testing only changes the site’s design, but attempts to hold all else constant, in order to see the effect of site design on behavior, while eyetracking seeks to understand how users visually interact with interface designs.

Between these two extremes lie the two most popular methods we use: usability studies and field studies. They utilize a mixture of self-reported and behavioral data, and can move toward either end of this dimension, though leaning toward the behavioral side is generally recommended.

The Qualitative vs. Quantitative Dimension

The basic distinction here is that, in qualitative studies, the data is usually being gathered directly, whereas in quantitative studies, the data is gathered indirectly, through an instrument, such as a survey or a web server log. In field studies and usability studies, for example, the researcher directly observes how people use technology (or not) to meet their needs. This gives them the ability to ask questions, probe on behavior or possibly even adjust the study protocol to better meet its objectives. Analysis of the data is usually not mathematical.

By contrast, insights in quantitative methods are typically derived from mathematical analysis, since the instrument of data collection (e.g., survey tool or web-server log) captures such large amounts of data that are coded numerically.

Due to the nature of their differences, qualitative methods are much better suited for answering question about why or how to fix a problem, whereas quantitative methods do a much better job answering how many and how much type of questions. The following chart illustrates how the first two dimensions affect the types of questions that can be asked:

The Context of Product Use Dimension

The final distinction has to do with how and whether participants in the study are using the website or product in question. This can be described by:

• Natural or near-natural use of the product
• Scripted use of the product
• Not using the product during the study
• A hybrid of the above

When studying natural use of the product, the goal is to minimize interference from the study in order to understand behavior or attitudes as close to reality as possible. Many ethnographic field studies attempt to do this, though there are always some observation biases. Intercept surveys and data mining/analytic techniques are quantitative examples of this.

A scripted study of product usage is done in order to focus the insights in very specific ways, such as on a redesigned flow. The degree of scripting can vary quite a bit, depending on the study goals. For example, a benchmarking study is usually very tightly scripted so that it can produce reliable usability metrics.

Studies where the product is not used are conducted to examine issues that are broader than usage and usability, such as a study of the brand or larger cultural behaviors.

Hybrid methods use a creative form of product usage to meet their goals. For example, participatory design allows users to interact with and rearrange design elements and discuss why they made certain choices.

Most of the methods in the chart can move along one or more dimensions, and some do so even in the same study, usually to satisfy multiple goals. For example, field studies can focus on what people say (ethnographic interviews) or what they do (extended observation); desirability studies and cardsorting have both qualitative and quantitative versions; and eyetracking can be scripted or unscripted.

Phases of Product Development (the time dimension)

Another important distinction to consider when making a choice among research methodologies is the phase of product development and its associated objectives.

1. STRATEGIZE: In the beginning phase of the product development, you are typically considering new ideas and opportunities for the future. Research methods in this phase can vary greatly.
2. OPTIMIZE: Eventually, you will reach a “go/no-go” decision point, when you transition into a period when you are continually improving the design direction you have chosen. Research in this phase is mainly formative and helps you reduce the risk of execution.
3. ASSESS: At some point, the website or product will be available for use by enough users where you can begin measuring how well you are doing.

The table below summarizes these goals and lists typical research approaches and methods associated with each:

Art or Science?

While many user experience research methods have their roots in scientific practice, their aims are not purely scientific and still need to be adjusted to meet stakeholder needs. This is why the characterizations of the methods here are meant as general guidelines, rather than rigid classifications.

In the end, the success of your work will be determined by how much of an impact it has on improving the user experience of the website or product in question. These classifications are meant to help you make the best choice at the right time.

17世纪的法国哲学家有一句名言：“我思故我在”。可以看出，意识在很长时间里都是哲学讨论的话题。现代科学认为，意识是从大脑中数以亿计的神经元的协作中涌现出来的。但是这仍然太笼统了，具体来说，神经元是如何产生意识的？近年来，科学家已经找到了一些可以对这个最主观和最个人的事物进行客观研究的方法和工具，并且借助大脑损伤的病人，科学家得以一窥意识的奥秘。除了要弄清意识的具体运作方式，科学家还想知道一个更深层次问题的答案：它为什么存在，它是如何起源的？

揭开无意识之谜

有意识思维之外的世界你每次关上办公室门时脑子里总会响起某个旋律。你总是喜欢可口可乐而不是百事可乐。配偶脸上的某种表情会莫名其妙地激发你的爱欲或怒气。还有，你当初与配偶结婚的理由现在看起来是多么不可理喻啊。

这些都证明你的无意识在积极发挥作用。尽管这些事例表面看起来虽无关联，但无不揭示了在有意识思维之外另一个不太理性的丰富内心世界。很久之前弗洛伊德就让世界认识到我们的所作所为取决于神秘的记忆和情感力量，如今人们重新开始探索思维和头脑的深度。威斯康星大学神经学家保罗·惠兰说：“我们每时每刻的行动大部分都是无意识的。如果每件事都处于意识的前沿，生活就会是一片混乱。”

凭借有放的神经成像技术，诸如“我们如何作出仓促决定”、“为何对毫无理由的决定感到不安”、“什么令我们满意”之类的问题即将得到解答不是通过研究某个人儿童时期的秘密，而是观察大脑特定部位的神经脉冲。几乎每周都会有这方面的新研究发表。流行文化对神经科学如此着迷，因此马尔科姆。格拉德韦尔的著作《眨眼之间：无意识思考的力量》4周以来一直保持在畅销书排行榜上。

Blink

我们当中大多数人都愿意接受这种观点：我们通过在某个遥不可及的地方进行的思维，对事物作出判断。但如今科学家们找到了这些思维过程的神经联接，它们位于大脑中从来不曾受到重视的部位，这些部位与其他部位联络，引发神经传递，并导致我们的行为。埃默里大学心理和行为科学系的教授克林顿·基尔茨说：“你的任何行为、思想、意识和无意识、日常活动，无不具有神经编码。我们最大的挑战就是找出如何研究并解开这些编码。”

无论对个人还是对医疗界来说，对人类无意识的初步了解都意义深远。人类行为也许不全然是高级理性思维的结果，这种认识可能动摇我们对某些宝贵价值观的信仰，例如自由意志、选择的能力，以及对这些选择的责任感等。我们永远无法控制自己的心跳节奏或脑边缘系统的活动。然而，格拉德韦尔写道，“我们的瞬间判断和第一印象都是有缘由并受到操控的……要解释我们的行为，我们就必须承认，一闪念有着与长时间理性分析同样的价值”。

认知神经科学家认为，人们仅在5％左右的认知活动中是有意识的，因此我们大多数的决定、行动、情绪和行为都取决于超出意识之外的那95％的大脑活动。从心跳、推购物车到决定不伤害一窝小猫，我们靠的是一种名叫“适应性无意识”的东西，它是大脑认识这个我们的精神和肉体都必须与之交流的世界的方式。适应件无意识让我们能驾车转过一个街角，而无需用复杂的计算来找出精确的转弯角度、汽车速度和驾驶半径。它还令我们能理解有歧义的句子的正确意思。

无意识研究的商业应用杰拉尔德·萨尔茨曼是哈佛商学院的名誉教授，但他却像神经科学家—样考虑意识层问题。他也是奥尔森·萨尔茨曼同仁咨询公司的创建合伙人之一，该公司指导企业更好地理解顾客的想法。作为营销学教授，萨尔茨曼喜欢研究是什么因素促使人们买某种东西而不是另一种在神经科学领域，这直抵关于动机问题的核心。

在探察客户意识的工作中，萨尔茨曼尝试找到一种方法能越过往往不可靠的抽样小组调查，避免不相干因素的干扰，学握客户的真正需求。这将令销售和推广工作更富有成效。

他的这种方法申请了美国专利，被称为“萨尔茨曼隐喻诱引术”（ZMET）。专利证书描述说，这是一项“得出影响思想和行为的互相联系之构造的技术。一直以来ZMET被用来制造信息以激发客户大脑95％的重要部分的回应，因为客户的很多选择都是在这部分大脑的推动下作出的。它的工作原理是取得那些人们不自觉地与某种产品或感觉联系起来的深度隐喻。

萨尔茨曼说，语言是很有限的，不能将它混同于思维本身。但图像却距离获取繁复而矛盾的无意识感觉世界的片断更近了一步。他要求他的实验对象画出能代表他们对某件事物的想法和感情的图画，即使他们无法解释为何这样画。萨尔茨曼发现，当人们这样做时，常常发现“—个放置在独特情景中的深刻隐喻”。他在世界各地进行研究后相信，这些无意识隐喻的种类是有限的，而且表达希望和悲伤等情感的隐喻对所有人都普遍适用。

萨尔茨曼发现，即使隐喻也具有实际用途。一家建筑公司请他帮忙设计一所新的儿童医院，设法让该医院的环境对住院的儿童、他们的父母和医院的工作人员来说不像过去那样难以忍受。借助ZMET技术，儿童、父母们和工作人员画出了这所医院令他们联想到的图像。随后，研究人员就这些图画对他们进行了近两个小时的询问，发掘他们的想法、感觉和联想。一系列隐喻在谈话中出现了。再经过一系列处理之后，尽管入们的表达和情绪千差万别，核心主题终于跃然纸上。对这所儿童医院来说，主要隐喻是转变，辅助隐喻是控制、交流和能量。

这些主题如何具体体现？2008年医院竣工之后，当患者和家人走进来时，他们会被蝴蝶图案——转变的象征一一所环绕。病房更像家居房间，患儿们对自己的个人空间能有一些控制权。从所有病房都能看到一个大型花园，它象征着转变、也象征着交流和能量。一名设计人员说：“以前，设计是下赌注，成败全凭运气。现在我们知道，这所医院最深层的主题必须与转变有关。”

当然。萨尔茨曼不是唯一研究客户想法的人。在《眨眼之间》(Blink)一书中，格拉德韦尔描述了可口可乐公司犯下的代价高昂的错误。可口可乐公司根据蒙眼口味测试中的数据更改了饮料配方，但“新可口可乐”在市场上一败涂地。事实上，尽管口味不如百事可乐受欢迎，可口可乐在软饮料领域仍然是龙头老大。在格拉德韦尔的著作完成之后发布的一项最新研究也许能作出解释。

贝勒大学医学院的研究人员让67名可口可乐和百事可乐的支持者进行选择。当蒙注眼睛时，他们更喜欢百事可乐。但是当他们在喝之前看到公司商标时，3/4的入更喜欢可口可东。研究入员扫描了实验对象在测试过程中的大脑，发现可口可乐商标引发了与记忆和自我形象有关的大脑部位的剧烈活动；而百事可乐尽管对大多数人来说口味更好，却几乎没有对这些区域造成影响。这项研究去年10月发布时，贝勒大学布朗基金会人类神经扫描实验室的里德。蒙塔古对此作出了解释：“可口可乐商标有力地影响了人脑中与行为控制有关的活动——回忆和自我形象的闪现。”

他说，关键是大脑做出了能影响行为的反应”。奇怪的是，这种反应与意识层面的喜好毫不相干。对无意识思维的初步认识狗会走上前来嗅你。如果它记得你，而且在它的印象中你是个好人，那么它立刻开始摇尾巴，也许还会赏脸舔舔你的手腕。但它也可能远远躲开你，将你与食物联系起来，或者飞快地咬你一口。所有这些印象、这些联系都是一次闻嗅所触发的。除了不会走过去嗅另人，人在这方面其实与狗是—样的。纽约州立精神病研究所的精神病学家多洛雷斯。

马拉斯皮纳说：”一种气味并不只是一个符号，它包括了广泛的内容。“他解释说，嗅觉信息与众不同，因为它是人类五种感觉中唯一不会在大脑的中继站——丘脑——中停留，而直接抵达前脑皮层的感觉信息。嗅觉无需中转、过滤，猛烈地冲击前脑皮层。研究人员发现，在我们没有意识到的情况下，嗅觉在我们选择配偶时汾演了重要角色。同屋住的女人的月经周期会趋于一致，这是因为她们无意识中闻到的味道启动了其内分泌系统。马拉斯度纳说：”我们的大脑从胎儿时期就开始发育，却注定要把控制权让给嗅觉。”

但如果嗅觉不能正常工作会怎样呢？马拉斯皮纳和其他研究入员正在研究精神紊乱者的嗅觉，并已得出一些耐入寻味的结论。尽管精神分裂症被视为幻觉和错觉的失调，但这种病症的一个更明显和更具破坏性的症状是社交障碍。有些精神分裂症患者不能领会社会暗示，不能处理社会关系。幻觉和错觉注注可以通过药物得到控制，但基本的社交障碍却令患者在应对日常生活时遭遇更大的困难。

研究表明，很多精神分裂症患者也患有“临床意义的嗅觉障碍”，其中包括顶叶（负责将感官信息综合起来以理解某些东西，例如领会社会暗示或将这些暗示综合起来等）的机能失调。既然一种气息能立刻唤起一幅在特定时间和地点的景象，那么缺少这种能力则会造成一个人丧失生命中基本的让会和情绪支撑点。马拉斯皮纳说：“我们逐渐认识到，气味是研究社交能力和社交兴趣的无意识基础的良好途径。”

一名大脑受损的患者躺在床上，不是完全无意识，也没有陷入昏迷，但意识火花只会一瞬即逝，只有细微的动作证明他（她）一息尚存或知道亲友就在身畔。在医学上，这些患者被称为处于最低意识状态。估计现在有lO万到30万美国人是这种状态。

《神经病学》杂志发表了一份惊人的研究报告：研究人员用核磁共振成像设备研究两名最低意识水平者的大脑，然后与7名健康男性和女性的大脑进行比较。扫描显示，最低意识患者的大脑活动还不到其他人的—半。然后研究人员向实验对象分别播放由其家人或朋友所录制的磁带，叙述愉快的往事或共同的经历。一名最低意识患者听的是姐姐回忆她的婚礼和他的祝词。结果非常惊人：所有接受扫描者，包括最低意识者在内，均表现出类似的脑部活动，有些人的视觉皮层还出现了活动。

尽管有证据表明，无论对受损大脑还是健康大脑来说，无意识都广泛存在于日常生活中，但就连萨尔茨曼这样热烈的无意识思维信仰者也建议不要妄下论断。“我认为我们还不知道纯粹理性的思维、以及似乎是纯粹直觉的思维各占多大比例”。这两者之间的平衡、已知和未知、有意识和无意识、5％和95％的混杂——正是研究巨大而复杂的头脑世界的先驱者们将继续探索的。然而我们很可能永远也无法弄个水落石出。毕竟，意识之奥秘、大脑之玄机，永远都是人之所以为“人”的终极谜题。

什么是隐喻诱引技术

萨尔特曼隐喻诱引技术（ZMET）是一种结合非文字语言(图片)与文字语言(深入访谈)的崭新消费者研究方法，是哈佛商学院的萨尔特曼(Gerald Zaltman)教授于20世纪90年代提出(Zaltman and Coulter, 1994；Zaltman and Coulter, 1995)，是一项专利研究技术。ZMET撷取了心理学、认知科学、社会学、符号学、视觉人类学等多种科的精华，而形成其深厚稳固之理论基础。但ZMET这种以图片为媒介，并以人类思考基本单位——“隐喻”为工具之调查方法，则突破了以上限制。

　　ZMET以受访者收集而来之图片为素材，透过个人深度访谈，来抽取受访者之构念(construct)并联结构念间的关系，描绘出阐释消费者感觉及想法并产生行动或决策之心智模式地图。心智模式，以广义而言，可包括：看法、情绪和感觉、象征、活动、目标、个人价值、印象、过去消费者议题的记忆、经验预期消费观和经验知觉的陈述，如：触觉、味觉和嗅觉等(Christensen and Jerry, 2002)。再者，由于ZMET是以视觉隐喻与图片为基础，因此当这些研究结果要转化成广告、电影、网站等强调视觉元素的传播媒介时，更是有其便利性与有效性。

　　萨尔特曼隐喻诱引技术（ZMET），它代表了当今先进研究成果。萨尔特曼尝试找到一种方法能越过往往不可靠的抽样小组调查，避免不相干因素的干扰，掌握顾客的真正需求。ZMET技术的工作原理是取得那些人们不自觉地与某种产品或感觉联系起来的深度隐喻。他要求试验对象画出能代表他们对某件事物的想法和感情的图画，即使他们无法解释为何这样画。

　　萨尔特曼隐喻诱引技术的核心价值在于了解在消费者行为背后的“为什么”，围绕驱动消费行为的关键元素制定出营销策略，从而“构建”消费者的情感意识。

萨尔特曼隐喻诱引技术的基础

　　萨尔特曼隐喻诱引技术以如下几个心理学主流认识成果为基础：

• 大多数社会交流是非言语的；
• 思想作为图像出现；
• 隐喻是认知的中心；
• 认知植根于亲身体验中；
• 能够到达深层思维结构；
• 思想的含义由它与其他思想的关联性所体现；
• 理性、情感和体验共存。

萨尔特曼隐喻诱引技术的前提假设

1、大部分沟通是非语言的

　　许多文字语言的意义都决定于非文字的暗示中。甚至矛盾发生时，非文字语言更能表达意义。当更深入了解学习及沟通过程中的基本观念，就能了解非文字的重要性。语言与文字是人类后期才发展出来的，而人脑并不会偏向文字功能进化。因此有学者甚至提出人类更应重非语言的精致化程度，因为大部分到达大脑的刺激都是非文字的，并且人们心中大部分的心智影像是以视觉为主的。

2、思考是以影像产生的

　　虽然思考是透过文字语言来表示，却是透过非文字语言影响产生的，思考产生的方式与沟通方式不同，思考是以影像呈现的，虽然文字语言在研究过程中是必须的，但它与特殊非语言文字的连结才是关键，让消费者透过非文字语言表达影像是重要的，这让研究者能更接近消费者心中的状态，透过文字语言与 非文字言的结合，使研究者能更深入的了解消费者心中多样化的意义。

3、隐喻是思考、感觉及行为的单位

　　“隐喻”是观察消费者思考和感觉，而进一步了解行为的关键工具，隐喻不仅为思考的基本单位，也是沟通的基本单位。隐喻能隐藏与解释思考的方式，也能创造与塑造思考，所以，研究者将更多的注意力放在消费者所使用的视觉与感官隐喻上，能更深刻了解消费者的思考与感觉。

4、感官影像为重要隐喻

　　感觉提供重要隐喻，感觉是心智的桥梁与窗户，是所有信息通过的地方，感官基础的“隐喻”是了解消费者思考与行为的重要潜在手段。而知觉是植基在具体经验所支持的感官隐喻上，许多的隐喻是心智的影像，而这些影像大多是视觉的。

　　人们可透过图片，如：照片、杂志上图片、绘画…等来沟通其视觉隐喻，图片可成为发现消费者概念，以及有效代表消费者较高层构念的工具。

5、心智模式是故事的表现

　　消费者拥有代表其知识与行为的心智模式，记忆的主要过程为故事的创造、储存与恢复，故事提供概念间的关系，因此研究者可以捕捉，并将其绘图表示，这些图即代表个人或群体关于某些营销经验相关概念/构念的关联。心智模式包含驱动消费者思考与行动的主要构念，而构念间的连结则代表其互动关系，此互动过程正是市场区隔的基础与重要元素，找出最具影响力的构念进行营销决策，可以达到事半功倍的效果。

6、思考中的深层结构是为可触及的

　　消费者所意识到的相关思考都是需要经过帮助才能清晰辨认的，所有消费者都会隐藏相关的思考，其实他们本身并不知道该概念的存在，但知晓后会愿意分享。

7、理性与感性的混合

　　必须同时从精确的(神经学角度)与功能性的(广告者角度)来考虑理性与感性的混合，既然深层的思考架构已浮现，就不应该偏重于理性或感性，而是同时考虑。

萨尔特曼隐喻诱引技术的作用

　　萨尔特曼隐喻诱引技术可以改善传统调查法的一些问题，因为现今许多调查技巧大都使用文字沟通来收集资料。而认知学家承认人类是以图像来思考，而非文字；社会语言学家也认为大部分的沟通非语言沟通。因此，结合非文字语言沟通的图像与文字沟通，能创造更有意义的讯息。

　　营销研究所需要改善的五点：

• 为广告或其它营销决策提供关于消费者更深一步的暸解。
• 引出消费者潜在需求使之浮现。
• 提供吸引消费者注意力与更迎合消费者思维过程的良好引导方向。
• 编辑与组织更良好的非语言数据。
• 使研究者的发现能更帮助时最终产品的设计，如：具视觉效果的广告。

　　此方法想要更深入消费者的认知结构，特别针对探讨消费者隐喻背后的意义，并且辨别其重要性和关联性。

　　许多想法和感觉是消费者无法用言语表达出来的，是在表层思考之下的体会认识，因此必须需要一种可以投射和解释表象的方法，而Zalman发现“隐喻”是找出潜藏讯息的重要工具，而使用“隐喻”作为研究可以引出消费者深层的意涵。

　　而许多认知科学也赞同图像的心智模型，以图像为基础，语言为工具，人们会尝试着向他人表达自己的心智地图。如果想法确实以图像为基础，则认知结构中内容必有要是以图像呈现。

萨尔特曼隐喻诱引技术的应用

　　萨尔特曼隐喻诱引技术在揭示有力的消费者洞察方面具有卓越的表现，可以将其应用于下列相关领域：

• 宣传/创意发展；
• 品牌定位以及优化/重新定位；
• 品牌形象/品牌资产研究；
• 需求研究；
• 创新/新产品开发。

老问“为什么”有什么问题？

在做可用性测试的时候，去询问用户为什么点这个而不点那个是很有诱惑力的。我们天生就好奇。

我们在问这些问题的时候的前提假设就是用户知道他们行为背后的原因。我们认为用户知道他为什么点击“关于我们”而不点“联系我们”的原因，我们所要做的就是让他说出来而已。

Nisbett和Wilson的经典研究

实际上有很多证据表明人们很难去回顾他们行为背后的真正原因。30年前，Richard Nisbett和Timothy Wilson在密西根一个讨价还价的自由市场进行了一个实验。研究者在店外摆了一张桌子，桌子上摆放了4双袜子，并在旁边竖了一块牌子，上门写着“消费者调查-哪双质量更好？”桌子上是4双女袜，从左到右分别标着A，B，C，D。多数人（40%）选择D，少数人（12%）选择A。

实际上，4双袜子是一模一样的。多数人选择D仅仅是因为位置效应：研究者们在研究之前就知道人们会更倾向于选择最右边的一个。但是当研究者去询问人们为什么选择D的时候，他们都说出了一个理由，譬如针脚细腻，做工精细之类。研究者甚至也问他们有没有受到位置的影响，除了一个例外（一个刚学完位置效应的心理学学生），其他人都认为位置没有影响他们的选择。事实是，人们为他们的选择制造了一个合理的解释。

美女照片实验

两年前，发表在Science上的一篇文章，Peter Johansson和他的同事们给出了类似的证据。在这个研究中，主试给参与者两张不同的女人的照片，然后要求该参与者指出哪张看起来更吸引人一些。当被试指出其中一张更吸引人之后，主试会抛弃另一张，然后只给被试看他选择的那张，并询问为什么选择这张。

然而被试不知道的背后的事情是：主试是一个业余的魔术师，他最后呈现给被试的其实是被试认为不那么吸引人的那张，放在桌子地下的被抛弃的恰好是被试选择的更吸引人的那张。

令人注目的是，尽管两张图片并不那么的相似，大多数被试（73%）都没有发现他们正在看的那张图片是被调了包的，其实是他们认为不太吸引人的那张。更令人惊奇的是，这些被试还为他们的选择提供了一些解释。比如“噢，我选择这个是因为我喜欢她的浅肤色”，尽管被试当初选择的是有点深色肤色的那张。

正如上面的袜子实验一样，人们捏造一些理由来让他们的选择辩护。

这些对可用性测试的意义是什么？

现在让我们来看看可用性测试中会发生什么。当我们询问用户为什么你点了这个选项的时候，用户将会回顾和反省为什么做的愿意，然后给你一个解释。但问题是用户可能根本没有意识到自己做个选择的背后的真正的原因，当然用户也不会告诉你说，“我不知道为什么选这个”，他们会倾向于给你一个合理的解释，一个他们相信会是真的理由—不过这些事实是被证明都是不太可信的。

如果是这样，我们的设计就不该基于这样的解释和发现。

这样的研究告诉我们在可用性测试中，我们不应该总是问用户“为什么”，而应该更多的集中在可用性的效率，效用，和满意度的测量上。

比如：

• 人们能完成这个任务吗？
• 他们要花多长时间完成这个任务？
• 发生了多少错误？

当我们把可用性测试集中在用户做什么以及用户怎么做的时候，可用性测试就在用户研究中有了独一无二的位置。而当我们过多的去询问用户“为什么”的时候，其实是损害了可用性测试的效力，而最后你将会基于那些错误的解释来改变你的设计。

用心听你的用户怎么评论，但是记住要用行为的数据来支持他们所说的，而不是仅仅告诉你的设计师：用户就是这么说的。

原文：http://www.userfocus.co.uk/articles/askingwhy.html

观察用户是怎么去做的，比只是简单的询问用户会得到更多更可靠的信息。然而，如果你的设计只是依赖于你对用户的观察，那么有可能造成：

误导 — 因为通常来说你所观察到的用户行为都可能有很多种不同的解释，不同的观察者都会根据他自己的经验对观察到的现象进行合理化的解释。比如：一个用户没有点某个链接，可能是因为他没有看见或者不理解。如果你不去询问用户，你就不能知道真正的原因。那么你原先对用户的假设就很有可能会发生偏差。

结果有限 — 因为你失去了更多了解用户的机会，如果仅仅依靠观察的话。

当然有些可用性专家有可能会说，你不能相信用户所说的话，或者说完全依赖用户所说会有很大的风险。幸好，我们是有办法可以最大限度的来避免或者减少这种潜在的风险的。要了解这些方法，我们必须学会进入另外一个领域：熟悉并掌握人与人之间的关系以及心理学所说的“同理心”。

可用性测试或者用户观察中发生的用户访谈-其实就是发生在两个人之间的一种关系，这两个人就是被访者和访问者。因此，在心理咨询中常用到的技术如果运用到用户访谈中，将会极大的丰富你的发现。而用户的行为将会得到更合理的解释。

心理学得到的灵感

下面提到的心理治疗中用到的方法启发了本文中的一些ideas。

卡尔-罗杰斯的人本主义思想：

卡尔-荣格的理论：

心理类型和MBTI—荣格的心理类型分类：psychological types and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)—Jung’s psychological types correspond to the MBTI functions: introvert (I) versus extravert (E), intuitive (N) versus sensing (S), thinking (T) versus feeling (F), and judging (J) versus perceiving (P). The dominant orientations in an individual define his personality type—for example, ENTP. The MBTI is one of the most widely used personality tests.

shadow of the personality—According to Jung, the shadow of the personality represents unconscious parts of our personalities that we have repressed—because we either don’t accept them or pass judgment on them—and tend to project onto others. For example, a person who doesn’t accept the emotion of anger tends to judge himself each time he feels angry and might judge other people who express their anger easily.

这篇文章提供了十大技巧帮助你从用户的访谈中获得更多的东西。如果你怀着真挚的同理心，这些技巧将会非常有用。但是如果不是真挚的，即便你没有意识到或者你试图去隐藏你的不真挚，这些技巧可能很难帮到你。这些技巧不仅对可用性测试中的用户访谈有用，对各种现场研究以及其它形式的用户研究都是适用的，甚至包括和你的利益相关人的谈话。

1.谨慎判断和投射Be aware of your own judgments and projections

2.真挚坦诚Be genuine and transparent

3.适应用户别让用户去适应你Adapt to each user. Do not ask users to adapt to you

4.注意用户和你交互的方式Be conscious of the way users are interacting with you.

5.让用户讲他们自己的经历Get users to speak about their own experiences.

6.留意用户毳毛其次的时候Notice when users are censoring their own comments

7.让用户讲他们遇到的问题而不是解决方案Get users to speak in terms of problems, not solutions

8.适当的时候问为什么Ask “Why?” and dig deeper

9.客观和细密的观察Make objective and precise observations

10.允许用户自发的行为Allow users to be spontaneous and follow their flow

1.谨慎判断和投射

很容易说自己是不带偏见的，但是要实际上做到这一点却不是那么容易。如果你对被访者说你的答案没有好坏之分，而实际上你的行为有时候出卖了你，只是这样说是毫无用处的。

因此，不要在用户的答案之后说“很好”“好”之类的隐含积极判断的词汇。你可以根据谈话的背景说“哦，我懂了”，“了解”之类的不含好坏判断的话。

访谈中的两个人的关系和所有的关系一样，你会碰到各种各样的人-你感觉舒服的人，以及你感觉不舒服的人。除非你非常的小心，否则你的第一反应会坏了你的整个访谈。某些用户的某些方面你觉得不是很舒服是很自然的，但是你必须意识到你的这种感觉并且要设法战胜他们如果你希望从这个访谈能够获得更多东西的话。

注意观察自己对每个用户的反应，并且记录下自己的感觉或者你所做的判断。我们经常会消极的评价别人因为对方身上的某些方面让我想起自己身上不被自己所接受的东西。这种现象心理学上就“投射”。多注意观察体会自己的感受能帮助你更好的做到不偏不倚，更客观，而这些将会让你的被访者感觉和你聊天更舒服，他们也会因此更放得开。这样你也就能再访谈中获得更多的信息。

We all tend to judge others. It’s human. By becoming aware of and taking responsibility for your judgments about users and the feelings that you project onto them, you can go beyond these and become more empathic.

Of all the guidelines I’ve given in this article, this one is actually the most difficult to apply. Doing so requires self-observation and a willingness to overcome your biases and defences. However, being nonjudgmental has a huge positive impact on your relationships with users.

 返回

 2. 真挚坦诚Be genuine and transparent.

The more your behavior aligns with your words, the more users will feel comfortable with you. Being truly transparent about your interview process or anything unusual that happens during an interview helps build users’ confidence in their relationship with you. If you are genuine and open, it will encourage users to be the same with you. Don’t pretend that everything is okay when users can sense that something is not. Any disconnect between what you say and what you do will make users feel insecure, and they’ll be less open with you. Here are a couple of scenarios to show you how this works.

Scenario 1

Problem: A user tells you something, but you were distracted or were thinking of something else and lost some important information that you need.

Solution: Let the user know that you were mentally absent. Say “I missed what you said. Would you please repeat it?”

Scenario 2

Problem: You want to follow a specific process during the interview or need to move quickly from one question to another and want only a user’s first impressions.

Solution: Let the user know before you start that you will move very quickly from one question to another.

返回

3. Adapt to each user. Do not ask users to adapt to you.

After a usability test session, you might find yourself saying, “Oh, this person wasn’t a good test subject.” He was too something—perhaps too shy or too talkative. It’s possible that the comments a particular user made were not very helpful—no matter how hard you tried to get valuable information from him. However, to make the most of each user interview, you must ensure that you are doing your best to adapt to the user’s rhythm and personality. Otherwise, you risk losing important data.

This example reflects the differences between introverts and extraverts, as defined by Jung’s psychological types and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Extraverts usually tend to think and speak at the same time, whereas introverts usually tend to speak only once they have thought through what they want to say. You should give people enough time to think before answering your questions—especially introverts.

It also shows how easily we can misinterpret users’ behavior. You must stay objective. If a user is not talking and there is an extended silence, don’t assume you know the reason for the user’s silence. Instead, observe how quickly he answers your first few questions and adapt to his rhythm. If he takes some time before answering, but gives detailed and thoughtful answers, be sure to give him enough time to answer your questions.

This example illustrates how different people can be and how important it is to be aware of their differences to make the most of user interviews. Learning about Jung’s psychological types can help you become aware of the diversity of personality types and how they can affect your relationships with users. This understanding will also help you to be less judgmental when confronted with a user whose personality is very different from yours.

返回

4. Be conscious of the way users are interacting with you.

Even though you’ve carefully explained to users that they are not being tested, you’ll often encounter users who feel they are being tested and are afraid of giving a wrong answer. If a person is nervous throughout a test session, even though you’re being empathetic and nonjudgmental, it is useless to try and change his or her feelings. Regardless of how hard you try, it won’t change anything. Even worse, a user might become irritated by your mothering behavior.

Observe carefully how users interact with you, and take these observations into account when interpreting your findings.

 返回

5. Get users to speak about their own experiences.

In nearly all usability test sessions, at some point, you’ll hear a user say something like one of these remarks:

• “For me, it’s okay, but the average person might find it difficult.”
• “For my mother, it would be hard.”
• “Older people would have difficulty with it.”
• “For someone who is looking for something like that, it’s good.”

It is very common for users to speak for someone else during a test session. It often happens when users feel uncomfortable stating their own point of view. For example, they might fear being judged or want to please the interviewer. It places users in a less compromising position to speak for someone else rather than to speak for themselves and say what they really think—for example, “I find it very difficult,” “I think it’s really bad,” or “It’s useless to me.” This is something people do unconsciously every day, but do not let yourself be fooled by this. Users really know only their own experiences, abilities, and opinions. Gathering information about what users think the user experience would be for other people has no value.

To make sure users speak from their own points of view, don’t reformulate what the user said about a product’s user experience for other people. Instead, just restate the part of the user’s answer that represents his own opinion. When you do this, users will stop talking about other people’s opinions and speak for themselves—for example:

User: For me, it’s okay, but for the average person, it might be difficult.

Interviewer: For you, it’s okay.

User: Yes. It’s okay, because….

Alternatively, you can ask a question about a user’s opinion like this:

User: For my mother, it would be hard.

Interviewer: And what about for you? What do you think?

These examples show ways you can smoothly get a user to come back to his own opinions. If you do this with genuine empathy, the user will feel comfortable speaking more freely and honestly about himself and his personal opinions. Doing this acknowledges the user’s true opinion, indicates that his opinion is important to you, and shows that you are not judging him. Reformulating a user’s answers conveys empathy and acceptance.

While this generally works very well, in the rare case that a user keeps talking about other people’s viewpoints, do not push too hard and insist that the user talk about his own opinions. Otherwise, the user may become defensive.

 返回

6. Notice when users are censoring their own comments.

You’ll often see users self-censoring their opinions. This often happens when users fear their opinions are too critical. For example, at the end of an interview, you might ask a user about his general impressions of your Web site. Perhaps the first words that come to his mind are “very complicated,” but he hesitates to express this negative judgment, fearing he might offend you. So, he tones down his original thought and says, “very complicated, but when you get used to it, it’s okay,” or “but for people who know the field, it might be easy.” In some cases, users really have mixed opinions about a product, but in other cases, they are just trying to be nice. If you have carefully observed a user’s behavior throughout a test session, you can probably judge whether the user will try to please you by self-censoring his real impressions or really has mixed impressions.

To ensure you capture a user’s real opinion, reflect back the user’s initial opinion like this:

Interviewer: What are your impressions of this Web site?

User: Oh, it’s very complicated, but I guess, for people who know the field, it’s okay. Yes, I think it’s okay.

Interviewer: You said it was very complicated.

User: Yes, it’s very complicated because….

 返回

7. Get users to speak in terms of problems, not solutions.

Often, during usability testing, users offer solutions to problems. For example, after failing to find a link on a Web page, a user might say, “I did not see that link. It should be in bold, or it should be bigger.”

The user is not a designer, so the solution the user suggests—that the link should be in bold—might not actually work. What will help you find the right solution is to investigate why the user did not see the link. So, if you can, get the user to tell you why he couldn’t see the link. Sometimes, the user won’t know, so don’t push too hard, but he might give you very interesting information that will help you identify why he didn’t see the link and, ultimately, help you find a solution. For example, he might say, “I was concentrating on another part of the screen and didn’t notice there were links in this area,” or “I thought it was just text.”

And you can help the user to provide more precise information by asking follow-up questions that are appropriate to the context—like this one, “Were you expecting to find the link on another part of the screen?” Each piece of information you glean will help you better understand the reason why the user did not see the link and help you find a solution to the problem that you identify. Only when you have accurately identified the problem can you come up with the right solution.

Here are two examples of how you can help a user to clarify a problem:

User: This label isn’t right.

Interviewer: Why isn’t it right?

Don’t initially ask, “What would be a better label?” That would be asking the user to solve rather than identify the problem.

Once you understand the problem, you can ask follow-up questions that are appropriate to the context—like “What were you expecting?” or “Did you have a word in mind?”

User: “This page is dull. I don’t like it much.”

Interviewer: “Why you don’t like it?”

Don’t ask, “How would you improve it?”

It’s actually easier for users to first explore a problem rather than thinking right away about a solution. Plus, you’ll avoid losing important data about the problem, which in the end will help you to devise the right solution. Though, once you and a user have explored a problem together, the user might come up with a very good solution.

 返回

8. Ask “Why?” and dig deeper.

When interviewing a user during usability testing, asking “Why?” and exploring users’ statements in depth is essential. If you don’t dig deeply enough in trying to understand a user’s point of view, you won’t get enough information to make the proper recommendations to improve a user interface. Statements like the following won’t provide sufficient information to your product team:

“Participants preferred the previous version of the Web site.”

“Participants did not understand the label.”

“Participants did not click the link.”

You must understand and explain why. Without your providing the reasons behind such statements, it will be hard for designers to know how to improve the design of a product’s user interface. To come up with a good design solution, they must have an in-depth understanding of the problem they are trying to solve. Thus, when interviewing users during usability testing, always keep in mind what you want to do with the findings and ensure that you gather all necessary pieces of information to help you reach your  goal—generally, helping your team to redesign a user interface.

This guideline pertains to many user research activities. For example, Indi Young points out how important it is to ask “Why?” when doing a task analysis and to “dig into the background of a topic until the interview participant has no more to say about it, or takes you on another tangent.” For a task analysis, the ultimate goal of user interviews is to clearly identify users’ tasks and build a complete mental model of their work. To succeed, you must keep your final goal in mind during the interviews.

Do not be afraid of digging too deeply or getting into too much detail. You are better off having too much detail than having an incomplete explanation of a problem when redesigning a user interface. Sometimes, when first interviewing users, it’s hard to know what specific pieces of information you need. You’ll learn what to explore by trial and error. If you find some of the details you’ve gathered aren’t relevant, you can avoid exploring them further in your next interviews.

 返回

9. Make objective and precise observations.

During my training in the creative nondirective approach to psychotherapy, I learned something that helps me a lot in usability testing: objective and precise observation. This is a simple, but very powerful tool for avoiding misinterpretations of user behaviors and getting users to talk to you.

For example, if a user is looking at a part of the screen without doing anything, don’t interpret what the user is experiencing by saying, “You are hesitating.” You can’t really judge whether the user is hesitating. Instead, as a result of objective and precise observation, say, “I notice that you have been looking at this part of the screen for a while.” If you make an objective observation, the user will generally explain what he was thinking.

If a user smiles when looking at a Web page, but does not speak, you might wonder why he is smiling. A smile can have many different meanings, but there is no way to know the exact reason why a user is smiling without asking. If you don’t ask, you won’t learn why and might lose an interesting bit of information, so try this:

Interviewer: You are smiling.

User: Yes, because I like the image on the page.

This technique can help with any user behavior that you observe and want to understand better—whether silence, nonverbal expressions, or a user’s pattern of navigation through a user interface. It provides a lot of rich information you would not have without asking the user, and if you don’t ask, you risk misinterpreting the user’s behavior. 返回

 返回

10. Allow users to be spontaneous and follow their flow.

In usability testing, the more spontaneous a user’s answers are, the more reliable they are. Here are a few techniques for getting more spontaneous responses from users:

Let users talk without interruption unless they go outside the scope of a usability test. Also, let users remain silent or pause for a while if they need time to think.This is often hard to do, because you might become impatient or have difficulty bearing the silence, but you should avoid interrupting a user’s thought process. An introverted user might still be composing what she wants to say in her mind. If you interrupt, you might lose some very interesting information the user was about to tell you.

For example, if a user is scanning a page of search results, and still in the process of thinking about them, starts saying, “Ah, the search results are highlighted…,” you should not interrupt the user by asking, “What is it?” Instead, give the user time to gather her thoughts.

Always go along with a user’s flow—regardless of the sequence of questions you’ve planned for a user interview.For example, perhaps a user starts talking about a topic you intended to address at the end of your interview. While much depends on the particular situation, I generally recommend letting users talk rather than telling them you’d prefer to go back to some point later on. If a user spontaneously raises a point you wanted to know about, it is golden.

Let users speak about their spontaneous reactions rather than asking them questions right away.For example, once a user lands on a Web page, first wait a bit for his spontaneous comments. Don’t immediately start asking the user questions.

If you do inadvertently interrupt a user, try returning to the user’s spontaneous comments.Fortunately, if you miss something a user says or cut a user off, it’s usually possible to go back to what the user was saying. Even when you’re careful, it’s all too easy to cut off a user’s remarks. To help get a user back on track, you might say, “A moment ago, you were saying…” and repeat the words the user was saying when you interrupted him.The user will generally go back to his previous situation and explain it to you as though it has just happened.

This technique also works if a test session is interrupted for any reason—for example, if a computer breaks down or someone comes into the room—and you want to return to what the user was saying before the interruption.

返回

Conclusion

A usability test implies, among other things, a relationship between two people—an interviewer and a user. The way an interviewer interacts with users influences the outcome of test sessions greatly. Drawing conclusions from only observation is risky. You must elicit verbal comments from users in a way that enriches your observations and helps you avoid biases. To make the most of your user interviews, convey confidence and empathy, adapt to users’ personalities and rhythms, get users to talk about their own experiences and the reasons behind their comments, explore users’ comments in depth, and follow users’ flow.

When doing eyetracking studies, you should always elicit verbal comments to ensure that you interpret users’ behaviors correctly. For example, a hot spot on a word might have different explanations—such as interest, confusion, or surprise.

However, relying too much on users’ verbal comments can be just as risky as relying too much on observational data. For example, a user might say he likes a Web site after failing all the tasks during a test session. A successful usability test session results from the right combination of observation and verbal comments. Observational and verbal data are more reliable in combination than when used separately.