Our approach is still the same.

When you’re working with large organizations where there are many design agents (people who have direct & indirect influence over the design), there are godo reasons to have them all exposed to the testing.

Most two-room set ups can’t accommodate 30 observers and keep them engaged in the test. And, in many organizations, important people otherwise wouldn’t get exposure to the experience of using their designs.

So, it’s good to have a method in our pocket that works well when we need it.

Jared

Thanks for your post on “usability tests with 30 observers”. It’s an interesting approach. I just don’t see the utility in it. To me it would make sense if there were way less observers in the room, and they were participating in the session as well. What’s the value in it? Is it to make the observers feel more invested in what they’re building? More invested in UCD? I was looking for the specific purpose in this article, but didnt’ see it.

I’ve been practicing usability testing for 12+ years. I tend to keep the observers separated from the participants, unless I’m using more of a collaborative approach…then I’ll include a very small number of observers.

If observers just want to watch, I keep in them in the observation room. I let the participant know of the audience, and I even take him/her and make introductiosn to the observers.

I see the value in having observers asking questions at the end of the session, and dialoging with the participant. This approach could extract some insights that the facililator may not. Still, 30 ppl is alot.

It’s been 2+ years since you posted this. Has your opinon changed on this approach?

Are there benefits by having them in the same room?

On initial reads this seems scary for the participant (especially when walking in to see 30 people)