Question 1

What ethical considerations apply when observing participants?

Accepted Answer

Ethical considerations when observing participants include obtaining informed consent (whenever practical), protecting their privacy, and minimizing your influence on their behavior. In controlled settings like a lab or scheduled home visit, participants should know they're being observed and agree to it. In public spaces where direct consent isn't feasible, stick to observing what is clearly public and avoid collecting any personal identifiers. Privacy is crucial: only record what's necessary, secure any footage or notes, and anonymize personal details in your analysis and reporting. Observers must also remain as unobtrusive as possible, refraining from interaction or interference so as not to alter the participants' natural behavior. If participants are aware of the observation, remind them they can pause or withdraw at any time if they feel uncomfortable. Ultimately, treat individuals with respect and confidentiality — ensure your observation doesn't harm or embarrass anyone and that data is handled with care.

Question 2

How do I design unobtrusive mobile tasks that fit everyday life?

Accepted Answer

The key to designing unobtrusive mobile tasks is to make them seamless and brief, fitting into participants' daily routines so naturally that they hardly feel like extra work. For example, instead of a long questionnaire, use micro-surveys or one-question prompts triggered at relevant moments — asking for a quick photo or comment right after a product purchase, for instance, when the experience is fresh in mind. Tasks should be fully mobile-optimized and flexible on timing, allowing people to respond when convenient, and use phone capabilities (like notifications or location triggers) sparingly and only when context makes it helpful. By keeping interactions short, context-aware, and user-friendly, you ensure the research fits into everyday life and yields authentic insights without burdening participants.

Question 3

How is consent friction impacting screen recording and playback?

Accepted Answer

Rising consent requirements are creating friction for screen recording studies, often reducing participation and skewing samples toward more privacy-tolerant users. Users now frequently see a pop-up requesting permission to record their screen or sessions, and a noticeable share opt out due to privacy concerns. This means researchers collect fewer recordings or must spend more effort reassuring participants about data security. Consent friction can bias results as well: those who agree might be more tech-savvy or less privacy-sensitive than the average user, potentially skewing insights. In response, teams are streamlining consent flows with clearer explanations and strong privacy assurances, and sometimes using alternative methods (like asking users to narrate their actions or using aggregated usage analytics) to fill gaps. Overall, higher consent hurdles are forcing UX researchers to adapt their methods, prioritizing transparency and user trust at the cost of some convenience.

Question 4

When should I add qual-at-scale outputs to a survey tracker or dashboard?

Accepted Answer

You should add qual-at-scale outputs to a survey tracker or dashboard when the numbers alone aren't telling the full story and stakeholders need richer context behind trends in your results — this need typically becomes clear after the tracker's initial baseline is established. For example, if a key satisfaction score drops unexpectedly, integrating large-scale qualitative insights — such as using AI to analyze thousands of open-ended responses or social media comments — can quickly surface the themes driving that decline and explain the "why" behind the change. This approach not only makes the dashboard more actionable by humanizing metrics with real customer voices, but also ensures your tracker captures not just what changed but why it changed, even as trends evolve.

Question 5

Does a high SUS score guarantee conversion or adoption improvements?

Accepted Answer

A high System Usability Scale (SUS) score indicates users find the product easy to use, but it doesn't guarantee higher conversion rates or adoption on its own. Usability is just one factor in a product's success — albeit an important one. A product might score well on SUS (meaning people had a smooth experience in testing) yet still struggle to win users if, for example, it lacks a compelling value proposition, is priced too high, or isn't marketed effectively. Conversely, some products with only average usability still gain huge adoption because they offer unique must-have features or benefits. That said, a high SUS is generally a good sign as it removes friction: users are less likely to drop out due to frustration. Think of SUS as one dimension: it improves the odds of conversion and satisfaction, but you also need desirability, demand, and good marketing for conversion and growth. In practice, treat a strong SUS score as necessary but not sufficient — use it alongside metrics like conversion funnel drop-off, retention rates, or NPS to get a full picture of likely adoption.

EthOS

Why choose Us

What is EthOS?

Services and Expertise

Market Research FAQs with Expert Insights

What ethical considerations apply when observing participants?

How do I design unobtrusive mobile tasks that fit everyday life?

How is consent friction impacting screen recording and playback?

When should I add qual-at-scale outputs to a survey tracker or dashboard?

Does a high SUS score guarantee conversion or adoption improvements?