11 minutes
What a usability review is, and what it is not A standards check, a staff opinion and a task-based review with the people who use a resource answer three different questions. Only one of them tells you whether the resource works.
What you’ll be able to do Distinguish a standards check, a task-based usability review and community review; choose the right one for a given question; and write findings that name the task, the stopping point and who was affected. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: What should the review include? Document a next step for What a usability review is, and what it is not: Write the three tasks you would ask someone to attempt on a resource you maintain, in the words a member of the public would use, and name who you would ask and how they would be paid. Three different questions, three different reviews “We reviewed it” can mean three unrelated things. A standards check asks whether the resource meets a requirement: heading structure, contrast, keyboard access, captions, link text, alternative text on images that carry meaning, marked table headers. Much of that can be checked quickly, some of it by an automated scan, and the result is a list measured against a rule.
A task-based usability review asks a different question: can a person do the thing this resource exists for? You ask a small number of people who actually use the service to attempt a real task while someone watches. You learn where they stop, what they expected, what they tried that you did not anticipate, and what they would do next in real life, which is often to give up or to ask a relative.
Community review and co-design ask the third question: what does this resource assume, and what does it cost the people it assumes wrong about? That work belongs to disabled Minnesotans, families, interpreters and culturally specific organizations, invited as advisors and compensated for their expertise. They are not being trained by this, and they are not a focus group brought in to approve a decision already made. They are being asked early enough that the answer can still change something.
All three are worth doing and none of them replaces another. A resource can pass every automated check and still be unusable. It can test beautifully with staff and fail with everyone else. And it can be technically correct and culturally illegible at the same time.
What each kind of review can and cannot tell you Standards check Task-based usability review Community review and co-design
Tells you: whether headings, contrast, keyboard access, link text, alternative text, captions and document structure meet the requirement. Fast, repeatable, and partly automatic.
Cannot tell you: whether the content makes sense, whether the task can be completed, or whether the deadline is realistic. An automated scan finds a minority of real problems, and it will never notice a heading that is structurally correct and meaningless.
Tells you: where a real person stops, what they expected, what they could not find, what they misread, and what they would do next. A handful of reviewers surfaces most of what is wrong.
Cannot tell you: whether every requirement is met, or how the resource behaves for someone whose access needs nobody in the group shares. It is evidence about the resource. It is never a measurement of the people reviewing it.
Tells you: what the resource assumes, which words land differently than intended, what would make people trust it, and what should have been asked before drafting began.
Cannot tell you: what any one person or organization speaks for. Invite early, pay for the time, be specific about what is still open to change, and say afterwards what happened as a result.
How to run a task-based review in one afternoon Write the one thing the resource exists for, then turn it into three tasks in the words a member of the public would use.
Invite five or six people who actually use the service, reaching them through organizations that already have the relationship. Say how long it will take and how they will be paid.
Arrange access before the invitation goes out: interpreters, captioning, a format that works with a screen reader, a room someone can get into, or a remote option.
Give each person the task, then stop talking. Do not explain the page, define the terms or point at anything.
Watch where they stop. Note the exact words they read aloud, what they tried, and where they hesitated.
When they stop, ask what they expected to happen and what they would do next in real life.
Write down what happened rather than what you concluded, the same day, while the wording is still exact.
Sort the findings by who is stopped and how completely, decide what you will fix yourself, and route the rest with suggested wording.
A finding you can act on, an opinion, or a fix in disguise? Four of five reviewers read the deadline as the date they had to call, not the date the form was due.
Choose a category Finding you can act on Opinion A fix in disguise The page feels cluttered.
Choose a category Finding you can act on Opinion A fix in disguise We should move the request button to the top of the page.
Choose a category Finding you can act on Opinion A fix in disguise Two reviewers using a screen reader reached the third question and could not tell which answer field belonged to it.
Choose a category Finding you can act on Opinion A fix in disguise I think most people would understand this fine.
Choose a category Finding you can act on Opinion A fix in disguise Add a short recorded walkthrough explaining the form.
Choose a category Finding you can act on Opinion A fix in disguise Check matches Reset Watch, do not rescue What you can change You control what you say while someone is attempting a task, and the difference between watching and helping is the whole value of the review.
What to watch for Do not explain the page, define a term, point at the button or fill an awkward silence. The moment you help, you have replaced the finding with your own knowledge, and the next reader will not have you sitting beside them.
Your next step Before your next review, write the three tasks and the one sentence you will repeat when someone asks for help: “I want to see what you would do if I were not here.”
Private reflection, kept by you and not collected anywhere: think about the last time a resource you worked on was reviewed. How could the people most affected have shaped it earlier, and what would it take to invite them at that point next time?
Carry this forward A standards check asks whether a resource meets a requirement. A usability review asks whether a person can do the thing it exists for. Both are needed; neither substitutes for the other.
Ask people to attempt a real task and watch where they stop. Do not explain, do not rescue, and do not ask whether they liked it.
A small number of reviewers surfaces most of what is wrong. The constraint is who they are, not how many.
Disabled Minnesotans, people who work with interpreters, families and culturally specific organizations take part as compensated advisors and co-designers. They are contributing expertise, not receiving training.
A scenario about testing a new public page, tabs comparing three kinds of review, a sorting exercise separating findings you can act on from opinions, and a knowledge check on writing a finding another office can use.
Write the three tasks you would ask someone to attempt on a resource you maintain, in the words a member of the public would use, and name who you would ask and how they would be paid.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Previous lesson Next lesson Carry this into practice For most Minnesotans, this division is a web page, a letter, a form or a slide at a public meeting. Four lessons on designing those well, ending with a usability review you run on one real resource.
Return to the experience: What did you notice or try, whose perspective informed it, and what would you keep or adjust?
Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
