Moderated Remote Test

The moderated remote test is defined as the test subject and the test leader are connected to each other in real time during the test, so that this variant of remote testing is most similar to the classic usability test in the laboratory. The goal of the moderated remote test is an exchange of impressions and expectations between the proband and the test supervisor. The conversation between the two participants is based on a test script designed in advance by the test supervisor. The data obtained from a moderated remote test have a qualitative character and are very similar to that of a classic laboratory test.

Pro

• The supervisor can help get a deeper understanding of why the user was performing a specific task.
• The supervisor can help clarify any confusion which will help you understand their cognitive process.
• The supervisor can help the user in certain situations to get him to move forward.
• the costs are low, because the supervisor and the user can use tools, they allready use in their common work live, f.e. teams.

Contra

• The Supervisor can tell (to much) the participants what to do which gives bias results.
• Interrupts the natural progression that participants could make on their own
• The session length is very high

Automated Remote Test

The contrast to the moderated remote test is the automated remote test. Here the proband and supervisor are separated from each other in terms of spatial distance and time. The proband is thus independent of the supervisor and therefore on his own when processing the test case. Automated remote tests focus on quantitative data, so that a larger sample has to be interviewed than in a moderated remote test.

Pro

• The proband is often in their environment which allows them to interact with the product more naturally.
• Tasks can be completed in the users own time without the supervisor worrying about the schedule.
• its more time effectiv for the supervisor

Contra

• The absence of a supervisor implies less control, less personal observation, and an increased risk of confusion.
• It provides limited or no qualitative feedback because users won’t often think out loud without a supervisor
• It’s difficult to make sure users take your test seriously.
• It doesn’t operate well with complex tasks and prototypes.
• Several users will have technical issues and give up.

Unmoderated Remote Test

The unmoderated/self-moderated remote test forms a combination of the two approaches just presented. Here, too, the participant and supervisor are separated in time from each other by the spatial distance. The supervisor is replaced by an interactive system and videos which provides the respondents with usecases and questions.

Pro

• Sessions are shorter than moderated usability testing → significant more time effective
• There’s less chance of human error or bias and so results are generally more accurate
• Supervisor doenst have to record the introduction video
• Probands with less bandwith can absolve the test too

Contra

• The absence of a supervisor implies less control, less personal observation, and an increased risk of confusion.
• It provides limited or no qualitative feedback because users won’t often think out loud without a moderator
• It’s difficult to make sure users take your test seriously.
• It doesn’t operate well with complex tasks and prototypes
• Several users will have technical issues and give up.

Summary

so, the listing is quite nice and informative, but what kind should i choose and when❓

It depends on the resources and goal you want to achieve with the test.

If you want to obtain fast quantitative data, the automated remote test is the one you want to choose. The test answers the question: “What are users doing on my site?”.

If you want to obtain qualitative data, you should choose the (un-)moderated remote test. This test answers the question: “Why do users act like this on my site?“

and how do I run such a test now?

Come up to me and we’ll discuss which remote UX test, or even a face2face ux test, is the best for you.