Most of my work these days involves expert usability reviews of Web sites and Web designs. It works something like this:

I have a brief conversation with the potential client about what they're trying to accomplish and what they think their problems are.

If we both feel that an expert review is what they need, they send me something to look at, which could be

If they decide to go ahead, then I walk through the site, designs, or prototype from the point of view of a user, noting the places where people are likely to be confused.

Finally, I report what I've seen, usually in a lengthy conference call (or series of calls) with the design team and any interested stakeholders. In these calls, I answer questions about the issues I've seen, and help them decide which ones are most important to fix and how best to fix them.

Note that I didn't mention a written report. I've come to the conclusion that very few of my clients actually derive much benefit from having one, and a) they take a long time to write, and b) writing is really hard work, so I try to avoid it if at all possible. If a client absolutely needs a “big honking report” so they have something to show to the person who's signing the check, I can do one, but it's likely to double the price.

I also spend a lot of time teaching public usability workshops.

I can occasionally be persuaded to do a private in-house workshop. The advantage is that we can focus in on your specific problems all day, in addition to training your team. But I'll warn you in advance: they're pricey. (Hint: think $15,000 plus travel expenses.)

I rarely facilitate user tests anymore, because there are so many other people who do it perfectly well, and it probably makes more sense to hire someone locally.

But I do sometimes help clients figure out what to test and how to test it, and sometimes attend the test sessions (or watch Camtasia recordings of the sessions) to help them figure out what to fix.

Questions? Please feel free to write me.

© 1997-2007  Steve Krug