The UX Five-Second Rules

The five-second rules are a set of guidelines designed to assist researchers who wish to use the method to test their designs. They are written with an emphasis on the opportunities and limitations afforded by the providers of online tools but are also applicable for moderated test sessions. The guidelines address the viability of the method for specific types of research inquiries, as well as how to properly design, structure, and execute different test formats. Specific strategies are provided for creating the different test components, including the instructions given to participants, images that are shown, and questions that participants are asked to answer.

Keywords

Test format; guidelines; survey methods; writing; instructions; image optimization; writing questions; question order; open-ended feedback

This set of guidelines offers recommendations on how to effectively construct and conduct online five-second tests, using the tools currently available. They are intended to help the researcher:

While all of the tools reviewed for this book accommodate the basic characteristics and components of the original method (see Chapter 1), each has its own unique set of features, technical capabilities, and limitations. The goal of these guidelines is to provide design research strategies that the researcher can implement regardless of which specific tool is chosen.

2.1 Proper Use of the Method

A classic advertising slogan stressed the importance of always having “the right tool for the right job.” UX and design researchers inherently understand the importance of this concept; while budget and resources will always loom large in decisions on research, generally speaking the method employed will depend on the goals of the researcher. Unfortunately, another old saying goes: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” As noted in Chapter 1, in many cases, the five-second test has become a victim of its own perceived simplicity and relative cost-effectiveness. Whether it’s due to a lack of resources, laziness, or a misunderstanding of what the method is good for, many researchers are opting to use the five-second test as a quick-and-dirty substitute for other types of research that require either longer exposure times or formal interaction with an actual working system or prototype.

Chapter 1 also discussed the emphasis on the perceptual cues and the human capacities in short-term memory that are inherent in five-second tests. These limitations immediately disqualify the method as a means of testing many aspects of UX and visual design. In perhaps the most obvious example, positioning a five-second test around the usability of a page or web site is doomed from the start. Usability speaks to the ability to successfully complete tasks within the context of realistic scenarios; by definition, this requires some degree of meaningful interaction with a working site or a prototype. In a five-second test, a question such as “How would you get information about the highlighted product?” limits the user’s options to only what’s perceptible in a screenshot, when the task may in fact be easily completed after hovering over the highlighted product and initiating a contextual help box.

In short, five-second testing can test many things, but not everything. As a planning strategy, the rule of thumb should be obvious: The five-second test is the wrong choice for anything requiring more than five seconds’ worth of exposure in order to provide a meaningful answer. While application of this rule should be fairly straightforward, there are a number of instances in which appropriateness of the method should be called into question, and alternative approaches should be considered.

Reading Text

Always remember that five-second testing is designed to gauge what the viewer can perceive and recall within a very short amount of time. With a time restriction understood at the outset, the participant’s cognitive systems will instinctively race to take in as much of the overall design as possible—perceiving colors and sizes of elements, establishing visual patterns, filling the short-term memory with whatever small amounts of information can be retained—before the visual is taken away. When text is included within the context of an entire web page design, only the text which receives special formatting (extra large fonts, bold or italicized styling, complimentary use of white space, etc.) has a chance of being noticed in a span of 5 s. All other text will undoubtedly be ignored.

Consider the example of a test for the landing page for a skill-sharing service (Figure 2.1). The test instructions noted only that “This is a sign-up page for a new web application.” After posing three questions related to the service offered and the background image, the test asked: “Do you have any suggestions on the copy?” The “copy” in this case refers to 46 words in the middle of the page, promoting the service and explaining its general benefit. With all of the other elements competing for attention within the limited amount of exposure time, it is extremely unlikely that any respondent will have enough time to even notice this text, much less internalize, comprehend, and consider it fully enough to render a meaningful opinion (especially when memory capacity has been already been spent answering other questions).

Reading involves additional, higher level cognitive processes that are better tested by other methods that are not subject to a time limit. However, it could be argued that there are ways to ask about “copy” or “content” without requiring actual reading. Some tests have taken the approach of asking “Does this web site make you want to read on?” or “Would you like to read it further if you had the chance?” However, these questions imply a greater interest in the overall design of the site or page (i.e., “Is the design appealing enough to make you want to explore it further?”). Focusing on whether the “copy” is interesting or engaging would require some level of meaningful attention, which cannot be accomplished within a five-second test.

There is one viable use of the method in cases involving reading: the testing of slogans or taglines for marketing or public relations purposes. Short sentences or phrases of no more than 10–12 words can be read and internalized adequately within a five-second time frame, giving respondents ample opportunity to provide their interpretation of, opinion about, and/or reaction to them. This approach requires that the test be fairly precise in approach and execution. To illustrate, consider the case of a business wanting to test a slogan for a new product: