(Image credit: loop11)

Loop11: The Future of Remote Usability Testing

Overview

Loop11 is a cutting-edge online usability testing tool that allows users to design and conduct remote surveys and tasks on any website. It offers a seamless blend of questions and tasks, enabling users to set specific goals and monitor user interactions on a chosen website.

Ease of Use

Setting up a test on Loop11 is a step-by-step process, with a clear demo available on their website to guide users. However, the design of tasks requires careful consideration, especially since the tool leans more towards quantitative data.

Features

Task & Question Design: Users can create tasks and questions, with the ability to set specific goals for each task.
Device Compatibility: Loop11 can be used on any device with internet browsing capabilities.
Reports: After tests are conducted, users can access detailed reports in various formats, including Excel XML, PDF, and CSV.

Pricing

While Loop11 is not free, it offers a more cost-effective solution compared to traditional moderated usability testing. The pricing structure also allows for flexibility in participant incentives.

Customer Support

Tool’s comprehensive features and detailed setup process show a well-structured support system.

Popularity

Given its unique approach to usability testing and the advantages it offers over traditional methods, Loop11 is gaining traction in the market.

Pros

Closest tool to an actual usability test with a structured test script design.
Un-moderated tests allow for flexibility in participant location and timing.
Cost-effective compared to face-to-face usability tests.
Comprehensive reporting with exportable formats.

Cons

Once a test is published, it cannot be edited.
Success or failure rate determination can be challenging.
Potential for slow loading times on certain websites.
Risk of participants not completing the test diligently due to the un-moderated nature.

Overall Rating

4/5 – Loop11 offers a revolutionary approach to usability testing, bridging the gap between traditional and remote methods. However, its strict success/fail metrics and potential for participant inconsistency slightly limit its full potential.