How do you measure the effectiveness of a website's design? What about the layout of an app? How can you tell users are getting the most valuable experience out of the website and tailor the experience to make it better based on those findings?

Creating reliable tests that are also fast is a struggle in the world of UX, but it's not impossible. Paul Doncaster, a 2007 graduate of Bentley University's Human Factors in Information Design program, wrote a book about one simple test that can help professionals design better products.

The title is "The UX 5-Second Rules: Guidelines for User Experience Design's Simplest Testing Technique."

Doncaster recently spoke with us about the book, his findings and what it's like to be a published author in the tech field.

Q: What is the 5-second test?
It's really simple: a design is placed in front of the test participant for five seconds, then taken away; the participant then answers questions to gauge (a) what is most readily remembered about the design, and (b) whether or not the design achieves its purpose or has the desired effect.

I very affectionately refer to it as a runt research technique, because it's not a formal usability test that measures whether tasks can be completed error-free, and it isn't meant to be a decision-maker type of technique. It's a quick perceptual test that is best used as a springboard for diving deeper into the mindset of the user.

Q: Give me a brief synopsis of 'The UX Five-Second Rules.'
Originally, the five-second test was limited to in-person, moderated testing sessions where participants were able to be more complete and elaborative in their responses, and researchers were able to follow-up in more detail if needed. Since then, there has been a proliferation of online tools meant to replicate this type of test, but they come with inherent limitations and challenges.

The book provides a set of 10 guidelines for using the technique effectively and optimally, especially when using online tools to execute them. It also argues for some additional uses of the technique that the originators may not have considered.

Q: What was the hardest part about writing and publishing the book?
Well, I would imagine that any book would be hard to write for the non-professional writer. Being disciplined can be difficult. The hard part was just finding the time to do it. It took me, I'll say, five or six months of good, hard, serious effort at night and on weekends. Having a publisher-imposed deadline definitely helped keep me on track.

Q: How did the project start?
It started as a sort of morbid curiosity as I was using certain online testing tools for my own projects. One such tool allows you to take the tests of others in order to earn points that can be used for your own tests, and in the process of using it, I took a lot of five-second tests myself.

So many of the tests that I saw were poorly designed and/or prompted unhelpful responses. My own frustration was in wanting to give designers meaningful feedback, but not being able to because of the ways their tests were structured.

I theorized that there was a gap between what the creators of the technique intended and what was actually happening when testing via these new online tools. I decided to collect and analyze a sample of five-second tests to see if there were consistent errors in instructions, question wording - that kind of thing. From there, it became a matter of devising guidelines to ensure a better chance of getting usable data.

The information first came together as a presentation for a UXPA conference then developed into a book.

Q: What did you learn from the experience?
I guess I've learned that UX people are always looking for newer insights in ways that can disrupt conventional thinking. That's the only way innovation can happen, and it can happen even with things as seemingly minor as this type of simple research technique.

I think the big lesson I took away from my research is that as long as you have good research design, good research protocols, you should be able to get something useful from this type of technique. I think sometimes that it's a victim of its own perceived simplicity – it actually can be very effective at providing several types of measurable data.

Q: Did you ever imagine becoming an author?
It was always a bucket list item for me. I don't have the patience or discipline for the character or plot development necessary for fiction. But I was journalism minor. I've written lots or articles, essays and long papers. It's something I think I'm pretty good at.

The fact that I was able to get there is very satisfying. I'm very glad I was able to do it.