Usability test

Termomix TM5

Short overview

This study aims to test the cognitive activity in performing certain tasks with the Termomix and to come up with new design concepts to either enhance the cognitive experience or eliminate the cognitive stress

The Process

Gaining knowledge of the users is the first step in the CW process. We need to understand who our users are and what they need. Afterward, we gathered all of your findings from the research and start piecing them together. Based on the observed common patterns, tasks were defined, which highlighted the cognitive processes required to use the interface of the product 



Dekstop & User research


Cogitative Problems


heuristics & severity levels


Group problems

In the Test phase, we identified and rated the severity of the found usability issues in order to prioritize resource allocation.

Negative findings


Start button
too small /
Color misdirection




Start button larger,
green background


Visibility of
system status
and standards


“Next” button misleading: time is beeing selected and it goes to the “Next” step automatically 




User control
Error prevention


“Next” – option only
possible if level has
been set, only one
action per screen


We combined Cognitive Walkthrough + Heuristic Evaluation + Thinking aloud for our study. We used 3 “experts” who dealt with the terms “usability” and “user experience”. It was relatively quick to discover many problems on one device with a small group. Each of the experts has focused on as many problems as possible with each task. If I could measure the method according to the usability components (usability, efficiency, effectiveness), I would rate it in this way: “Ease of use: high Efficiency: high Effectiveness: medium ” Ease of use high, since the effort is largely proportional to the size and complexity of the interface to be evaluated. Above all, CW is used to check the interaction between the interface and the user. As with our study, the focus of the method was on evaluating the design of a system through exploration.   Efficiency relatively high, because in a small period of about 1 hour each of the experts discovered many problems with the interface. It is sometimes advantageous that the method does not promote users, as this saves time. I think that effectiveness is one of the weaknesses of the method. With the method, the experts find many problems, but an expert / designer can never really put himself in the role of the user. The task of the experts is to focus on problems and not to use the device in real life. The “Thinking aloud” method enabled us to identify reasons for problems and abnormalities as well as possible proposed solutions without additional analysis. I find the method not only very simple and at the same time very effective, but also very flexible, since it can be applied to many different scenarios.

You like it?

Take a look at my other projects

This was university group project. Thank you L.A and P.H!