Usability testing in Figma: from prototype to useful evidence

A beautiful prototype can generate a less useful test when the person encounters buttons without links, starts on the wrong screen, or receives an instruction that gives away the path. To test usability in Figma, prepare both the material and the usage situation. The result needs to explain a difficulty that the product can solve.

Before importing the file, write down the open decision. “Validate the application” is too broad. “Discover if the customer can change the delivery date” defines a task, a scope, and an observable result.

Prepare your usability test in Figma

Select the initial screen and check the possible destinations. Not every interaction needs to be complete, but the actions necessary for the task must work. If there is a plausible deviation, decide whether it will be navigable or if the limitation needs to appear in the interpretation.

In UXTap, the prototype can be imported from Figma. It is also possible to work with uploaded images, clickable areas, and guided flows. The choice of mode changes what you can conclude.

A guided sequence is useful for presenting screens and gathering reactions. It does not offer the same path discovery evidence as a navigation where the participant chooses where to click. Record the mode used along with the result.

Write a task that makes sense outside the editor

Consider this fictional scenario: “You will not be home on the agreed date. Change the delivery to an option where you can receive the order.” The person has a goal but needs to figure out how to achieve it.

Avoid “open My Orders and click Reschedule.” This instruction verifies a taught sequence. Also provide the necessary data: example order, possible dates, and any information that would normally be available to the customer.

Define success before data collection

In UXTap, prototype tasks can use arrival at a screen or a defined path as a criterion. Choose the rule according to the study's needs.

If more than one path solves the problem, do not classify an alternative path as a failure just because it is different from the initial design. If the goal is to test a specific sequence, explain this restriction in the analysis.

Conduct a practical review:

• Does the initial screen allow understanding the context?
• Does the goal represent the completed task?
• Do relevant alternative paths work?
• Can the participant indicate that they gave up?
• Does the material maintain legibility on the planned device?

Run the pilot as a participant, including using a wrong attempt. This reveals problems that ideal navigation often hides.

Read the journey along with the outcome

Reaching the destination does not mean having a smooth experience. The person may explore several screens, go back, and complete by trial and error. On the other hand, an interruption may have been caused by a missing link.

In the results, examine paths, clicks, and sessions, according to the available evidence. Add an open-ended question about what made the task difficult. The answer helps investigate the journey, without replacing observation.

In a hypothetical example, participants might look for the delivery change in the order details, while the option is in the profile. The initial recommendation would be to test the action's location within the order context. It would still be necessary to verify if the new positioning improves the task.

Conduct a technical review with two paths

Before submitting the study, go through the expected path and a plausible alternative route. In a fictional delivery prototype, try to reschedule through the order detail and then look for the same action in the account area. Note where there is functional interaction and where there is only an image. A participant does not know which parts of the file were prepared for the test.

Check the initial state: selected order, current date, available information, and possibility to go back. An already pre-filled confirmation screen can artificially shorten the journey. An empty screen without explanation can force the person to guess the scenario. The material should present the problem without solving the task.

Check size and readability on the chosen device. A desktop page scaled down within a mobile phone frame does not represent a mobile experience. If the study has audiences on different devices, prepare appropriate materials or limit the research to the condition that can actually be reproduced.

Also make an interrupted attempt. Confirm the behavior of exit actions and what will be recorded as abandonment. This allows distinguishing someone who abandoned the task from someone who finished the study after indicating they could not complete it.

Which mode answers your question?

A Figma import preserves a useful work origin for the team, but the investigation depends on the interactions made available to the participant. A guided screen sequence serves an ordered presentation: you can examine the understanding of each step. It does not demonstrate that the person would discover the next action on their own.

On the other hand, navigation by clickable areas allows exploring choices between prepared destinations. In this case, review the area of each link. A target larger than the designed button may accept a click that, in the product, would not work. A smaller target can create artificial difficulty. The pilot should check these limits, especially in nearby components.

If the goal is only to discover where a task would begin, consider a first click test. You save the construction of an entire flow, but limit the conclusion to the initial choice. To investigate execution, preserve the possibility of following through to an observable result.

An analysis sheet for rescheduling

Prepare one row per attempt with: starting point, first choice, relevant deviation, outcome, and subsequent explanation. In the fictional example, “opened the account area and returned to the order” describes a sequence. “Did not understand the architecture” is a broader interpretation that still needs evidence.

Add a column for material failures. If the desired date has no link, the attempt should not support a criticism of the calendar's position. Document the failure, correct the prototype, and decide which observations remain usable. Preserve the separation between rounds when conditions change.

A good recommendation links the obstacle to a testable revision: making it explicit that the change applies to that specific order, for example. In the next version, observe if the person finds the action and correctly explains the new deadline. Do not just use arrival at the final screen to declare that the entire experience has improved.

Transform the test into a new version

Record the problem, the sessions that support it, and the proposed change. Also save the study configuration to avoid unknowingly comparing rounds with different scenarios.

To start, choose an important task, prepare a prototype limited to it, and conduct a complete pilot in UXTap. Then, review the links and the statement before recruiting the audience. The value of the test lies in the change that the evidence allows justifying.

Before publishing, review how to write usability tasks and check the prototype test modes to align scenario and interaction.

Frequently asked questions about testing in Figma

Do I need to finish all screens before researching?

No. Prepare the necessary scope for the decision, with plausible paths within it. Declare the limitations of areas that will not be functional. If an incomplete part directly interferes with the task, resolve this dependency before recruiting or choose a question that the current material can answer.

Can I use images instead of a Figma file?

UXTap allows working with uploaded images. The usefulness depends on the configured interactions, screen sizes, and research question. Recording an impression about an image and observing navigation through links require different configurations and interpretations.

How to compare the prototype after a correction?

Preserve the scenario, participant profile, and success criterion as much as possible. Record content or interaction changes that alter difficulty. Consult the version comparison guide before attributing the observed difference exclusively to the new interface.

Create your UXTap account to prepare your first study.