Usability Test Report Template (ISO/IEC 25066 CIF)

Usability Test Report: [Product or feature name]

A report of one usability test: what was evaluated and why, the method and procedure, task results for effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction, findings rated by severity with their evidence, and recommendations traced to the backlog. The section order follows the content elements that ISO/IEC 25066:2016 (Common Industry Format for usability evaluation reports, clause 5.2; withdrawn by ISO in April 2026, see references) lists for a user observation report, and the measures use the usability framework of ISO 9241-11:2018. Both are paid standards: this template cites clause numbers and uses original wording. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example. Worked examples continue the Quillmere Libraries test planned in design/usability-test-plan (Quillmere Libraries is a fictional city library service).

Document control

Approvals

Revision history

Contents

1. Executive summary
2. Object of evaluation
3. Purpose of the evaluation
4. Method
5. Procedure
6. Results
7. Interpretation and recommendations
8. Limitations
9. Traceability and follow-up
10. Glossary and references

1. Executive summary

[Two to four short paragraphs, then the top findings table.]

Example: Eight borrowers tested the Quillmere Libraries app 5.2 beta reservation flow in moderated remote sessions between YYYY-MM-DD and YYYY-MM-DD. Finding a book and reserving it (T1) and checking opening hours (T4) worked well. Changing the collection branch of an existing reservation (T2) failed for 4 of 8 participants, and 2 of them created a duplicate reservation instead. Both screen reader users could not renew loans (T3) because the renew controls have no accessible name.

Example: Recommendation: do not ship 5.2 as planned. Fix F-001 to F-003 (severity 3 and 4), retest T1 to T3 with at least five participants including two screen reader users, then decide.

2. Object of evaluation

3. Purpose of the evaluation

• Decision informed: [Example: ship the redesigned reservation flow in release 5.2, or iterate].
• Evaluation type: [Example: formative user observation with measures; not a summative benchmark].
• Research questions: [Example: RQ-1 Can borrowers reserve and redirect a reservation unaided? RQ-2 Where do they hesitate or make errors? RQ-3 How do they rate the app overall?]
• Targets set in the plan: [Example: completion at least 80% for T1, T3 and T4 and at least 70% for T2; T4 median time 60 s or less; SUS mean 68 or higher].

4. Method

4.1 Participants

Recruited [Example: 9]; completed [Example: 8]; [Example: 1 no-show, replaced from the over-recruit list]. All participants received the incentive. No participant withdrew.

4.2 Tasks

4.3 Context and environment

[Example: remote moderated sessions over a video call, participants at home on their own phones and networks, screen mirrored to the moderator. The commuting context was not reproduced.]

4.4 Measures

5. Procedure

• Session flow: [Example: welcome, consent check, background, practice task, T1 to T4 in fixed order with SEQ after each, SUS, debrief; 50 minutes].
• Moderator and note-taker: [Example: the same moderator ran all sessions; two note-takers alternated].
• Consent: [Example: written consent before each session using design/research-consent-form, repeated verbally on the recording; all participants agreed to screen and audio recording, 6 of 8 agreed to anonymised clips].
• Deviations from the plan: [Example: P08's session moved to the participant's preferred time and ran 15 minutes longer to allow breaks; build 412 replaced build 410 after the pilot found a crash in T3. No task wording changed after the first participant.]

6. Results

6.1 Task performance

Failures by participant: T1 P04; T2 P02, P04, P06, P08; T3 P04, P08. P02 and P06 created a second reservation at Central instead of moving the existing one.

The intervals are wide because the sample is small. A completion of 7 of 8 is consistent with a true rate anywhere from about half to almost all users, so "met" is stated for the point estimate only.

6.2 Satisfaction

Example: mean SUS 69.4 (standard deviation 18.1, n = 8), 95% confidence interval 54.3 to 84.5 (t distribution, 7 degrees of freedom); median 71.3. The mean is just above the reference average of about 68, but the interval is too wide to say whether the app is above or below it. The two screen reader users gave the two lowest scores (40.0 and 52.5).

6.3 Findings

Each finding lists where it occurred and the evidence. Severity uses 0 not a problem, 1 cosmetic, 2 minor, 3 major, 4 catastrophe.

6.4 Post-task ease and debrief themes

[Example: SEQ median per task: T1 6, T2 3, T3 5, T4 7. Debrief themes: confusion about whether a reservation moved or was duplicated (5 of 8), praise for search (6 of 8), request for a reminder before the due date (3 of 8). For full thematic analysis see design/research-synthesis.]

7. Interpretation and recommendations

Answers to the research questions:

• RQ-1 (Example): reserving works for most sighted participants; redirecting a reservation does not (F-001), and both flows have barriers for screen reader users (F-002, F-003).
• RQ-2 (Example): hesitation clustered on the reservation detail screen and the renew screen.
• RQ-3 (Example): overall satisfaction is around the reference average with wide uncertainty, and clearly lower for screen reader users.

Decision recommendation: [Example: hold release 5.2 until REC-001 to REC-003 are done and a retest of T1 to T3 with at least five participants, including two screen reader users, shows no severity 3 or 4 problems].

8. Limitations

• Example: eight participants in a formative round; rates and SUS are descriptive only.
• Example: only two assistive technology users; screen magnifier and switch users were not included.
• Example: remote sessions at home did not reproduce the commuting context.
• Example: fixed task order; T1 may have helped participants with T2.
• Example: test catalogue data; real reservation queues and wait times were not shown.

9. Traceability and follow-up

Data retention: [Example: raw recordings for P01 to P08 deleted on YYYY-MM-DD as set in the plan; pseudonymised notes and approved clips kept with this report].

10. Glossary and references

References:

• ISO/IEC 25066:2016, Systems and software engineering, SQuaRE, Common Industry Format (CIF) for usability: evaluation report, first edition, published 2016-06-13. Report content elements in clause 5.2 (5.2.1 executive summary to 5.2.8 additional content for conformity assessment); Annex A lists required and recommended elements per evaluation type. ISO withdrew this edition on 2026-04-24 (stage 95.99) without naming a replacement, as shown on ISO's committee catalogue page and in ISO open data, checked 2026-10-30; the structure remains useful, but do not claim conformance to a current standard. Official text: ISO, purchase or licensed access (withdrawn editions may be available on request): https://www.iso.org/standard/63831.html
• ISO 9241-11:2018, Ergonomics of human-system interaction, Part 11: Usability: definitions and concepts, second edition. Clauses 6.2 to 6.4 (effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction). Official text: ISO, purchase or licensed access: https://www.iso.org/standard/63500.html
• W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2, https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
• Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: a "quick and dirty" usability scale. In Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Francis.
• Sauro, J. and Lewis, J. R. (2016). Quantifying the User Experience, 2nd edition. Morgan Kaufmann.
• Nielsen, J. (1994). Severity ratings for usability problems. Nielsen Norman Group, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-rate-the-severity-of-usability-problems/
• Related templates: design/usability-test-plan, design/research-synthesis, design/heuristic-evaluation, design/accessibility-checklist, quality/accessibility-audit.

Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with the usability evaluation report content elements of ISO/IEC 25066:2016 (clause 5.2) and the usability measures of ISO 9241-11:2018. ISO standards are paid publications: this template cites names, editions and clause numbers only, and all wording is original. The SUS is attributed to Brooke (1996) and the severity scale to Nielsen (1994); WCAG 2.2 success criteria are cited by number and short name. Check the current official versions before relying on them. Template licence: MIT.