Executive Summary
This project is a complete usability test package for Microsoft Word 365, conducted with three international students from UNM’s CELAC program at Zimmerman Library’s Graduate Commons. The package includes a formal test plan, moderated test execution across three days, a full analytical report with participant profiles, task-by-task observations, quantitative success metrics, qualitative think-aloud data, severity ratings, and actionable design and instructional recommendations. The project evaluated six mixed-level formatting and collaboration tasks, with a focus on feature discoverability, workflow efficiency, and learner-centered interface assessment.
Participants
Three participants were recruited through non-random purposive sampling from UNM’s Center for English Language and American Culture (CELAC). All were international students aged 19–21 preparing to begin or continue undergraduate study at UNM. Their Microsoft Word experience ranged from beginner (P1) to intermediate (P3), providing a meaningful range of digital literacy for comparative analysis.
| Participant | Age | Background | Word Level |
| P1 — Female | 19 | CELAC, incoming freshman | Beginner |
| P2 — Female | 21 | CELAC, incoming freshman (prior undergrad abroad) | Beginner / Intermediate |
| P3 — Male | 21 | CELAC, completed associate degree abroad | Intermediate |
Table 1. Participant Profiles — Microsoft Word Usability Test
Tasks and Methodology
Participants were guided through six structured tasks using a prepared Microsoft Word 365 document, a moderator script, and a think-aloud protocol. Sessions were conducted in-person and lasted approximately 25–30 minutes each. Data were collected through moderator observations, written and audio notes, and pre- and post-test questionnaires. No screen recording was conducted due to participant consent limitations.
| Task | Description | Objective | Success Rate |
| Task 1 | Add header with name and date | Basic navigation | 3/3 |
| Task 2 | Change font style and size | Text styling ease | 3/3 |
| Task 3 | Apply Heading 1 and 2 styles | Document structuring | 2/3 |
| Task 4 | Insert and customize 3×3 table | Table manipulation | 1/3 full, 2/3 partial |
| Task 5 | Insert a hyperlink | Hyperlink awareness | 1/3 full, 2/3 guided |
| Task 6 | Use Track Changes and add comment | Collaborative editing | 1/3 full, 2/3 partial |
Table 2. Task Summary and Aggregate Success Rates
Results and Data Visualization
The bar chart below visualizes individual task success rates across all three participants. A score of 1.0 indicates full independent completion; 0.5 indicates partial completion or completion with moderator guidance; 0.0 indicates inability to complete. The visualization confirms a clear pattern: basic formatting tasks (Tasks 1–2) were universally successful, while more complex interface-dependent tasks (Tasks 4–6) exposed significant discoverability barriers, particularly for beginner and intermediate users.
Key Findings
The most significant usability barrier identified was the Track Changes feature: P1 could not locate it without assistance, and P2 toggled it correctly but failed to complete the Accept/Reject workflow. Participant quotes illuminate the problem directly: P1 stated “I’ve heard of Track Changes, but I’ve never used it before — took me a while to find it.” Table customization presented a second major barrier, with the dual-tab structure of Layout vs. Table Design causing confusion even for intermediate users (P2: “I had to click around to find the merge cell option — it’s not as obvious as I expected.”). Hyperlink insertion was a third pain point: P1 and P2 both attempted to paste URLs directly, unaware that the Insert > Link workflow offered display text and tooltip options.
Conversely, Tasks 1 and 2 confirmed that basic formatting tools are well-signified and intuitively located on the Home tab. P3’s performance across all tasks confirmed that intermediate users with prior document experience can navigate Word’s full feature set efficiently — suggesting that the barriers are not inherent to the software’s complexity but to the interface’s failure to scaffold discovery for new users.
Recommendations
Four design recommendations emerged from the analysis. First, smart prompts should be triggered when users manually format headings, suggesting the use of built-in Heading styles. Second, table customization tools should be surfaced as floating quick-access icons when a table is selected. Third, an in-app guided walkthrough should appear when the Review tab is first opened, onboarding users to the Track Changes workflow. Fourth, right-click hyperlink insertion should be made more prominent for selected text.
| SLOs Addressed: SLO 1 (Audience Assessment), SLO 2 (Collaboration), SLO 4 (Communication Output), SLO 6 (Social Justice Design) |
Reflection
This project was the most demanding and rewarding work of my GCERT experience. Managing the full arc of a usability study — from participant recruitment through data collection to analytical reporting — gave me firsthand experience of what TPC work looks like in professional practice. The decision to center international, multilingual users was deliberate and generative: it produced findings that would not have emerged from a study of typical domestic undergraduates, and it reinforced my conviction that the communities most dependent on clear, well-designed interfaces are precisely those most often excluded from the research processes that shape those interfaces.