About Uxnotivo

What we do

We study how people use websites. That means watching participants try real tasks, reviewing sites against established usability principles, mapping the journeys visitors take and checking whether disabled visitors can use a site with their own assistive technology. The output is always the same kind of thing: a clear account of the problems, the evidence for each one and a specific recommendation your team can act on.

Our work is aimed at websites that serve people in the United States, which is why our guides cover US rules on research consent, participant payments, accessibility and privacy, and why our quotes are in US dollars. You can see the full list of methods on our services page.

Why this work matters

Most website decisions are made with incomplete information. Analytics show what happened, but not why. Team opinions are shaped by people who already know how the site works. Visitors, who know nothing about the site's internal logic, are the people whose experience matters most and whose perspective is hardest to see from the inside.

Usability research closes that gap at a modest cost. A small round of sessions can explain a problem that months of debate have not resolved. An expert review can clear away obvious issues before a redesign begins. Done well, research saves teams from building the wrong thing.

What we believe

Evidence over opinion

Every finding in our reports carries a label showing where it came from: watching participants, an expert review, analytics or support records. Readers should never have to guess how much weight a finding deserves.

Plain language

Findings are written so that a founder, a developer and a content editor can all understand them without a glossary. If a recommendation needs a meeting to explain, we have not written it clearly enough.

Honesty about limits

A five-person study finds problems; it does not produce statistics. An expert review predicts issues; it does not prove them. We say so in every plan and every report. We also never promise conversion lifts or percentages, because no honest method can predict them before changes are made and measured.

Respect for participants

People who take part in research give us their time and attention. They receive clear information, fair payment and the right to stop at any point without penalty, as described in our guide to consent and incentives.

Why watching people beats guessing

Most website debates end with someone's opinion winning. The founder likes the long home page, the developer wants fewer fields, and the marketing lead wants a bigger banner. Usability research replaces that argument with something more useful: a recording of a real person trying to get something done on your site.

When a visitor cannot find shipping costs, misreads a plan name or abandons a form halfway, there is a specific cause behind it. A label used words the visitor did not recognize. A button looked like decoration. An error message blamed the visitor without saying what to fix. These problems are invisible in a dashboard, because a dashboard only records that the session ended. Watching even a small number of people work through a task makes the cause obvious, and an obvious cause is much easier to fix than a vague drop in numbers.

Small qualitative studies are well suited to finding these problems. Jakob Nielsen's widely cited guidance argues that a handful of participants per round uncovers most of the issues in a design, and that the budget is better spent on several small rounds than on one large one ¹. Small studies have limits, which we explain in our guide to sample sizes, so we never present findings from five sessions as statistics.

What a first review covers

The exact scope depends on your goals, but a first review for a business site in the United States covers the same core ground. We look at how quickly a new visitor can tell what the site offers and who it is for. We follow the paths that matter most to you, such as requesting a quote, booking a call, starting a trial or completing a purchase, and note every point where a reasonable person might hesitate.

When visitors struggle to find things at all, the cause may be the structure of the menu rather than any one page, and our information architecture research tests that directly. We check forms closely, because forms are where intent turns into action and where small problems cost the most. We review the experience on a phone as well as a desktop, since a layout that works on a large screen can hide the main action on a small one. We also check the accessibility basics defined in WCAG 2.2, which the W3C published in October 2023 ², because barriers for disabled visitors are usability problems too.

What research can and cannot do

Research tells you where people struggle and why. It does not guarantee that a redesign will produce a particular number, and you should be wary of anyone who promises one. The sample report on our examples page shows the structure we use, with fictional content, so you can judge the format before you ask for a quote.

If an expert review is enough for your question, we will say so. If your question needs larger samples or a controlled experiment, we explain that and point you to the method that fits, including our notes on A/B testing guidance.

What we will not do

We do not publish testimonials, client logos, case studies or results we cannot show. We do not invent statistics to make a point. Every example on this site that looks like client work, such as the journey card on the home page or the sample audit report, is labeled as illustrative and uses fictional content.

We do not accept payment for placements, take affiliate commissions or recommend vendors in exchange for anything. When a guide names a tool or a standard, it is because the guide needs it.

We do not install accessibility overlays, recommend dark patterns or help sites make it harder for visitors to cancel, opt out or find information they are entitled to.

Who writes the guides

Our guides are written under the pen name Jacob Hayes. Using a pen name keeps the focus on the content and its sources rather than on personal credentials, and every factual claim in a guide is linked to a source that readers can check. Our editorial policy explains how guides are researched, sourced, reviewed and corrected.

How to work with us

Projects begin with a conversation by email about your site and your question. We reply with questions or a draft scope, then a written fixed-fee quote in US dollars. Nothing starts until you approve it. The process page explains each step, and the pricing page explains how quotes are built.

If you are not ready for a project, our free tools and guides are a good way to start improving your site on your own.