✨ In this post I’ll cover ✨:
How Netflix’s redesign highlights common gaps in usability testing
Practical guidance for designing usability studies grounded in real-world use
Broader implications for understanding users across different products and interaction contexts
Netflix recently launched a redesign that, at first glance, looks clean and modern. Visually, nothing feels obviously wrong. However, after spending some time using it in a typical setting, certain interaction issues start to surface, especially when the product is used the way many people actually use it.
A common scenario looks like this. You are on your couch, holding a remote, and you are still deciding what you want to watch. You start by browsing, scrolling through rows of content to see what catches your attention. At some point, while scrolling, you remember a specific show or movie you want to watch and decide to search for it instead.
In the current redesign, if you are already scrolled down the page, the search functionality is no longer easily accessible. To reach it, you need to scroll all the way back to the top using the remote. On a laptop or desktop interface, this interaction might feel trivial. On a TV, where scrolling is slower and more effortful, it quickly becomes frustrating. The interaction interrupts the flow of browsing and adds friction at a moment when the user is already cognitively undecided.
This issue (and others) are quite visible in user communities where people complain about navigation being slower, requiring more scrolling, and feeling less responsive. Some users even describe the interface as getting in the way of decision-making, and others mention reconsidering their subscription altogether. While not all users will churn because of a redesign, repeated small frustrations can accumulate and change how people feel about a product over time. So why did this happen? Was it an informed product decision? Was it a flaw in the usability study methodology? We can only assume here, but let’s have a look at how context and interaction can actually impact design decisions like this one.
From a UX and HCI research perspective, this type of issue often points to a gap in how usability testing was conducted. Testing may have taken place, and tasks may have been completed successfully, but important aspects of user context were likely underrepresented.
User context is not just about the device being used. It includes physical posture, environment, cognitive state, and the interaction mode itself. Watching Netflix usually happens on a couch, often at the end of the day, with limited attention and low tolerance for unnecessary effort. The interaction is remote-first, which is slower and less precise than using a mouse or keyboard.
When usability testing focuses primarily on web interfaces or assumes focused, goal-oriented behaviour, it risks missing these realities. The result is an experience that technically works but does not support users well in the moments that matter most.
To avoid this, usability testing needs to be grounded in how people actually use the product, not just how the interface is structured.
Testing in a realistic context is a good starting point. This means using the actual device, in a similar environment, with the same interaction constraints users face at home. Sitting on a couch and navigating with a remote can reveal issues that would never appear in a desktop-based test.
Existing research insights should also inform task design. If prior research shows that users often come to Netflix without a clear goal and switch between browsing and searching (this can come from data analytics, user interviews, contextual inquiry etc), then usability tasks should reflect that. Instead of asking users to “find a specific show,” tasks could start with open-ended browsing and allow users to change their minds naturally.
Observation plays an important role here. Watching users interact with the product without heavy prompting often reveals subtle friction points, such as hesitation, repeated scrolling, or backtracking. These behaviours are easy to overlook when focusing only on task completion or success rates, but they are critical for understanding overall experience quality.
So the next time you’re designing your usability test, don’t forget to:
1. Clarify the context of use
Where is the product typically used?
What is the user’s physical posture and environment?
What distractions or constraints are likely present?
This connects closely to research work on situated action (Suchman), which emphasises that human behaviour emerges from context rather than following predefined plans.
2. Match the interaction mode
Are users using a remote, touch, keyboard, voice, or a combination?
Does your test setup faithfully reproduce the effort and limitations of that input method?
Research on embodied interaction reminds us that interaction is shaped by the body and the tools people use, not just the interface on the screen.
3. Ground tasks in real user goals
What job is the user actually trying to accomplish?
Are they confident in their goal, or still figuring it out?
Do tasks allow for goal changes and ambiguity?
This aligns with Jobs-to-Be-Done thinking and earlier goal-oriented models in HCI, which stress understanding user intent rather than isolated features.
4. Test transitions, not just endpoints
What happens when users shift from browsing to searching?
From exploration to decision-making?
From passive use to intentional action?
Research consistently shows that breakdowns often occur during transitions, not during clearly defined tasks.
5. Prioritise observation over instruction
Are users allowed to behave naturally?
Are you watching for pauses, repetition, and workarounds?
Are you resisting the urge to guide or explain?
This draws from ethnographic and contextual inquiry approaches, where observation of real behaviour is treated as primary data, not supplementary insight.
6. Look beyond task success
Did the user complete the task, but with visible effort?
Did they express mild annoyance or fatigue (also don’t forget that people like to be polite, look for other cues)?
Would this interaction feel acceptable once, but frustrating over time?
Classic usability metrics are useful, but they often miss cumulative friction, which has a significant impact on long-term satisfaction and retention.
7. Revisit earlier research continuously
Are insights from previous studies actively shaping test design?
Or are they archived and forgotten once a redesign begins?
Usability testing is most effective when it builds on existing understanding of users, rather than starting from scratch each time.
Although this example focuses on Netflix, the underlying lesson applies to many products. People interact with systems while distracted, tired, undecided, or constrained by their environment. This applies to digital interfaces, physical products, and services alike, whether it is interacting with an advertisement, using a coffee machine, or navigating a workplace tool.
Understanding users means understanding their mental models, their typical states of mind, and the edge cases that are not actually edge cases at all. These are often the most common situations users find themselves in.
Usability testing that ignores context risks validating designs that look good in controlled settings but fail to support real-world use. When testing reflects how people actually live and behave, it becomes much more likely to surface the kinds of issues that genuinely affect satisfaction, trust, and long-term use.
☀️ Hi! I’m Andreea, an academic HCI researcher (gesture recognition and virtual reality interfaces) turned UX researcher that helps various businesses build products users actually love. I conducted hundreds of research studies for tech companies seeking clarity and I started this newsletter to share real examples and stories from my experience, so teams can do better research.
If you found this article helpful, I would be super grateful if you shared it with others.
I also love great discussions and debates, so I’m excited to hear your thoughts in the comments.
If you need support in your next research project, feel free to reach out.
When I’m not doing research or writing, I like to go on hikes, read a good novel and play pretend with my dinosaur-obsessed toddler boy. If you’d like to support my work (and energy for writing, hehe), feel free to buy me a coffee!
Either way, thanks for reading and supporting my work ❤️
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.