跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

qual-quant-triangulation

Resolve conflicts between behavioral data and user research by checking what each source can answer and whom it represents. Identify the evidence to base a decision on and design one focused study to test competing explanations.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

Reconcile what the numbers say with what users say, and design the study that settles it rather than restates it. Use when behavioural data and research findings point different ways. For reading the data on its own, use `behavioural-analytics`; for synthesising interviews on their own, use `affinity-diagram`.

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Investigating abandonment despite positive user reports
  • Examining complaints absent from aggregate metrics
  • Checking improved metrics against a worse experience
  • Exploring enthusiasm without repeat visits

包含的文件(2)

  • SKILL.md3.6 KB
  • EVALS.md3.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Qual-Quant Triangulation

You are an expert in what to do when the dashboard and the interviews disagree.

What You Do

You take two accounts of the same behaviour — one measured, one reported — and work out what their disagreement means, which one answers the question actually being asked, and what the next study has to look like to settle it. The output is a decision about what to believe and one study design, not a summary of both sources.

Disagreement Is Information

Teams treat a conflict as a problem with one source. It is usually a signal in its own right, and the shape of it tells you where to look:

What you seeWhat it usually means
Data shows abandonment; users report no difficultyThey abandoned for a reason they do not attribute to the interface — price, timing, or a decision made before arriving
Users report a serious problem; data shows no effectThe affected segment is small, or the problem happens before instrumentation starts
Data improved; users report it feels worseYou optimised a proxy. The metric moved, the experience did not
Users are enthusiastic; retention is flatStated preference, not revealed. Enthusiasm in a session is not a return visit
Both look fine; the business outcome does notYou are measuring the task, not the goal the task serves
The last two are the expensive ones, because nothing looks wrong until much later.

Which Source Answers Which Question

Give each question to the source that can actually answer it, and stop asking the other:

  • What happened, how often, and where — behavioural data. Interviews are a poor census; people misremember frequency badly.
  • Why, and what they were trying to do — research. No amount of event data recovers intent.
  • Whether the thing is worth building at all — neither, on its own. That is a judgment, and dressing it as a finding is how teams launder a decision they already made. When someone asks a why-question of a dashboard, or a how-many-question of six interviews, the disagreement you are looking at is not real. It is a category error.

Designing the Study That Settles It

A resolving study is narrower than either original. Write down, before running it: the specific claim in dispute, what result would make you drop the qualitative account, and what result would make you drop the quantitative one. If no result could change your mind, you are not resolving the conflict, you are building a case. Prefer the cheap instrument that discriminates. A session recording of the disputed step usually beats another round of interviews and another dashboard. If the dispute is about why, add measurement to the qualitative session rather than running two studies.

Best Practices

  • Name which source is load-bearing for the decision before you look at either
  • Weight revealed behaviour over stated preference when they conflict on the same question
  • Check that both sources describe the same population before calling it a contradiction — different segments are not a disagreement
  • Do not average the two accounts into a compromise finding; a middle position neither source supports is worse than picking one
  • Do not resolve a conflict by re-running the study that produced the answer you prefer

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Plan A/B experiments to measure the effect of a design change. Define a hypothesis, control and treatment versions, success metrics, sample size, and duration, with supporting measures to detect unintended consequences.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Planning a comparison between current and proposed designs
  • Defining success metrics for a change
  • Estimating sample size and test duration
Owl-Listener/designer-skills30582026年9月6日 更新

Assess an existing interface against WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidelines. Identify barriers in content and interactions, rate their severity and user impact, and document affected locations, remediation steps, and code examples to guide improvements.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Reviewing accessibility in an existing design or build
  • Checking keyboard access and assistive technology compatibility
  • Prioritizing fixes by severity and user impact
Owl-Listener/designer-skills30582026年9月6日 更新

Plan accessibility testing with people who use assistive technologies, such as screen readers and voice control. Define participant criteria, test environments, session procedures, coverage of WCAG accessibility guidelines, and a consistent format for reporting issues.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Planning test sessions with assistive technology users
  • Defining participant recruitment criteria
  • Mapping key user flows to test environments
Owl-Listener/designer-skills30582026年9月6日 更新

Review visual consistency to understand how an interface shapes trust and perceived ease of use. Examine spacing, alignment, typography, and overlooked screen states to guide visual improvements alongside usability testing.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Investigating poor feedback on a functional interface
  • Checking visual consistency before launch
  • Reviewing error, empty, and loading states
Owl-Listener/designer-skills30582026年9月6日 更新

Turn interview notes, observations, and survey responses into themes and actionable research insights. Group related evidence without preset categories, retain participant references, and prioritize findings by their impact on design decisions while noting patterns found in only one interview.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Synthesize findings across multiple interviews
  • Organize observation notes and survey responses
  • Prioritize research insights for design decisions
Owl-Listener/designer-skills30582026年9月6日 更新

Refine a specific interface animation by choosing easing, meaning changes in speed, along with duration and movement order. Use it to tune buttons, modals, transitions, or loading indicators so motion guides attention and communicates changes.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Tune how a modal enters and exits
  • Adjust button and toggle animations
  • Coordinate the order of related movements
Owl-Listener/designer-skills30582026年9月6日 更新

查看 Owl-Listener 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题