Hi all - this is a free series where I critique anonymized resumes that were submitted to me. If you love the work I do, please consider becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. It helps me continue what I do and putting this kind of work out into the community.

Check out part two here.

Stop applying. Start getting interviews.

The UXR Job Bundle gives you everything you need to land better roles, faster.

→ Resume + portfolio templates that get callbacks

→ Interview frameworks that show how you think

→ Case study formats that hook hiring managers in 60 seconds

→ Negotiation scripts to help you stop settling

Researchers who use it report 3x more interviews and stronger offers.

Don’t just polish your resume. Change your outcome.

Formulas:

* [Verb] + [what you did] + [quantifier] which resulted in + [measurable or strategic impact]

Example: Ran 4 onboarding interviews with new clients, which resulted in redesigned setup steps and a 25% drop in support tickets.

* [Verb] + [insight you generated] + by [method], leading to + [decision/outcome]

Example: Uncovered usability issues by synthesizing 12 support calls, leading to a streamlined payment flow.

* [Verb] + [collaboration/project] + across [team/org], resulting in + [alignment/change]

Example: Facilitated quarterly review across Product and Ops, resulting in better prioritization and fewer miscommunications.

* [Verb] + [process/tool/project you led or improved] + [how many/who/what] which resulted in + [business/user impact]

Example: Improved onboarding workflow used by 3 teams, which resulted in a 25% reduction in support queries.

* [Verb] + [insight or decision you contributed to] + by [action taken] + leading to + [impact on project/team/metric]

Example: Informed product roadmap by synthesizing 30 customer interviews, leading to launch of 2 new features.

* [Verb] + [communication or output you created] + that influenced + [stakeholders/team] + to [do what]

Example: Created user insight brief that influenced PMs to prioritize accessibility fixes.

* [Verb] + [collaboration you facilitated] + across [teams/functions] + to [goal], resulting in + [change or outcome]

Example: Facilitated weekly cross-functional syncs across Design and Ops to align on support triage, resulting in 30% faster escalation resolution.

* [Verb] + [project or task] + within [timeline or budget], resulting in + [measurable business or user value]

Example: Delivered usability testing project within 2 weeks, resulting in simplified checkout flow and 15% conversion uplift.

* [Verb] + [problem you solved] + by [how you solved it],which [impact/result]

Example: Resolved data duplication issue by implementing a shared tracking template, which reduced manual rework by 80%.

In this episode, I cover:

* Common mistakes teams make when prototype testing becomes routine or rushed.

* A method for deciding whether a prototype test is even the right approach.

* Clear goal-setting techniques that make your test focused and relevant.

* How to define metrics that show both research quality and product value.

* Writing user tasks that reflect real behavior and reveal friction points.

Key Takeaways:

* Low-fidelity prototypes limit learning. If your design doesn’t give people room to explore, or fail, you won’t see how they truly interact with it. Higher fidelity versions are much more effective for unmoderated studies.

* Not every question needs a usability test. If you’re looking to understand motivations or needs, observing task flows may not be the right method. Start by asking what kind of data you’re actually trying to gather.

* Goals guide everything. Strong prototype tests begin with clear goals. They shape the tasks, help with team alignment, and create a direct line between what you learn and what changes.

* Track outcomes that matter to your team. Define a few ways you’ll measure success before the test begins, such as friction points found, task completion behaviors, or whether changes from the study affect real usage.

* Write tasks people can relate to. Use short, specific scenarios rooted in familiar behavior. Instead of vague prompts, give people a purpose and context so their actions reflect how they’d use the product in real life.

The prototype guide:

Grab the full prototype guide with all the examples and formulas here and try it out with your next project (or with a project you recently did!).

Try Optimal:

Want to try this out on Optimal? You can grab a 20% discount using code Prototype2025 at checkout

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Reach out to me at nikki@userresearchacademy.com to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube.

—

Erik is a behavioral scientist with a passion for understanding how people, especially kids, interact with digital experiences. He works at The LEGO Group, where he leads behavioral research to create safer, more inspiring, and more playful digital spaces for children. He specializes in using behavioral science, experimentation, and innovative research methodologies to uncover what kids need and love in digital play.

Beyond his professional role, he is a self-proclaimed research methodology nerd, always exploring better ways to understand and test how kids engage with the digital world.

In our conversation, we discuss:

* Why ecological validity is critical to meaningful product testing and what it means in practice.

* How Erik approaches testing with kids at LEGO, including the need for playful environments and cognitive load considerations.

* The pitfalls of lab-based research and why researchers must move beyond “zoo-like” conditions to see real-world behavior.

* Ways to mitigate social desirability and authority bias, especially when conducting research with children.

* How remote research, diary studies, and mixed methods can provide deeper behavioral insights—if done with context in mind.

Some takeaways:

* Validity is about realism. Erik defines ecological validity as the extent to which research reflects real-world behavior. While traditional labs optimize for internal validity, in product development, what matters is whether your findings will translate when people are distracted, tired, or juggling multiple tasks.

* Don’t study lions at the zoo. One of Erik’s standout metaphors urges researchers to avoid overly sanitized environments. Testing products in sterile labs might remove variables, but it also strips away the chaotic, layered reality where your product must actually succeed. Aim for the “Serengeti”—not the zoo.

* Researching with kids requires creativity, play, and caution.

Kids aren’t small adults, they process and respond differently. Erik emphasizes using play as a language, minimizing cognitive load, and focusing on behavioral observation over verbal responses. A child saying “I loved it” means little if they looked disengaged the whole time.

* Remote testing can work if grounded in real-life context. Remote methods like diary studies and follow-up interviews can capture valuable insights, especially if paired with contextual in-person research first. The key is triangulating methods and validating self-reports with observed behavior.

* Think beyond usability, map the behavior chain. A product’s ease of use in isolation means little if the behavior it enables is derailed by real-life obstacles. Erik illustrates this with a simple example: refilling soap sounds easy until you’re cold, wet, and have other priorities. Designing for behavior means understanding the entire chain around your product.

Where to find Erik:

* LinkedIn

Interested in sponsoring the podcast?

Interested in sponsoring or advertising on this podcast? I’m always looking to partner with brands and businesses that align with my audience. Book a call or email me at nikki@userresearchacademy.com to learn more about sponsorship opportunities!

The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views, positions, or policies of the host, the podcast, or any affiliated organizations or sponsors.