Testing usability with TMAP

What does usability mean within TMAP?

Within TMAP, usability refers to the extent to which end users can use the system correctly in their day-to-day work. Not after extensive training and not with a manual next to the keyboard, but intuitively and without unnecessary errors. Understandability, predictability, and error prevention play a central role.

A usable system helps users make the right choices and prevents them from getting stuck or using the system in ways that were never intended. This is different from usability in the sense of efficiency and goal achievement. Within TMAP, usability focuses more specifically on human behavior and on the likelihood of users making mistakes. Once that happens, risks arise that are often technically invisible but can have significant consequences in practice. That is exactly why TMAP treats usability as a quality risk.

Why does usability so often go wrong?

Usability rarely fails because teams do not care, but because of blind spots. Developers, testers, and product owners know the system inside out. They understand how it is intended to work and the logic behind it. That familiarity makes it difficult to see where users struggle. What seems logical to the team does not necessarily make sense to the user.

In practice, this shows up in menu structures that are internally consistent but do not match how users search. In error messages that are technically correct but provide no guidance. Or in processes that follow the requirements exactly but feel unnecessarily complex in real-world use. In Agile teams, this is often reinforced by acceptance criteria that are system-oriented. If something works according to the criteria, it is considered done, even if it causes friction in practice.

Common issues in real-world systems

Many usability problems only become visible after go-live. Forms that are repeatedly filled in incorrectly, error messages that users cannot act on, or systems that only work as long as users follow the “happy path.” As soon as someone skips a step, enters information later, or works in a different order, problems arise. These are not classic functional defects, but consequences of user behavior that was never explicitly tested.

TMAP makes these issues visible by treating usability not as a side concern, but as an explicit quality attribute. This forces teams to stop assuming ideal users and instead design and test for real people who work under time pressure, make mistakes, and sometimes behave differently than expected.

How do you test usability with TMAP?

Testing usability requires a different perspective. Instead of thinking in terms of screens or functions, you think in terms of user actions. Within TMAP, usability is therefore explicitly included in the test strategy and test basis. The core question is always the same: does this system help the user do the right thing, or does it leave room for errors and confusion?

Rather than focusing only on the happy path, you deliberately look at moments where users hesitate, go back, skip steps, or misinterpret information on the screen. What is the user trying to achieve? Which decisions do they need to make? What information do they need to do this safely and correctly? And what happens if they act differently than expected? This is where most of the testing value lies.

From assumptions to testable behavior

In many teams, usability remains implicit. During demos, people say that something “feels logical” or that users will “probably figure it out.” TMAP turns this around: anything that is not explicitly defined is a risk. That is why you ask concrete questions about terminology, the order of steps, error messages, and recovery options.

TMAP helps translate these questions into concrete test scenarios. Not as isolated UX checks, but as part of the overall quality analysis. This makes usability testable, repeatable, and less dependent on personal opinion.

The relationship with other quality attributes

Usability never stands alone. It directly affects functionality, validations, data quality, and security. A poorly usable system increases the likelihood of incorrect input, workarounds, and unintended behavior, which can lead to functional defects or even security risks. By explicitly testing usability, you avoid improving quality in one area while unintentionally degrading it in another.

What does this deliver for teams?

Teams that consistently include usability in their approach see tangible results: fewer production errors, fewer support questions, and less frustration for users. Internally, collaboration also improves. Discussions shift away from opinions and toward observable behavior. Not “I think this is logical,” but “users consistently make mistakes here.” This creates a shared language for quality, which is exactly what TMAP is designed to support.

What will you learn about this at Testlearning?

In the e-learning TMAP: Quality for Cross-Functional Teams, you learn how to integrate usability into your testing approach in a mature and structured way. You learn how to analyze user behavior, identify usability-related risks, and translate them into concrete test scenarios, always in relation to other quality attributes. The training is practice-oriented and designed for testers, developers, and product owners who want to approach quality from both a human and a technical perspective.

Final thoughts

Usability is not a luxury and not an extra layer on top of a well-functioning system. It is a prerequisite for software that is actually used as intended in practice. By testing usability explicitly, you prevent small irritations from growing into major problems. Anyone who takes usability seriously does not just test whether software works, but whether people can work with it. And that is exactly where TMAP and Testlearning reinforce each other.

Would you like to learn how to approach this structurally within your team? Then this is a logical moment to take a closer look at our e-learning TMAP: Quality for Cross-Functional Teams.