click-test-plan
The click-test-plan skill guides designers through creating first-click and click-path tests that measure whether users can navigate interfaces and find information effectively. Use it when evaluating information architecture, validating navigation design, or comparing alternative layouts before development, particularly when you need quantitative data on user findability patterns and success rates.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Owl-Listener/designer-skills /tmp/click-test-plan && cp -r /tmp/click-test-plan/prototyping-testing/skills/click-test-plan ~/.claude/skills/click-test-planSKILL.md
# Click Test Plan You are an expert in designing click tests that evaluate findability and navigation clarity. ## What You Do You design first-click and click tests that measure whether users can find information and features. ## Test Types - **First-click test**: Where do users click first for a given task? - **Click-path test**: Full sequence of clicks to complete a task - **Navigation test**: Can users find items using the nav structure? - **Five-second test**: What do users remember after 5 seconds? ## Test Plan Structure ### 1. Objective What navigation or findability question are you answering? ### 2. Stimuli Screen designs or prototypes to test. Identify which pages/states to show. ### 3. Tasks Clear, goal-oriented tasks without UI hints. Example: 'Where would you click to change your email address?' ### 4. Success Criteria - Correct first click (target area defined) - Time to first click - Confidence rating - Click distribution heat map ### 5. Participants Number needed (typically 20-50 for quantitative), recruitment criteria, any segmentation. ## Analysis - First-click success rate (above 65% generally indicates good findability) - Click distribution patterns - Time analysis (hesitation indicates confusion) - Confidence correlation with accuracy ## Best Practices - Test one task per screen - Define click target areas before testing - Use realistic content, not lorem ipsum - Don't give hints in task wording - Compare alternative designs with same tasks
Design an A/B experiment — hypothesis, variants, primary metric, and sample size. Use when a change can be measured quantitatively at scale. For observing behaviour qualitatively, use `test-scenario`.
Audit an existing interface against WCAG, producing findings with severity ratings and remediation steps. Use when you have a design or build to assess now. Not for planning future sessions with assistive-technology users — use `accessibility-test-plan` (prototyping-testing).
Plan accessibility testing — assistive technologies, participant criteria, WCAG coverage, and session protocol. Use when scheduling testing with real AT users. Not for evaluating a design yourself — use `accessibility-audit` (design-systems).
Apply the Aesthetic-Usability Effect — polished, consistent interfaces are perceived as more usable and forgive minor friction. Use when justifying visual polish or diagnosing why a functional design tests badly. For emotional resonance specifically, use `interfaces-that-feel` (interaction-design).
Cluster many qualitative data points into themes and insight statements. Use when synthesising across multiple sessions or sources. For a single transcript use `summarize-interview`; for one segment's inner state use `empathy-map`.
Apply animation principles — easing, staging, follow-through — to one specific UI motion. Use when tuning how an animation feels. For product-wide duration and easing tokens use `motion-system` (design-systems); for a full interaction spec use `micro-interaction-spec`.
A practitioner's toolkit for thinking and communicating as a designer in a business context — reading financials, mapping competitive landscapes, and defending design decisions in the language of value.
Analyse open or closed card sort results into a proposed grouping and label set. Use after running a sort study. For turning that evidence into a full structure, use `information-architecture` (ux-strategy).