Insights.
Notes on UX engineering, design systems, and shipping the gap between Figma and production.
Notes on UX engineering, design systems, and shipping the gap between Figma and production.
UX Design · 5 min read
Close ✕Jan 2025
The sprint is full. The deadline is real. Usability testing gets cut. "We'll do it next cycle." We all know how that goes.
But there's a calculation teams rarely do explicitly: what does it actually cost to skip it?
Every assumption you ship without testing is a bet. Sometimes you win. More often, you discover the problem in production — through support tickets, churn, or a metric that quietly trends in the wrong direction for three months before anyone notices.
The IBM Systems Sciences Institute famously found that fixing a defect found during implementation costs 6x more than catching it during design. And UX problems are design defects.
"Skipping usability testing doesn't eliminate risk. It defers it — with interest."
The argument "we don't have time to test" usually means "we don't see the ROI." Here's how to reframe it:
You don't need a lab. You don't need a research budget. You need:
That's it. The insight from watching one person struggle with something you thought was obvious is worth more than any analytics dashboard.
The test only has value if someone has authority to act on the findings before the sprint ends. Build that commitment in before you run the test — not after. "We'll test and then decide" is how research becomes a box-ticking exercise.