• We created a semi-structured interview guide with open-ended questions to explore user experiences, expectations, and frustrations. For contextual inquiry, we identified key tasks to observe and prepared probing questions to clarify actions taken during those tasks, observing how the user customized a feature within the tool, noting where they hesitate, navigate back, or express confusion.

• We developed realistic task scenarios for users to complete, focusing on areas where users tend to struggle based on stakeholder feedback. Instructions were written to be clear and neutral to avoid leading users, and we prepared prompts for asking follow-up questions based on their actions during the task.

• We mapped key user journeys by defining specific tasks users commonly undertake, breaking each into steps and identifying potential pain points for each step. We also prepared questions to prompt users to reflect on frustrations or delays they encounter along the way.

• We used a checklist based on established usability heuristics and categorized tool features to systematically evaluate each area. For each heuristic, we prepared an evaluation guide to ensure consistent assessment and documentation of any issues.

Issue: Users experience significant limitations when trying to build complex applications due to an over-simplified development process, lacking options for customization and depth.

Frequency & Severity: High frequency and critical severity.

User Impact: This issue causes delays and frustration for users aiming to create more advanced apps, as they’re unable to adjust settings or features to fit specific requirements.

Measurement: Tracked through support ticket analysis and interview notes documenting customization challenges.

1. Example 1: During an interview, a user expressed frustration that they couldn’t add custom validation rules within form components, which limited their ability to create complex logic for data entry.
   
2. Example 2: Some support tickets highlighted several user’s request for additional customization options within the workflow builder, noting that without this, they couldn’t adapt the tool to match their organization’s unique processes.
   
3.  Example 3: In usability testing, one user attempted to add specific business rules but discovered the available options didn’t meet their needs, leading them to abandon the task in frustration.

Issue: The drag-and-drop builder presents multiple ways to achieve similar results, leading to user confusion over the correct or best path to follow. It alfo feels cluttered, and difficult to scan.

Frequency & Severity: Moderate frequency with high severity, highlighted during usability tests where users struggled with redundant steps.

User Impact: Users spend extra time navigating redundant paths, reducing efficiency and leading to frustration when building applications.

Measurement: Recorded through user actions and feedback during moderated usability testing and contextual inquiry.

1. Example 1: In usability testing, four users spent extra time navigating between different options to add a feature, unsure if they should start in the “Quick Add” or “Custom Flow” area, both of which led to similar results.
   
2. Example 2: A contextual inquiry session revealed a user trying to configure an app’s layout. They mistakenly repeated several steps due to similar-looking options, only realizing later that their previous choices had already achieved the intended result.
   
3.  Example 3: In an interview, a user described feeling uncertain when using the drag-and-drop editor, noting that the availability of multiple ways to reach the same outcome made the process feel cluttered and repetitive.

Issue: Users often get lost navigating the tool due to a complex, layered architecture that has evolved without clear planning

Frequency & Severity: High frequency with critical severity, as users reported consistent disorientation during usability tests and interviews.

User Impact: Users find it challenging to locate essential features, often wasting time or abandoning tasks due to navigation difficulties.

Measurement: Observed through user navigation breakdowns in usability testing, supported by interview feedback.

1. Example 1: During usability testing, one participant repeatedly returned to the home screen while trying to locate the “Reports” feature, later commenting that they “felt lost” within the tool’s layout.
   
2. Example 2: A user interviewed mentioned frequently having to backtrack to previous screens, explaining that the structure felt “random”, as if new sections had been added without any overarching organization.
   
3.  Example 3: In another usability test, three participants took several attempts to find the “Settings” menu.

Issue: Experienced low-code users find the tool’s database configuration process unintuitive, despite it being easier for new users. This creates a steep learning curve for advanced users.

Frequency & Severity: Moderate frequency with moderate severity, particularly impacting experienced users noted in usability sessions.

User Impact: Experienced users find essential configuration processes counterintuitive, leading to errors and a negative initial experience with the tool.

Measurement: Documented through the frequency of user errors in database configuration during usability testing.

1. Example 1: In usability testing, an experienced low-code user expressed frustration with the database configuration process, saying that they expected “standard patterns” but found the layout confusing and inconsistent.
   
2. Example 2: An interview with a seasoned low-code developer revealed difficulty in creating relational links between tables, which they found unexpectedly challenging.
   
3.  Example 3: Another experienced user in a usability test struggled to locate familiar options within the database configuration screen, commenting that the setup felt tailored to beginners and lacked the options they typically expect for complex configurations.