Maximizing user experience with the usability scale

Product teams face constant pressure to prove that usability improvements actually matter rather than just making interfaces prettier. The difference between evidence-based design decisions and expensive changes based on subjective opinions comes down to whether teams measure usability systematically. Organizations that quantify user experience through standardized metrics make confident decisions about which changes improve usability, while those relying on informal feedback waste resources on modifications that do not actually help users.

The System Usability Scale (SUS), developed by John Brooke at Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) in the UK in 1986, provides the measurement framework that transforms vague impressions about ease of use into numerical scores enabling comparison across products, tracking improvements over time, and identifying which designs truly serve users better. SUS has become a standard method for assessing a product's overall user-friendliness and usability, especially for digital products such as websites and applications, with a strong focus on the end user. Understanding how to implement SUS correctly and interpret results accurately enables teams to optimize user experience based on evidence rather than assumptions about what users find intuitive. Using SUS provides valuable insights that help teams focus on improving usability and user friendliness, ultimately enhancing the experience for the end user.

Introduction to usability

Usability is at the heart of every successful system, product, or service, shaping how users interact and achieve their goals. The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a trusted tool for measuring usability, providing a straightforward way to assess how user-friendly a system feels in real-world contexts. According to ISO 9241 Part 11, usability is defined as the extent to which specified users can use a system to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a particular context of use. The system usability scale SUS captures this by translating user perceptions into a single usability score, making it easier to compare different systems or track improvements over time. By using the SUS, teams can quickly identify whether a system meets user needs or if there are areas that require attention, ensuring that usability remains a top priority throughout the design and development process.

Understanding the system usability scale and its value

The System Usability Scale is a standardized 10-item questionnaire that measures perceived usability through user ratings. Developed by John Brooke in 1986, SUS has become the most widely used usability metric due to its simplicity, reliability, and ability to produce comparable scores across different products and contexts. SUS is widely used in usability studies and user research to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of a variety of digital products. The scale generates single numerical scores from 0 to 100 that quantify overall usability perceptions.

The power of SUS lies in standardization that enables meaningful comparison. As one of the most recognized usability scales, it provides a common measurement framework for comparing different products, which often serve different purposes and users. SUS provides that common language by asking identical questions regardless of product type. Teams can compare their product’s SUS score against industry benchmarks, competitor products, or their own previous versions to understand relative usability performance. SUS has become an industry standard, referenced in over 600 publications, and is used to evaluate a wide range of systems, including hardware, consumer software, websites, and mobile applications.

SUS measures perceived usability rather than objective task performance. The scale captures how easy users feel products are to use, not whether they actually complete tasks successfully. This distinction matters because products can enable task completion while frustrating users through clunky interfaces. Perceived usability strongly predicts user satisfaction, continued usage, and willingness to recommend products. Users who find products difficult may achieve goals but remain dissatisfied and vulnerable to switching when alternatives emerge.

The questionnaire’s brevity makes SUS practical for routine measurement. Ten items take participants only two to three minutes to complete, enabling frequent usability tracking without burdening users. This efficiency allows teams to measure usability regularly across development cycles rather than treating measurement as expensive occasional research. Regular measurement reveals whether design changes improve or harm usability before public releases make corrections costly. For comprehensive methods and best practices, see this usability testing guide.

Implementing SUS measurement correctly

Effective SUS implementation requires following standardized procedures that ensure results accurately reflect user perceptions. Deviations from standard methodology compromise reliability and prevent comparison with benchmark data or previous measurements. To ensure comparability, SUS should be administered in the same way each time.

The standard SUS questionnaire presents ten statements alternating between positive and negative framing. Positive statements include “I think I would like to use this system frequently” and “I found the system easy to use.” Negative statements include “I thought the system was unnecessarily complex” and “I found the system very cumbersome to use.” This alternating pattern prevents response bias where participants mindlessly select the same rating for all items.

Participants rate agreement with each statement on a five-point scale from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” The Likert scale captures intensity of perception rather than just binary agree or disagree. This granularity reveals whether users feel neutral about usability or hold strong opinions either positive or negative. Teams should present items exactly as worded in the standard questionnaire rather than paraphrasing, as even minor wording changes can affect responses.

SUS is a post test questionnaire, typically administered immediately after participants complete realistic tasks using the product. Like other post test questionnaires, it is designed to gauge user satisfaction and perceived usability following direct interaction. Timing matters critically for accurate results. Teams should administer SUS immediately after participants complete realistic tasks using the product rather than asking about products participants used days ago or have not used recently. Fresh experience produces accurate perceptions, while delayed measurement introduces recall bias where participants remember products differently than actual experience. Testing should use representative tasks that reflect real usage rather than artificial scenarios that might not trigger usability issues users would encounter naturally.

It is important to note that SUS is not intended to diagnose specific usability problems but rather provides a general measure of usability. While post test questionnaires like SUS offer valuable insight into user experience, they show only a modest correlation with actual task performance and should be used as part of a broader usability evaluation strategy.

Sample size requirements depend on measurement goals. Comparing products or measuring change over time typically requires 12 to 15 participants minimum to detect meaningful differences statistically. Establishing baseline scores for products can use smaller samples around eight participants. Larger samples increase confidence but show diminishing returns, as SUS scores stabilize reasonably with modest sample sizes. Teams should prioritize recruiting representative users over maximizing participant counts with unrepresentative convenience samples.

Data collection

Collecting reliable data is a foundational step in evaluating usability with the System Usability Scale (SUS). The SUS questionnaire features 10 statements that users respond to after interacting with the system. Each statement is rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree,” allowing users to express the intensity of their experience. Effective data collection involves recruiting a representative group of users who have used the system in question. To ensure robust SUS results, it’s recommended to gather at least 50-60 completed questionnaires, which helps account for variability and provides a solid basis for analysis. Data can be collected through online surveys, in-person interviews, or other digital tools, depending on the context and user accessibility. This structured approach to data collection ensures that the resulting SUS scores accurately reflect the usability of the system from the user’s perspective.

SUS template and questionnaire

The SUS template and questionnaire are central to the effectiveness of the System Usability Scale. The standardized SUS questionnaire consists of 10 carefully crafted statements: five positive and five negative: designed to capture a comprehensive view of the system’s usability. These statements address key aspects such as ease of use, integration of various functions, the need for technical support, and user confidence. The SUS template ensures that every participant receives the same set of questions, which is critical for collecting consistent and comparable data. The ten statements are:

1. I think that I would like to use this system frequently.

2. I found the system unnecessarily complex.

3. I thought the system was easy to use.

4. I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system.

5. I found the various functions in this system were well integrated.

6. I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system.

7. I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly.

8. I found the system very cumbersome to use.

9. I felt very confident using the system.

10. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.

By using the official SUS template and questionnaire or a comprehensive usability testing plan, teams can ensure that the data they collect is both reliable and actionable, providing a clear picture of how users perceive the system’s usability.

Calculating and interpreting SUS scores meaningfully

SUS scoring follows a specific calculation that converts raw responses into the 0 to 100 scale. Understanding this calculation prevents scoring errors and enables proper interpretation of what scores reveal about usability.

For odd-numbered items with positive framing, subtract one from the user response. For even-numbered items with negative framing, subtract the response from five. Sum these converted values across all ten items to obtain the total score, then multiply by 2.5 to produce the final 0 to 100 score. This calculation normalizes responses and accounts for the alternating positive and negative item framing. Note that a SUS score is not a percentage, even though it ranges from 0 to 100.

The mean SUS score (mean score) across thousands of products and studies is 68, with a standard deviation of 12.5, providing the benchmark for interpreting individual scores. A SUS score above 68 is considered above average, while a score below 68 is below average. However, teams should not treat 68 as a passing grade, as context matters significantly. For example, a SUS score of 70 is only slightly above the mean score and does not indicate strong usability performance. Products in competitive markets need higher scores to retain users who can easily switch to alternatives. Products with captive users like internal enterprise software may function adequately with lower scores though improvement would still benefit users.

Score interpretation should consider grading scales that translate numbers into qualitative ratings. SUS scores can be converted to percentile ranks to provide a clearer understanding of usability performance. Scores above 80.3 are needed to achieve an A grade, representing the top 10% of scores. Scores above 80 represent excellent usability that users describe as easy and satisfying. Scores between 68 and 80 indicate good usability with room for improvement. Scores between 50 and 68 suggest problematic usability requiring attention. Scores below 50 signal serious usability issues demanding immediate remediation. These ranges help stakeholders understand whether scores represent minor optimization opportunities or critical problems. When benchmarking, it is important to remember that users expect websites to work similarly to other sites they are familiar with, as described by Jakob's law.

Statistical significance testing determines whether score differences reflect real usability changes or random variation. When comparing products or measuring improvements, teams should calculate confidence intervals around mean scores. Overlapping confidence intervals suggest differences may result from sampling variation rather than true usability differences. Non-overlapping intervals provide confidence that observed differences reflect genuine usability variation. Teams should avoid making design decisions based on small score differences that lack statistical significance.

Using SUS results to drive usability improvements

SUS measurement creates value only when results inform design decisions and improvement priorities. The primary goal of SUS measurement is improving usability and user friendliness, ensuring that digital health applications and other products are accessible, effective, and enjoyable for users. Teams should establish processes that connect measurement to action rather than treating scores as interesting but unused metrics.

Tracking scores over development cycles reveals whether design changes improve usability as intended. Usability scales like SUS allow teams to track changes in user satisfaction over time, indicating improvement or decline after design updates. Teams should measure SUS before and after major redesigns, comparing scores to validate that changes actually enhanced user experience rather than just appearing better visually. Declining scores signal that modifications harmed usability despite intentions to improve, enabling teams to investigate what went wrong and reverse problematic changes before public release.

Usability scales enable companies to compare their product's usability against competitors using standardized, validated tools like SUS. Benchmark comparison against competitor products identifies relative strengths and weaknesses. When your product scores lower than alternatives, usability represents competitive vulnerability that superior features may not overcome. Users frustrated by difficult interfaces seek easier alternatives even when those alternatives offer fewer capabilities. Conversely, superior usability scores versus competitors represent competitive advantages worth emphasizing in positioning and marketing.

Analyzing SUS data provides valuable insights that can inform product improvements, user experience strategies, and benchmark comparisons. Combining SUS with qualitative research explains why scores land where they do and guides improvement priorities. While SUS reveals that usability is problematic, the score alone does not identify which specific issues cause problems. Teams should conduct follow-up usability testing or user interviews with participants who gave low ratings to uncover what frustrated them. These qualitative insights direct attention toward highest-impact improvement opportunities rather than optimizing areas that already work well.

Segment analysis reveals whether usability varies across user types. Different user segments may rate products differently based on expertise levels, usage patterns, or expectations. Products might score well with experienced users but poorly with novices, suggesting onboarding issues. Alternatively, products might satisfy casual users but frustrate power users, indicating inadequate advanced functionality. Segmented analysis enables targeted improvements for groups experiencing poor usability rather than generic changes addressing no group’s needs specifically.

Comparing different designs

The System Usability Scale (SUS) is a powerful tool for comparing the usability of different designs or systems. By administering the SUS questionnaire to users after they interact with each design, teams can gather quantitative data on user perceptions. The resulting SUS scores make it easy to compare which system or design offers better usability. For example, if a company is deciding between two website layouts, they can have users complete the SUS questionnaire for each version. The design with the higher SUS score is likely to provide a more user-friendly experience. This approach is especially valuable in usability testing, where the goal is to identify the most effective design among several options. By relying on SUS data, teams can make informed, evidence-based decisions that prioritize user satisfaction and overall usability.

Other methods for evaluating usability

While the System Usability Scale (SUS) is a widely adopted and effective method for measuring usability, it is often beneficial to use it alongside other usability evaluation techniques. Heuristic evaluation involves experts reviewing a system to identify usability issues based on established principles, while usability testing observes real users as they interact with the system to uncover pain points and areas for improvement. Cognitive walkthroughs are another method, where experts step through common user tasks to identify potential usability challenges. Each of these methods offers unique insights: heuristic evaluation can quickly highlight design flaws, usability testing provides direct user feedback, and cognitive walkthroughs reveal issues in task flow. By combining the system usability scale SUS with these additional methods, teams can gain a more comprehensive understanding of usability issues and develop more effective strategies for improving the user experience.

Avoiding common SUS implementation mistakes

Teams implementing SUS face predictable pitfalls that compromise measurement quality and lead to misleading conclusions. Awareness enables prevention through careful methodology, as established in best practices from usability studies, which emphasize the importance of validated methods for assessing system effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction.

Modifying questionnaire wording destroys comparability with benchmarks and previous measurements. Teams sometimes rephrase items thinking clearer language will improve responses. However, even minor wording changes can shift meaning enough to affect ratings. Standard wording has been validated extensively and should be preserved exactly. If items truly do not make sense for specific products, teams should question whether SUS fits rather than modifying the instrument.

Before the main usability study, it is advisable to conduct a pilot test of the SUS questionnaire to identify any issues that could affect the results. This step, recommended in usability studies, helps ensure the instrument functions as intended and avoids problems during the primary assessment.

Testing without realistic task completion produces inflated scores disconnecting from actual usability. When participants rate systems without using them for real tasks, ratings reflect superficial impressions rather than usability discovered through attempted use. Many interfaces appear simple until users attempt complex workflows revealing hidden difficulties. SUS should follow task-based sessions rather than being administered cold or after demonstrations where participants passively watch rather than actively use.

Interpreting scores without statistical testing leads to decisions based on noise rather than signal. Small score differences may reflect sampling variation rather than meaningful usability differences. Teams that treat every point of score difference as significant waste effort optimizing based on random fluctuation. Proper statistical analysis separates genuine differences from chance variation, focusing improvement efforts where evidence suggests real problems exist.

Conclusion

The System Usability Scale (SUS) remains an essential and widely trusted tool for measuring perceived usability across a broad range of digital products and systems. Its simplicity, reliability, and standardized scoring method enable teams to gather quantitative data that informs evidence-based design decisions, benchmark usability against industry standards, and track improvements over time. While SUS does not diagnose specific usability problems, it provides valuable insights into overall user satisfaction and perceived ease of use, which are critical for enhancing user experience.

By implementing SUS correctly: using the standardized questionnaire, administering it promptly after realistic product interaction, and interpreting scores with appropriate statistical rigor: organizations can maximize its effectiveness in usability evaluation. Combining SUS results with qualitative insights and other evaluation methods further enriches understanding and guides targeted improvements.

Ultimately, leveraging the System Usability Scale supports the creation of more user-friendly, accessible, and effective products that meet user needs and expectations. As usability continues to be a key differentiator in competitive markets, SUS offers a practical and proven approach to optimizing user experience and driving meaningful improvements in digital product design.

Ready to act on your research goals?