ContentRockr Text Editor Usability Study
Remote usability testing that revealed users don't create content in-platform, leading to a product repositioning from editor to content management system.
Overview
ContentRockr is a SaaS platform for content creation and validation workflows. The text editor is central to the product, but the team suspected usability issues were preventing adoption. I conducted remote moderated usability testing with 2 experienced users to identify friction points.
Problem Statement
Initial goal: Identify usability issues in the text editor to make ContentRockr the preferred writing environment.
What actually happened: Research revealed users will never create content inside ContentRockr, regardless of editor improvements. This shifted the entire product strategy from "better editor" to "better content management."
Users & Audience
Primary users: Content creators and editors working within agency workflows (copywriters, content managers).
Participants: 2 experienced ContentRockr users—both professional copywriters with 15-20 years of writing experience. One user had deep technical knowledge (Vim user), the other represented typical content creator workflow.
Roles & Responsibilities
Solo researcher: Planned research, recruited participants, moderated sessions, analyzed findings, and presented recommendations.
Collaboration: Worked closely with product owner and developers through weekly check-ins. Used interactive Figma prototypes to communicate findings and align on next steps.
Scope & Constraints
Timeline: 2 weeks from planning to initial findings
Constraints: Small user base, limited participant pool, solo research (no observer)
Tools: Dovetail (recording, transcription), FigJam (affinity mapping), Figma (design response)
Timeline: April-August 2024
Research Process
Key Findings
I write everything in Google Docs first. Then I paste it here. That's just how I work—I've been doing it this way for 20 years."
— P1
Finding 1: Users don't create content in ContentRockr—they paste it in
- Evidence: "I write everything in Google Docs first" (P1). "I never write directly here... I always use Vim" (P2).
- Why it matters: The entire product assumption was wrong. No amount of editor improvements would change deeply ingrained workflows. Users need their preferred tools (Google Docs, Vim, Word) for creation.
Finding 2: ContentRockr is for content management, not creation
- Evidence: Users valued ContentRockr for workflow management, review tracking, and collaboration—not for writing features.
- Why it matters: This redefined the product's value proposition. Focus should be on making paste/import seamless, not competing with Google Docs.
Finding 3: Editor conflicts with user habits create friction
- Evidence: Vim user struggled with keyboard shortcuts. Both users had formatting issues when pasting from their tools.
- Why it matters: Instead of "fixing" the editor, need to improve paste handling and preserve formatting from external sources.
Design Response
Based on findings, I redesigned the content import flow:
- Prominent "Import" option on empty states
- Improved paste handling to preserve formatting from Google Docs/Word
- Removed friction from "create new" flow (accepted users won't write here)
Outcomes & Impact
Product changes:
- ContentRockr repositioned from "content creation tool" to "content management and validation platform"
- Development priorities shifted from editor features to workflow management and collaboration tools
- Led to follow-up research on external reviewers (Rudi research) to understand content sharing workflows
Business impact: Saved development time by stopping investment in features users wouldn't use. Focused roadmap on actual user needs.
What I Learned
- Watch behavior, not just listen to words. Users didn't realize their workflow was unusual until I pointed out they immediately switched to external tools.
- Small sample can reveal big insights. 2 participants was enough for this discovery research. Both independently showed the same behavior, which signaled a pattern worth investigating.
- Be ready to challenge assumptions. The most valuable finding was "you're solving the wrong problem"—which is uncomfortable to deliver but critical for product direction.
- Next time: I would include more diverse user types (content managers, clients) to see if the pattern held across all roles.
Limitations
- Two participants from similar backgrounds (both copywriters). Different user types (editors, managers, clients) might have different needs.
- Both sessions were with experienced ContentRockr users. New users might have different first impressions.
- Sessions conducted solo without observer—possible moderator bias.
- Test tasks weren't fully representative of real-world work due to their simplified nature.