Unified UX System / Interactive Mockup / File Transfer
INTERACTIVE MOCKUP

File Transfer

Platform: Windows · Last updated 12.06.2026
SELECT COMPARISON
May 2026 → June 2026
Apr 2026 → May 2026
Q1 2026 → Q2 2026
Custom range…
OVERALL UX GRADE
B
Good
Improved
May 2026 → June 2026
AI SUMMARY

Task success improved from May to June. Time on task increased slightly, while reported satisfaction rose. Minor usability friction remains in the multi-file selection step.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Task performance improved
Satisfaction slightly higher
Monitor file-selection step
DATA CONFIDENCE
SurveyHigh
BehavioralHigh
Expert Eval.Medium
Signal Conflict Detected 1 CONFLICT
Task Success A Satisfaction F
Users complete the task reliably, yet rate the experience low on desirability. These signals point in opposite directions, so the overall B is an average that hides the tension — it should not be read as uniformly positive.
ABehavioral · Task Success Rate — 96%, above benchmark
FSurvey · UEQ Desirability — 0.40, well below benchmark
Recommended: treat this as a satisfaction risk despite strong task completion, and review the file-selection step before acting on the headline grade.
Survey Metrics
SUS grade B — satisfaction above average, but not outstanding.
B
Slightly improved
SUSB
72/100
Benchmark 68
100 50 0 May June
UEQ — DIMENSIONS
Always shown separately · never combined into one score
Desirability
Appeal & satisfaction
0.40F
Usability
Ease of use
1.75A
Utility
Usefulness
1.55B
UEQ scale −3 … +3
UMUX LITEFUTURE
—
No data yet
UMUX Lite is scheduled for
the next measurement cycle.
Behavioral Metrics
High success rate, but users are slower than benchmark.
C
Slower time on task
TASK SUCCESS RATEA
96%
Bench 90%↑ +5 pts
Reliable completion — best signal this cycle.
TIME ON TASKC
51s
Bench 40s↓ +9s slower
Above benchmark; regressed vs May.
ERROR RATEC
4.2%
Bench 3.0%↑ +0.6 pts
Slight rise, clustered in file picker.
Expert Evaluation
Efficiency issues identified — too many steps to transfer.
C
No change
Medium confidence · 2 evaluators · heuristic + cognitive walkthrough
Navigation & FlowCThe multi-step file selection adds cognitive load; several users paused at the picker before choosing.
EfficiencyDToo many steps to start a transfer — three confirmations where one would suffice.
ConsistencyBControls and patterns align well with platform conventions; predictable throughout.
Error PreventionCDestructive actions lack a clear undo path; confirmations are easy to dismiss accidentally.
AccessibilityBMeets contrast targets; keyboard focus order needs minor fixes in the picker dialog.
Comparison InsightsMay 2026 → June 2026
Task success improved, but satisfaction split due to file-selection complexity.
3 changes
METRIC · WHAT CHANGEDMAY → JUNEINTERPRETATION
↑
Task Success Rate
Simplified the transfer confirmation dialog.
91%96%+5
Fewer abandoned transfers — the core flow is more reliable.
↓
Time on Task
Added a new file-selection step for multi-file support.
42s51s+9s
More capability, more friction. This is the change to watch.
↑
Satisfaction (SUS)
Cleaner success confirmation screen.
6872+4
Perception improved even as task time grew — sentiment is split.
Click any section to expand and see benchmarks, charts and details. Confidence affects interpretation only — it never changes metric values.
Data Confidence Details
As of 12.06.2026
SurveyHigh
Sample sizen = 542
Recency3 days
Metric typeSurvey
Coverage85%
BehavioralHigh
Sample sizen = 61 sessions
Recency1 day
Metric typeBehavioral
Coverage90%
Expert EvaluationMedium
Sample size2 experts
Recency10 days
Metric typeExpert
Coverage60%
Confidence is derived from sample size, recency, metric type and coverage of available signals. It shapes how strongly you should read a grade — it never alters the underlying metric values.
SURVEY · METRIC DETAIL
System Usability Scale
B
72/100
Adjective rating Good
SUS SCORE
Usability / Effectiveness
Ease of use, complexity, confidence, trust, learnability
SCORE
72
GRADE
B
BENCHMARK
68
TREND
↑ +4
HISTORICAL · LAST 4 CYCLES
65
Mar
66
Apr
68
May
72
Jun
Interpretation: At 72, usability lands just inside the acceptable band and above the 68 benchmark, rising steadily since March. It is not yet in the strong (80+) range — there is clear room to improve perceived ease of use. SUS is reported as a single score and is never combined with UEQ or UMUX.
SURVEY · METRIC DETAIL
UEQ — Dimensions
UEQ dimensions are always reported separately — never merged into a single UEQ score. Scale runs −3 … +3.
Desirability
Trust · Attractiveness
F
Benchmark 1.20 · below benchmark↓ 0.52 → 0.40
Users find the flow functional but not appealing or trustworthy enough to enjoy — the weakest signal this cycle.
Usability
Efficiency · Dependability · Intuitive use · Clarity
A
Benchmark 1.35 · above benchmark↑ 1.60 → 1.75
The interface is perceived as easy, dependable and clear to operate.
Utility
Usefulness · Value · Task fit
B
Benchmark 1.50 · at benchmark→ 1.53 → 1.55
The feature delivers on what users actually need to accomplish.
Interpretation: Usability and utility are solid and at or above benchmark, but desirability falls well below — the product works and is useful, yet users don't find it satisfying. This gap is what drives the signal conflict flagged above.
SURVEY · METRIC DETAIL
UMUX Lite
—
Not yet collected
No values are reported until the
instrument is deployed.
StatusPlanned
Planned cycleNext measurement cycle
InstrumentUMUX Lite · 4 items
UMUX Lite is a short 4-item perceived-usability measure that correlates with SUS. It will appear here once collected — no placeholder score is shown in the meantime.