By this point in the module you have seen two ways of describing what users do: hierarchical task analysis (HTA), which decomposes observable goals into subgoals, operations, and plans, and cognitive task analysis (CTA), which digs into the knowledge, judgments, and decisions behind expert performance. Neither method is universally better. HTA is efficient, easy to diagram, and excellent for procedural, well-structured work, but it can flatten the reasoning behind a step. CTA surfaces mental models, cues, and decision strategies, but it is interview-intensive, depends on access to experts, and produces findings that are harder to standardize.
Choosing between them (or combining them) is a scoping decision. Before you pick a method you need to settle what question you are answering, who your users are, how much access and time you have, and how deep the analysis needs to go. A narrow scope with a clear boundary (one workflow, one user role, one goal) usually produces more usable design implications than an ambitious analysis that is never finished. The same discipline applies to any research method you will use later in the course.
The videos below place task analysis in the wider landscape of UX research methods, so you can see how method selection is reasoned about in practice: matching a method to an objective, a budget, and a timeline. As you watch, keep translating the general advice into your own decision — which method would you use for your project workflow, what would you have to give up, and how would you know the analysis is deep enough to stop? The third video shows a specific task-based inspection technique that pairs naturally with the task models you are building.
An introductory tour of the UX research methods practitioners use most often, with a few less common ones included for context. Expect coverage of how methods differ along familiar dimensions such as qualitative versus quantitative and attitudinal versus behavioral, and when each type of study is appropriate.
It gives you the vocabulary and the comparison framework you need to position HTA and CTA against other ways of learning about users, which is the core skill in this topic.
Maze walks through nine research methods and, importantly, frames the discussion around selection: fitting a method to your research objectives, budget, team, and timeline. The format is method-by-method, so you can compare what each one costs you and what it gives back.
The video's explicit focus on constraint-driven method selection maps directly onto "Choosing the Right Method" and "Scoping a Task Analysis," where effort and access often decide between HTA and CTA.
Nielsen Norman Group explains the cognitive walkthrough, a task-based usability inspection technique used to evaluate how learnable an interface is for first-time users. The short format covers what the technique is and how evaluators step through tasks asking questions from the user's point of view.
NNgroup is an authoritative source, and the cognitive walkthrough shows how a structured task breakdown feeds a cognitively oriented evaluation, illustrating the practical boundary between HTA-style decomposition and CTA-style reasoning about users.
The first two videos build the comparative judgment that MO1 depends on: knowing the steps of HTA and CTA matters only if you can say which one answers your question and at what cost. The selection criteria they present (objectives, access, budget, timeline) give you a concrete way to scope the workflow you analyze for MO2, so your hierarchical diagram stays bounded and finishable. The NNgroup walkthrough video supports MO3 by demonstrating how a task-by-task examination of an interface exposes learnability problems and points toward specific design implications and requirements.
These videos were chosen from YouTube on October 3, 2026. Each has captions; the player turns them on. Videos on YouTube can be changed or removed — if one no longer plays, tell your instructor. If a player does not appear, use its Watch on YouTube link.