[Image]
This experience supports how teams make sense of ongoing work by letting them look at the same projects from different angles. In this moment, users are trying to plan, track progress, and coordinate across timelines without losing context. For the business, this experience helps make the platform adaptable to different working styles, which is key to long-term adoption across teams.
We tested Airtable’s project tracker view switching, focusing on how people move between grid, kanban, and calendar views and how they add new views. Participants were asked to find specific views, interpret what each view represented, and choose which ones they would most likely use. Usability, comprehension, and intent were used to surface where people hesitate, where understanding holds, and how confident they feel relying on different views for real work.
This type of testing surfaces where flexibility starts to compete with speed and clarity. It helps teams see whether users are slowed down by interaction details even when the overall concept makes sense. For product and design leaders, these signals matter because view switching is a repeat behavior, and small points of friction can quietly erode momentum in high-frequency workflows.
User Needs & Business Goals
This experience balances users’ need to understand and manage complex project work with the business goal of supporting sustained, everyday use by teams. People want to feel confident switching views to match how they think about their work, while the platform aims to make that flexibility feel reliable and worth adopting across projects.
Audience
This concept was tested with project managers, product managers, and team leaders based primarily in the United States. Participants reviewed an Airtable project tracker showing multiple view options, including grid, kanban, and calendar layouts. They were asked to locate specific views, add a new view, and reflect on how clear, useful, and appealing those views felt for managing ongoing work.
User Needs
In this moment, users are trying to make sense of active work and choose the view that best supports how they plan, track, and communicate progress.
-
The experience should feel easy to operate, allowing users to switch views without friction or second-guessing (usable).
-
The experience should feel clear, helping users quickly understand what each view represents and when to use it (intuitive).
-
The experience should feel supportive of real work, making different views genuinely helpful for planning and tracking projects (useful).
-
The experience should feel efficient, letting users move between views without slowing down their workflow (efficient).
-
The experience should feel reliable, so users trust that changing views won’t disrupt or hide important information (reliable).
Together, these needs ensure that flexibility enhances clarity and momentum rather than adding cognitive overhead.
Business Goals
From a business perspective, this concept supports how teams adopt and rely on the platform over time.
-
Increase Product Adoption – Encourage users to explore and regularly use multiple views as part of their workflow.
-
Support Team Retention – Keep teams engaged by making the product adaptable to different working styles and project needs.
-
Improve Workflow Efficiency – Help users manage projects faster by reducing friction when switching perspectives.
-
Build Product Trust – Reinforce confidence that the system is dependable, even as users customize how they see their work.
-
Enable Scalable Use Across Teams – Make the experience flexible enough to work for individuals, teams, and growing organizations.
These goals support long-term value by making the platform both flexible for users and sticky for the business.
Choose Metrics to Test Your View Switching
This experience focuses on how teams switch between different views to manage the same set of work. A design stack of UX metrics was selected to reflect the moments where users interpret options, take action, and decide which views they’ll rely on over time. The metrics used here were Usability, Comprehension, and Intent, chosen by mapping core user needs to observable signals in this workflow.
Usable → Usability
When switching views, users are trying to act quickly without stopping to rethink where controls live or what will happen next. Usability captures whether people can carry out view-related actions smoothly, such as switching formats or adding a new view, without hesitation or misclicks. This metric surfaces friction in execution, especially in moments that should feel routine. It reflects how easily the experience supports real, repeat use.
Intuitive → Comprehension
Users need to quickly understand what each view represents and when it’s useful. Comprehension measures whether people correctly interpret the meaning and purpose of grid, board, and calendar views once they encounter them. This metric captures clarity of structure and labeling, not speed. It helps distinguish between confusion about meaning versus difficulty with interaction.
Useful → Intent
Beyond understanding and operating the interface, users are deciding whether these views actually fit their workflow. Intent captures which views people say they would choose and rely on for managing projects. This metric reflects perceived value and relevance, signaling whether the flexibility offered aligns with how users want to work. It helps indicate which parts of the experience feel worth returning to.
Establish Hunches to Direct Your Testing
Teams often start with a sense that something is working, but not full confidence about where friction might appear. Hunches help narrow that uncertainty before testing by turning assumptions into focused questions. In this case, the goal was to understand whether flexibility in views was helping users move faster or quietly slowing them down.
Example: Airtable project tracker view switching
<table xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="min-width: 75px;"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"><col style="min-width: 25px;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><th colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Hunch</p></th><th colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Question</p></th><th colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>UX Metric</p></th></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Users will understand what different views are for, but may hesitate when trying to switch between them. The number of options and controls could slow down action, even if the concept feels familiar.</p></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Where would you go to view your projects in a different format, such as a board or calendar?</p></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Usability</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>People may recognize common views like kanban and calendar, but not fully understand how they relate to the same underlying data. This could affect confidence when switching contexts.</p></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>How well do you understand what each project view represents?</p></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Comprehension</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Some views may feel more natural for planning work, while others feel less relevant to day-to-day tracking. This could influence which views users actually rely on.</p></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Which of these views would you be most likely to use for managing your projects?</p></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Intent</p></td></tr><tr><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Adding a new view may feel more complex than expected due to placement or labeling of controls. This could interrupt momentum for users trying to customize their workspace.</p></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Where would you go to add a new view to your project tracker?</p></td><td colspan="1" rowspan="1"><p>Usability</p></td></tr></tbody></table>
Turn Hunches into Test Questions
Turning hunches into concrete questions makes uncertainty measurable. By pairing each UX metric with a specific question type, the test captures clear signals about where people hesitate, what they understand, and what they’re inclined to use in real work.
**Usability (Task-based click test)**
Question type: Task-based click test
Example: Click where you would go to see your projects in a board view.
**Usability (Task-based click test)**
Question type: Task-based click test
Example: Click where you would go to add a new type of view to your project tracker.
**Comprehension (Likert scale)**
Question type: Likert scale
Example: How well did you understand what each of the project views represented?
**Intent (Multiple choice)**
Question type: Multiple choice
Example: Which of the following views would you be most likely to use for managing your projects?
**Intent (Likert scale)**
Question type: Likert scale
Example: How helpful would AI be in supporting your project tracking workflow?
Calculate UX Metric Scores from User Feedback
We tested Airtable’s View Switching experience to understand how people move between different ways of seeing the same project work. Participants were asked to find, switch, and evaluate multiple views while imagining real project management tasks. The design stack included Usability, Comprehension, and Intent, combining behavioral signals from click tasks with attitudinal signals about understanding and preference.
Very Good = 90% and above
-
Good = 70%–89%
-
Average = 50%–69%
-
Poor = 30%–49%
-
Very Poor = below 30%
**Usability (52% — Average):**
Users were able to complete view-switching tasks, but often paused or hesitated before clicking. Friction showed up around locating controls and deciding which action would produce the desired view. This suggests that while paths exist, they are not always immediately obvious in the moment.
**Comprehension (80% — Good):**
Most participants understood what each view represented once they encountered it. Grid, kanban, and calendar views aligned well with existing mental models. This indicates strong conceptual clarity, even when interaction details caused slowdown elsewhere.
**Intent (66% — Average):**
Participants showed interest in using certain views, especially those aligned with progress tracking and planning. However, preferences were not consistently strong across all options, suggesting uneven perceived value depending on the view and task context.
[Image]
Taken together, the scores point to an experience that is clear in meaning but uneven in execution. Users understand the flexibility being offered, yet friction during routine actions interrupts momentum. The dominant tension is between conceptual strength and operational smoothness, shaping an experience that feels capable but not always effortless.
Click here to check out the raw survey data and UX metric scores for Airtable’s view switcher.
Draw Signals from Your Design Stack
1. Focus on poorly scoring or imbalanced metrics
[Image]
The overall test score landed at 66% (Average). Comprehension was the strongest metric at 80%, while Usability scored lowest at 52%, creating the main imbalance. People generally understood what each view was and what it represented, but hesitated when trying to locate controls or decide where to click to switch or add views. Signal: View options make sense conceptually, but the mechanics of switching between them introduce friction at the moment of action.
2. Identify patterns across metrics
[Image]
Across metrics, understanding stayed ahead of execution. High comprehension paired with lower usability suggests the friction isn’t about meaning, but about interaction and wayfinding. Intent sat in the middle, indicating interest in using views, but not strong conviction around which ones best fit ongoing work. This reveals a common tension between flexibility and immediacy—the system offers many options, but that breadth can slow users down in the moment.
3. Determine if user needs are being met
[Image]
-
Usable: Partially met — Users can complete tasks, but hesitation and misclicks signal friction in execution.
-
Intuitive: Met — Most users quickly grasp what each view is for once they see it.
-
Useful: Met — Participants clearly see value in having multiple views for managing projects.
-
Efficient: Partially met — Switching views takes effort and attention that breaks flow.
-
Reliable: Met — Users generally trust that views reflect the same underlying project data.
**4. Compare outcomes to business goals
**
-
Increase Product Adoption: Partially supported — Interest is there, but friction may slow deeper exploration.
-
Support Team Retention: Supported — Clear value in multiple views helps the product fit diverse workflows.
-
Improve Workflow Efficiency: At risk — Interaction friction undermines speed and momentum.
-
Build Product Trust: Supported — Consistent understanding across views reinforces confidence.
-
Enable Scalable Use Across Teams: Partially supported — Flexibility scales, but usability gaps may surface more at scale.
5. Surface signals & establish a direction
Signals derived from the data:
-
Users understand what different views are for, even on first exposure.
-
Switching views is mentally clear but operationally uneven.
-
Flexibility is valued, but it comes with added cognitive and interaction cost.
-
Users show interest in certain views, but not strong conviction across the set.
Direction based on business context:
[Image]
The evidence points toward an experience that is strong in concept but strained in execution. As teams rely on view switching more frequently, small interaction frictions become more visible and more costly. The opportunity lies in reinforcing momentum without reducing flexibility.
This is a flexible, understandable experience that slows down at the point of action. The dominant signal is not confusion, but hesitation—an experience that people grasp quickly, yet don’t always move through smoothly.
