Approachable UX for Pro Video Editing Software

You can view the redacted findings report: View redacted findings report (PDF).

Overview

An industry-leading desktop video editing application is widely used by professional editors, but its power comes at the cost of a steep learning curve. The product team wanted to explore how to make it more approachable for creators who don’t specialize in video, without degrading the experience for core professional users.

I led a multi-cohort UX research study to identify friction points, opportunities for delight, and usability baselines for upcoming redesigns.

My Role

• Lead UX Researcher: Designed study, led sessions, synthesized findings, presented actionable recommendations.
• Collaborated with product managers, designers, and engineering leads.
• Created a scoring framework for both task completion and qualitative sentiment to benchmark future improvements.

Participants

• Total: 12 participants across 3 cohorts (4 per group)
  • Video CPros: Experienced professional editors
  • Non-video CPros: Creative pros with little-to-no video experience
  • Social Video Creators (SVCs): Creators producing short-form video for social platforms
• Recruited through social media and user lists

Study Design

• Persona Validation: Understanding each participant’s role, editing experience, and tools used
• Task Scenarios: Realistic editing tasks — importing, organizing, editing, adding effects, and exporting
• Reflection: Open discussion on challenges, surprises, and impressions

Metrics

• Task Completion: Could the user complete the task without prompts? (0–2 scale)
• Qualitative Sentiment: Did the experience feel positive, neutral, or negative? (0–2 scale)
• Dual scoring: Ensured inter-rater reliability (90% agreement)

Key Insights

Novices could succeed — but only with a safety net

• Non-video CPros finished most tasks with prompts, but admitted they’d abandon the tool in real life after a few minutes of frustration (often returning to simpler tools like iMovie).

Pros are efficient, but not delighted

• Video CPros completed nearly every task without assistance but rarely expressed positive sentiment, scoring around “neutral” for most interactions.

Common Friction Points Across All Cohorts

• Source Monitor confusion: Novices misinterpreted its purpose; pros found it redundant in certain workflows
• Accidental overwrites: Dragging new clips or titles often replaced existing content unexpectedly
• Hidden or mislabeled panels: “Text” panel opened captions; graphics editing buried under “Browse” instead of “Edit”
• Volume control discoverability: Required tagging before controls appeared; terminology (“Audio Gain”) didn’t match user mental models
• Missed export optimizations: Social sharing presets were rarely noticed

Missed Opportunities for Delight

• Freeform view: Sparked initial excitement but fell short due to quirks and inconsistencies
• MOGRT customization: Huge time-saver for SVCs, but many didn’t know saved versions were possible until training events
• Creative looks/LUTs workflow: Suffered from poor preview design and import friction

Recommendations

• Streamlined onboarding: default bins for footage, audio, graphics in the import workflow
• Optional magnetic timeline to prevent accidental overwrites
• Clearer visual affordances for zoom controls
• Panel renaming: e.g., “Captions” instead of “Text”; separate “Browse” and “Edit” for graphics
• Always-visible volume control without tagging requirement
• Color workspace redesign with improved preview experience
• Better discoverability for MOGRT saving and social presets

Impact

• Provided a baseline usability benchmark for future design iterations
• Findings directly informed the tool’s import/export redesigns and UI panel reorganization
• Helped the team prioritize discoverability and prevent unintentional destructive actions without adding complexity for professionals