Vijay Raina brings a unique perspective to the intersection of enterprise SaaS architecture and human-centric design. In a recent exploratory study conducted in collaboration with the University of California, Irvine, he delved into the untapped potential of cognitive inclusion within UX research. By analyzing how individuals with challenges in memory, focus, and learning interact with digital interfaces, his work reveals a striking disparity in how usability issues are surfaced. This interview explores the methodology behind this research, the nearly two-fold increase in identified pain points, and why designing for the most cognitively taxed users ultimately creates a superior experience for everyone.
The conversation explores the structural setup of the study, comparing general population testers against those with cognitive disabilities across three distinct web environments. We discuss the quantitative data showing that cognitive participants identify 1.8 times more issues and the qualitative “drain” experienced by users when cognitive load is ignored. The discussion also touches upon the specific categories where these users provide the most value—such as icons, buttons, and media—and the long-term business implications of an aging population. Finally, we look at the strategic advantages of starting with cognitive-first research as a gateway to broader digital accessibility.
What served as the primary catalyst for launching this joint study between Fable and the University of California, Irvine, and what specific gaps in current UX research were you hoping to address?
The decision to launch this study was driven by a strong hunch I developed after working closely with a group of cognitive testers. Cognitive disability is an umbrella term for several conditions that impact how people process information, typically affecting memory, focus, or learning, and it is more prevalent than many realize. According to the CDC, it is the most common disability in the U.S., affecting approximately 13.9% of the population, yet these users are frequently excluded from standard usability testing. I suspected that these participants would uncover significantly more usability insights than the general population, so I collaborated with researchers like Syed Fatiul Huq and Pranav Pidathala to validate this hypothesis. We wanted to move beyond just documenting “can they do it” and instead understand the volume and depth of suggestions that this specific demographic could provide to improve product architecture.
To ensure a rigorous comparison, you utilized three very different website prototypes. Could you describe the design intent behind these sites and the specific tasks you asked participants to complete?
We used an AI prototyping tool to generate three distinct environments so we could test a wide variety of tasks. The first site, “Strong Snacks,” featured a simple, brutalist, and bright design focused on three-ingredient high-protein recipes where users had to find snacks and newsletter sign-ups. The second, “Turning Pages,” was a more complex bookstore with a moody, classic aesthetic, requiring users to navigate a book-matching swiping feature, manage a shopping cart, and complete a checkout process. Finally, “Crown & Comb” was a hair salon site with a bold, black-and-white look where we intentionally introduced complexity, asking users to find pricing for bridal packages and book appointments. By testing across these different UI styles—from simple recipes to complex e-commerce flows—we were able to see if the cognitive group’s ability to find issues remained consistent regardless of the site’s complexity.
When you looked at the final data across all thirty interviews, the quantitative difference between the two groups was staggering. How did the cognitive participants perform in terms of identifying issues compared to the general population?
The data confirmed my instincts in a very measurable way; across the three websites, the cognitive participants identified 197 issues, while the general population group only found 113. This means that participants with cognitive disabilities identified 1.8 times more issues than their peers in the general population. The same ratio held true for improvements, as the cognitive group made 93 suggestions for the user experience compared to just 54 from the others. We saw this trend play out on every single site we tested, with the cognitive group finding an average of 3.4 more issues on the simple site and up to 7 more issues on the most complex site, Crown & Comb. This high volume of feedback suggests that what we often consider “minor” friction for some is a glaring, reportable obstacle for others.
In terms of the specific elements of a website, like navigation or visual media, where did you see the most significant divergence in feedback between the two groups?
Cognitive participants were far more likely to flag issues with content, buttons, icons, and media elements like videos or animations. While both groups were almost equal in identifying navigation-related problems—45 issues for general pop versus 46 for the cognitive group—the cognitive participants provided much richer feedback on visual affordances. On the “Turning Pages” website, for instance, cognitive testers found 20 issues with buttons and links, whereas the general population group only noted 7. They were also much more sensitive to icons and visual elements on the salon site, identifying 42 issues compared to the 23 found by the other group. This tells us that cognitive participants are essentially a “canary in the coal mine” for clarity in visual and interactive design.
The qualitative feedback seemed to highlight a deeper emotional or physical impact on cognitive participants. Can you elaborate on how their descriptions of the experience differed from those of the general population?
One of the most striking differences was the sensory and emotional language used to describe the difficulty of a task. A participant from the general population might describe a broken flow as “really, really frustrating” or “not particularly engaging,” focusing mostly on the outward annoyance of the interface. In contrast, a cognitive participant described the same type of friction in terms of their own internal wellbeing, stating that having too many options or pop-ups made them feel “drained and less able to focus.” They spoke about the “mental energy” required to filter through information, which illustrates that poor UX isn’t just a hurdle to a sale—it’s a factor that can genuinely exhaust a user. This deeper commentary helps researchers understand not just that something is hard, but why it is fundamentally taxing for the human brain.
Looking at the “Strong Snacks” website, which had the simplest design, what were some of the subtle usability issues that only the cognitive group seemed to catch?
Even on the simplest site, which had the highest overall usability scores, the cognitive participants found critical areas for improvement that others simply glossed over. They pointed out that they would trust the content more if there were direct links to sources like scientific journals, and they expressed a need for more context in headlines to understand blog topics. They also flagged a lack of clarity around the label “Add-ons” and noted that the layout was confusing when recipe snacks interrupted the main article flow rather than being placed in a distinct sidebar. Some participants even mentioned how continuous animations or ads could distract them from reading the actual recipes. These are the kinds of design best practices that a senior designer might advocate for, but the cognitive testers provided the empirical proof that these elements impact readability and trust.
The bookstore site, “Turning Pages,” involved more complex interactions like book matching and checkout. What did these participants reveal about the relationship between interaction design and user confidence?
On “Turning Pages,” cognitive participants found an average of 6 more issues than the general population, specifically highlighting how unpredictable interactions can erode user trust. They were confused by the “Add to book bag” button and weren’t sure where the book recommendations or reviews were actually coming from. While everyone in the study found the book-matching feature a bit hard to locate, the cognitive group emphasized that the site’s interactions didn’t behave in ways they could easily predict. This lack of predictability creates a high cognitive load that can lead to lost revenue; if a user isn’t confident in how to add an item to their cart or complete a checkout, they are far more likely to abandon the process entirely.
On the salon website, “Crown & Comb,” you mentioned a task that was designed to be intentionally difficult. How did this “stress test” help define the line between a usability issue and an accessibility barrier?
The task of finding the bridal package was a struggle for almost everyone, but it became a true accessibility barrier for the cognitive group because of the cumulative weight of the friction. They raised concerns about labels that were too similar and expressed uncertainty about why certain services were “subject to stylist consultation” without further explanation. They also felt it was vital to see dates early in the booking flow and were confused about the payment timeline. When you combine too much ambiguity with too many required decisions and too little feedback, you reach a tipping point. For the general population, this is just a bad experience they might “muddle through,” but for someone with cognitive challenges, the cognitive load becomes so high that the task moves from difficult to impossible.
Beyond helping those with diagnosed disabilities, how does including cognitive participants in research benefit the broader market, including younger generations and seniors?
Cognitive inclusion is a “rising tide” strategy because cognitive load issues impact almost everyone at some point. For instance, younger users in Gen Z, who are accustomed to short-form, attention-optimized video, often struggle to focus on long-form written content or complex layouts. On the other end of the spectrum, the percentage of Americans aged 65 and older is projected to rise from 17% to 25% by the year 2060. As we age, we naturally experience cognitive decline, making complex online interactions much more difficult to navigate. By designing for the person who feels “drained” by a pop-up, you are simultaneously creating a better experience for the busy professional, the aging senior, and the easily distracted teenager.
For a UX team that has never conducted research with cognitive participants before, what is the best way for them to start building an inclusive practice?
My advice is to start small and focus on tracking more than just whether a user completes a task. You should be asking users how they feel, how the task impacts their energy levels, and how distractions might be pulling their focus away from the goal. Even just two sessions with cognitive participants can feel like two hundred because of the sheer volume of insights they provide regarding clarity and predictability. I often tell teams that cognitive accessibility is a powerful “on-ramp” to broader accessibility testing. Once you have a foundation of managing cognitive load and creating simple flows, it becomes much easier to branch out into testing with screen readers, magnifiers, and alternative navigation tools.
What is your forecast for the future of UX research as businesses begin to recognize the impact of cognitive load on their bottom line?
I believe we are entering an era where cognitive inclusion will become a mandatory standard for any company that values efficiency and customer retention. As the population continues to age—with one in four Americans expected to be an older adult by 2060—companies will realize that loyalty is tied to the ease of the experience rather than just the brand name. We will see a shift where “cognitive-first” design becomes the baseline for shipping products, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the most efficient way to catch usability flaws early. Organizations that ignore this will find themselves losing customers to competitors who offer calmer, more predictable digital spaces that don’t drain the user’s mental energy.
