API Developer Experience: Endpoints, Errors & Auth
Measures developer satisfaction with API endpoint clarity, error diagnostics, and authentication workflows to identify friction points and inform API roadmap priorities.
샘플 질문
템플릿에 포함된 내용을 미리 확인해 보세요. 모든 질문은 설문 공개 전에 자유롭게 수정할 수 있습니다.
In the past 30 days, how often did you interact with our API?
- Daily
- Several times a week
- Weekly
- Once or twice
- Not in the past 30 days
How clear is the URL structure and naming of our API endpoints?
In the past 30 days, approximately how often did you encounter an API error response?
- Never
- Rarely (1–2 times)
- Sometimes (3–5 times)
- Often (6 or more times)
- Not sure
Which authentication methods did you use or configure in the past 30 days? Select all that apply.
- API key
- OAuth 2.0 — Client Credentials
- OAuth 2.0 — Authorization Code
- JWT / Service account
- HMAC or request signing
- No auth changes in the past 30 days
- Not sure
Overall, how would you rate the clarity of our API (documentation, endpoints, and error messages combined)?
Based on your responses in this survey, please share any additional thoughts or suggestions about your API experience.
Which of the following best describes your primary role?
- Backend engineer
- Frontend engineer
- Full-stack developer
- DevOps / SRE
- Data engineer
- Product manager
- QA / Tester
- Student
- Other
Thank you for your time. Your feedback directly helps us improve the API experience for all developers.
Which of the following activities did you perform with the API in the past 30 days? Select all that apply.
- Reading/fetching data
- Creating or updating records
- Managing authentication/authorization
- Configuring webhooks/callbacks
- Bulk or asynchronous jobs
- Building or maintaining integrations/SDKs
- Testing or troubleshooting
- Other
How clear are the required and optional request parameters (headers, query params, body)?
Which of the following error types did you encounter? Select all that apply.
- Validation errors (4xx)
- Authentication failures (401)
- Permission/scope issues (403)
- Resource not found (404)
- Rate limiting (429)
- Timeouts or network errors
- Server errors (5xx)
- Deprecation or version errors
- Other
How easy or difficult was it to generate or rotate API keys or credentials?
How likely are you to recommend our API to a fellow developer?
How long have you been working with web APIs?
- Less than 1 year
- 1–2 years
- 3–5 years
- 6–9 years
- 10+ years
How clear are the response formats and field definitions returned by our endpoints?
How helpful were the API error messages in diagnosing and resolving issues?
How easy or difficult was it to set up an OAuth flow (authorization code or client credentials)?
Rank the following areas by how much improvement would benefit your workflow (drag the highest-impact area to the top).
- Endpoint clarity
- Error message quality
- Authentication flows
- API documentation
- SDKs & developer tools
What is the approximate size of your organization?
- 1–10
- 11–50
- 51–200
- 201–1,000
- 1,001–5,000
- 5,001+
How clear is the pagination behavior (cursors, offsets, page limits) across endpoints?
If you recall a particularly unhelpful error message, please paste it or summarize it briefly.
How easy or difficult was it to manage token refresh or session handling?
Which programming languages or platforms do you primarily use with our API? Select all that apply.
- JavaScript / TypeScript
- Python
- Java
- Go
- Ruby
- C# / .NET
- PHP
- Other
Name one endpoint or area of the API that felt unclear and briefly explain why.
Describe any authentication blockers or confusing steps you encountered.
In which region are you primarily located?
- North America
- Europe
- Asia
- Latin America
- Middle East
- Africa
- Oceania
- Prefer not to say
포함된 기능
AI 후속 질문
정형화된 설문이 놓치는 세부 내용을, 주관식 답변에 맞춰 AI가 심층 질문으로 끌어냅니다.
주의력 확인 장치
성의 없는 답변과 저품질 응답자를 걸러내는 내장 안전장치입니다.
AI가 작성한 문안
문구, 질문 순서, 분기 로직까지 AI가 연구 목표에 맞춰 작성합니다.
자동 리포트
응답이 모이면 주요 주제, 인용문, 이해하기 쉬운 요약이 자동으로 작성됩니다.
이 템플릿을 선택하는 이유
이 템플릿의 설계 목적을 소개합니다. 다른 설문 도구에서는 직접 비교할 만한 템플릿을 찾지 못했습니다.
차별화 포인트
- Includes four dedicated opinion-scale questions plus an open-text follow-up isolating endpoint, parameter, response, and pagination clarity rather than lumping 'API quality' into one vague score
- Separates error-handling friction from auth friction with distinct question blocks (error frequency, error types, error-message helpfulness, a paste-in field for actual unhelpful error text, then a parallel set for API keys, OAuth setup, and token refresh)
- Closes with an AI follow-up interview question that adaptively probes on whatever the respondent actually reported, plus a drag-and-drop ranking of improvement priorities to directly inform roadmap decisions
- Captures role, API experience tenure, org size, languages/platforms, and region as segmentation variables so friction points can be sliced by developer profile
설문을 공개할 준비가 되셨나요?
이 템플릿을 편집기에서 열어 보세요. 첫 응답자가 보기 전에 모든 부분을 원하는 대로 바꿀 수 있습니다.
관련 템플릿
같은 카테고리의 다른 설문을 만나 보세요.
E-Commerce App Onboarding & Activation Friction Assessment
Identifies onboarding friction points and time-to-value barriers in e-commerce apps. Use with new and recent users to pinpoint what accelerates or delays activation and first purchase.
템플릿 보기Digital Accessibility Barriers & Assistive Technology Experience Survey
Evaluates digital accessibility barriers, assistive technology usage patterns, and task completion experiences to identify WCAG compliance gaps and prioritize UX improvements for users with diverse access needs.
템플릿 보기Assistive Technology Accessibility Experience Survey
Captures accessibility barriers and WCAG compliance gaps reported by assistive technology users during real digital product sessions. Designed for UX and accessibility teams seeking to prioritize remediation based on user-reported severity and impact.
템플릿 보기A/B Experimentation Trust & Data Quality Assessment
An internal diagnostic survey for teams that run or consume A/B tests, measuring trust in experiment results, identifying sources of flakiness, and prioritizing process and tooling improvements.
템플릿 보기Graphic Design Request Intake & Creative Brief Survey
Captures a complete brief for an internal or client graphic design request — project type, goal, audience, brand constraints, and priority trade-offs — so designers stop guessing what 'good' looks like. An AI follow-up interview digs into the real goal behind the ask and surfaces conflicting stakeholder expectations before work begins.
템플릿 보기Website Information Quality & Findability Survey
Measures whether visitors can find, understand, and trust the content on your website — covering findability, accuracy, completeness, and currency — for product, content, and UX teams auditing site content. An AI follow-up interview reconstructs what actually happened when a respondent hit a dead end, instead of relying on vague satisfaction ratings.
템플릿 보기