Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ecommerce UX 05 Search 3rd Edition PDF
Ecommerce UX 05 Search 3rd Edition PDF
3rd Edition
By Amy Schade and Jakob Nielsen
Thank you!
Guidelines List............................................................................................. 24
RESEARCH STUDIES
The information in these reports is a result of two separate rounds of e-commerce
studies conducted by Nielsen Norman Group as well as a round of design reviews of
a set of e-commerce websites. The studies took place in the United States, United
Kingdom, Denmark and China (Hong Kong), and involved user testing, a diary-based
longitudinal study and an eye tracking component.
The Methodology report in the E-Commerce Report Series includes the full details of
each study, the list of sites tested, and information about participants.
The Wishlists and Gift Certificates, Transactional Email and Confirmation Messages
and Locator Usability reports are based on additional research studies. Each of these
three reports includes its own methodology section.
Study Two
The second study included a diary-based longitudinal study and user testing,
including an eyetracking component.
Research began with the diary-based study. Ten participants from around the United
States were asked to record information in a notebook about their online shopping
experiences for a period of six weeks during the winter holiday shopping season. The
goal was to understand how users shopped online.
Users answered questions including the goal of visiting the site, why they visited that
particular site, and if they achieved their goal. Users were also asked about what
they liked and disliked about the site. Information from this round of research was
used in part to develop tasks for the user testing portions of the study.
The study also included user testing with participants in London, United Kingdom;
Hong Kong, China; Munster, Indiana; Kennesaw, Georgia; and New York, New York.
The New York City component, which was the largest, included eyetracking.
Eyetracking allowed the facilitator to observe and record where the user was looking
on the screen.
Ninety-eight users participated in user testing. Participants included an almost even
split between men and women who ranged in age from 18 to 64. All participants had
purchased online previously, with varied amounts of online shopping experience. The
least experienced user had purchased online once in the past year and 10
participants had made more than 30 online purchases in the past year. Users were
recruited across a range of household income levels and general online experience.
Of 332 queries conducted within a site, 4 submitted the search box filler text, 10
included specific product numbers, 23 were related to customer service requests,
43 included a specific product name, 66 were for a product category with no
particular criteria, and 116 included both a category and at least one qualifying
criterion.
In web-wide searches, more than half of the queries (57%) combined a product
category as well as a criterion. This makes sense, as users searching the entirety of
the web want to be more specific in their search criteria. 14% of queries were
intended to find a specific website or the site for a specific company, and another
14% of queries were for product criteria alone.
The phrasing of our tasks influenced users’ exact search queries, as users often
picked words directly from the task to use in the search box. However, users didn’t
consistently pick out the same combinations of words for their searches. Though all
were working from the same written task, some users naturally searched for a
product name, others for a criterion or characteristic, and others for a combination of
criteria and category. For example, in a task asking users to find a box that can
organize medication, users searched for “medication organizer,” “medicine,” and
“medication box.”
Recognizing the type of search a user is conducting can help direct him to the right
area of the site. For instance, on CompUSA.com, a search for “printers” nicely took
users to a page specifically designed for printer searches, allowing users to select a
category of printer or brand.
QUERY LENGTH
Users conducted 411 searches in the eyetracking portion of the second study. Of
those, 332 searches were conducted on e-commerce sites, and 79 searches were
web-wide searches on search engines such as Google or Yahoo.
In four instances, users ran searches on the filler text that appeared in the search
box on The Container Store’s site. We removed these search queries from the
analysis of query length, leaving us with 407 overall searches.
Across all searches, the average query length was 15.5 characters. Within a site,
the average length was 14.5 characters. Web-wide queries averaged 20.5
characters in length.
Two word queries were most common for within site searches, with single word
queries the second most popular. In Web-wide searches, however, two- and three-
word queries were most common. Again, this makes sense considering many web-
wide queries were more specific and often included a combination of product
category and product criteria.
Within a website, two word queries were most common, accounting for 135
searches (41%). One word queries accounted for 95 searches (29%), three words
for 51 (16%), four for 17 (5%) and 30 searches used five or more words (9%).
In our first study, 54% of search queries consisted of more than one word. In our
second study, 75% of all searches included more than one word. Search queries
have gotten longer: users are more specific in their searches.
In our first study, only 54% of queries included more than one word. In our second
study, 75% of all queries included more than one word.
The biggest difference between within site searches and Web-wide searches in our
second study was the number with more than one word. Ninety-four percent of Web-
wide searches included more than one word, versus 71% of within site searches.
Again, this indicates that users are more specific on the Web as a whole than they
are on a specific website.
Users in our study did not use advanced search methods, though all had varying
amounts of technical experience. Across all 407 searches, only 7 searches (2%) used
quotation marks, and 8 (2%) used plus signs. All 8 searches which included plus
signs were run by the same user.
The bar chart shows, by percentage, how many queries our users had to enter
before they got meaningful search results. It also shows, by percentage, how many
queries users entered before they gave up.
However, such tools are often not well-executed. Some sites try to use the same
product categories across different product types, resulting in poor choices for all
products. Others don’t categorize products appropriately, showing users incorrect
inventory. Others make it difficult to see what options have already been selected, or
to remove those options. Such mistakes can make a user lose trust in a site and go
elsewhere.
Search buttons were harder for users to find and understand than search boxes.
NASCAR's shopping site had an easy-to-locate search box in the upper right-hand
corner of the page, accompanied by a clear Search button. This was well done.
The filler text made the search field on The Container Store’s site unrecognizable to
two users. They clicked the Search button without entering a search term, thinking
they would see a Search page.
The users who clicked Search without entering a query had no idea what happened.
One returned to navigation because she didn’t understand the results.
The other user tried to use the site search again, but again did not enter a search
term. When she saw the results, she scrolled down and saw a New Search button at
the bottom of the page. However, this search box had filler text as well. She clicked
the button, thinking this would start a new search, but again ran the same search for
the same filler text, bringing back the same results.
After the task, she said, “I thought I would be able to put in a keyword and it would
take me to products, but it didn’t.” She didn’t understand that she had not run a
search and so didn’t understand the results that were returned.
If you use filler text, ensure it disappears when the user clicks in the search box. If
not, make sure to return a helpful message if a user accidentally searches without
entering a query. When a user clicked Go on Staples.com without entering a query,
the site returned zero results for “type search here.” Instead, the site could have
recognized the error and included more specific text, such as, “Enter a search term
in the box below.”
Oriental Trading Company used the filler text “search item# or keyword.” If a user
hit the Go button without changing the text, the site returned an error which said,
“Sorry, you must enter an item number or keyword to search.” The page provided
another search box and some search tips, including information about how to search
for an item number from a catalog. This was helpful.
Some sites simply did not submit the search if the search box was empty, leaving
the user on the same page. This feedback is inadequate, as users can think the
site is broken or not functioning correctly. Costco presented an error message on
the page, below the search box. However, this message only appeared for a few
seconds, making it easy for users to miss. It would have been better to keep the
message on the page.
A user had trouble entering a search term on BestBuy.com when the navigational
menus repeatedly covered the open search field. The second half of the search box
can be seen to the right of the navigational menu in the screenshot above.
While it was helpful that Office Depot took users who searched for “shredders” to a
product-focused page, users weren’t sure what to do next on the page because
there were so many options.
Costco’s site took users to a category page for Televisions when they searched for
“television” or “TV.”
It is also essential to support searches for customer service information. Many users
turned to search when trying to locate policy or return information. For instance, a
user on Anthropologie's site was buying a gift for a friend and wanted to make sure
before buying it that his friend could return it. He searched the site for "return
policy" and received product results, but no information about the site's return
policy.
By contrast, a search for “returns” on Build.com took users to the full return policy.
Multiple search boxes at the top of the page caused one user to think she needed a
product code to conduct a search.
A single search box with explanatory text can be enough to indicate what types of
searches user can conduct. Oriental Trading used filler text to indicate users could
search by item number or keyword. We advise against using filler text (see guideline
on page 28), and recommend that the information be placed below the field instead.
The site also had a link to Catalog Quick Order, knowing many of their sales came
from recipients of their catalogs, which also led to a specialized search allowing users
to enter an item number and quantity. This added items directly into the shopping
cart.
A user on 1000bulbs.com appreciated the option to search by image, since she had a
light bulb that she wanted to replace. She quickly identified her bulb as a halogen
mini and saw the options the site had to offer. This was much simpler than her
experience on other sites, where she tried to read tiny numbers and letters on the
bulb to enter in site search engines.
In this case, it made good sense to offer a visual search. This shows that the site
realized users often don’t know the details of a light bulb they’re trying to replace,
but that they shop by sight, looking for one that matches the burned out bulb.
The placement of the link to Search by Image was problematic, though. The user
who relied on this search successfully stumbled upon it the first time she searched,
but when she tried to do the same search again, she accidentally clicked Search
rather than Search by Image. It was helpful to place the button next to the standard
search, as that’s how the user originally stumbled upon it. However, it was presented
in the same way as the standard search with little space between the buttons,
making it easy for users to confuse the buttons or accidentally click the wrong one.
Navigating to a category showed the various types of bulbs available, along with
detailed images to help the user select the appropriate bulb.
A user in London used the suggested search terms presented by Orbitz to select his
destination.
If suggested queries are used, they must return relevant results. Suggesting that a
user might be searching for “candy bars” is not helpful unless selecting that term
returns all available candy bars on the site. Suggested terms that return zero results
or one result aren’t helpful.
Some sites provided search results as users typed. This can be a good shortcut for
users who know what they were looking for or se an item of interest. Other shoppers
who are looking for all items that match their search query prefer to see the full list
of results so they can browse and compare. Allow users to see a full list of results
either by clicking the Search button, using the Enter key, or clicking to View All
Results.
Some sites, such as Urban Outfitters, automatically listed search results as users
typed. This was a handy shortcut for users looking for specific items, but still
allowed users who wanted to browse results to use the search box in the standard
way. Urban Outfitter’s design would have been better if the search results were
more clearly differentiated from the background, with a strong border around the
results.
A user on Disney’s site carefully narrowed the scope of her search to entertainment
for a youth boy. When the search results came back, she immediately noticed that
the website had not adhered to her search criteria. “I searched for something for a
boy. This shows a girl with a Dalmatians pajama set,” she complained.
A Pottery Barn search for “drawers” returned no dressers, but plenty of other items
with drawers, such as file cabinets and bookcases. The site offered dressers, but
none appeared in the search results.
A user looking for printer ink on a variety of websites was stymied because he kept
searching for “red ink,” when the ink was actually magenta. Consider how your users
describe your products or their characteristics. While ink may come in cyan and
magenta, for instance, users think of those same ink cartridges as blue and red.
Costco.com corrects misspellings and indicated that the site was “showing results
for ‘dehumidifier’” and provided a link to “search instead for ‘dehumidifer.’”
A user’s search for “littlefeat” rather than “little feat,” returned no results on
FYE.com. The site did carry items by that artist.
A user on YesAsia.com searched for “dianna krall,” misspelling artist Diana Krall’s
name. He saw no results, corrected the spelling, and searched again. He said, “When
I did the search it said no matches. For some others, like the Yahoo search machine,
if you make a typo it tells you ‘are you looking for Diana Krall.’ If yes, you just click it
and it takes you to that product.”
A search for “espresso dresser” returned products which weren’t returned for the
similar search “espresso dresser drawers.”
A search for “drawers espresso stain” returned no dressers, but only a mirror and
two file cabinets.
When results were listed for multiple-word queries, users expected items matching
every word in the query would be listed first. Users on The Container Store’s site
were frustrated by the site search, which they did not think prioritized results
properly.
Several users on the site searched for the term “wooden box.” The site returned 100
results for the search, and apparently first listed items with the word “wooden” in the
product name, followed by items with the word “box” in the name. This meant the
box users were looking for was returned as result 96 out of 100, though it was a
wooden box. Several users gave up scanning the results page before they reached
the result when they did not see the box immediately.
One user said after the task, “There were very broad results for search. I had to find
the closest things that were coming up. So many results weren’t relevant to what I
searched.” Another said, “I’m searching for wooden boxes, but I’m getting boxes and
not wooden boxes. I shouldn’t be getting white gift boxes.” She later complained, “I
had over 100 hits, with everything from bamboo to plastic to cardboard, and I
searched for ‘wooden.’”
The top results for the term “wooden box” included wooden items followed by
boxes, but wooden boxes were not prioritized. The box users were looking for was
item 96 out of 100 returned results.
Users were frustrated when they searched and saw items that seemed irrelevant to
the query they had entered. Another user on The Container Store searched for a
variety of different terms describing a set of stainless steel canisters with clear tops.
She said, “No matter what I type in, I get the same 100 results.” While that wasn’t
the case, it was true that every search did seem to return 100 results, many of
which seemed irrelevant at first glance. For instance, she searched for “steel and
glass canister” and received results that were “ridiculous – toilet brushes, cracker
jars.” The items returned were either stainless steel or glass, but to her they were
completely unrelated to what she was looking for.
She searched for “kitchen canisters” and said, “A third of the way down the page,
I’m not even getting canisters anymore. This has nothing to do with what I typed.”
A user accidentally scoped his search for “luggage” to the Music section of
Overstock.com.
HancockFabrics.com allowed users to select the search scope. However, the site
nicely defaulted to the broadest category for search: Entire Site.
Faceted search, like on Oriental Trading’s site, allows users to narrow searches after
entering a query, rather than forcing them to pick a scope for their search initially.
27. Don’t put any steps between the user’s search and the
search results.
A user on Staples.com searched for a brand as soon as he reached the site’s
homepage. This took him to a page asking him for his zip code, rather than returning
search results. When he saw this page, he said, “Oh, I don’t see anything coming
up,” and assumed his search had failed. He switched strategies for finding the
product and started to use the site navigation instead.
The site required users to enter a zip code before seeing any products. However, this
was not clear. When the user entered a search term and saw a page asking for a zip
code, he assumed he couldn’t search for the product. If this step was necessary, it
should have been explained and the page should have acknowledged he was in the
middle of searching for a product. He later tried another search and this time said, “I
guess I have to put in my zip code. It would have been nice if it would have just
come up.”
Vitacost.com listed the number of results above the results themselves, here
stating, “Showing Products 1-20 of 442.”
30. Repeat the user’s search query at the top of the page.
It is important that users know what they searched for. This can help them refine the
search if too many or too few results are returned.
This is particularly helpful if no results are found. On BroadwayOffers.com, if no
tickets were found that matched the user’s desired criteria, the page did not tell
users what they had previously searched for. The site didn’t clearly indicate if the
date, type of seat, or number of seats was not available or suggest any solution.
Without knowing what he had searched for previously, one user conducted the same
search three times.
Foot Locker repeated the user’s query at the top of the list of results.
Users easily scanned the list of product results on The Container Store’s site and
many selected the option to View All (presented next to the page numbers at the
top and bottom of the results listing).
A lack of product images on Stonewall Kitchen’s search results pages made it difficult
to understand the search results. This was even more problematic because the site
listed product results and recipe results. A product image would have been a quick
and visual way to help users understand which results were relevant to their search.
One user searched for “dog leash” on PetSmart.com and was pleased with the
presentation of search results. She said, “Excellent! There are all the leashes that are
available. I can see the prices, the colors. It’s very nice. I can see if it’s a muzzle, if
it’s retractable. I can see all that without having to click into product information.”
Users need to be able to distinguish one product from another. A user on Manchester
United’s shopping site searched for the player “Alan Smith,” saw the results, and
understood, “We’ve got away shirts and home shirts. I’d want a home shirt if it were
me.”
Successful search results pages gave users the information they needed to discern
between similar products. A user on FYE.com searched for a book called Cheese
Monkeys and received two results in books. She was able to compare the hardcover
and paperback editions and their prices.
When sites did not adequately describe the product, users were forced to jump from
search results page to product page and back in order to understand their options.
Users had a hard time on FineStationery.com because search results did not even
include a product name. Results had an image and designer’s name or brand, but no
text describing the type of product.
A user on YesAsia.com used advanced search to locate a movie. The search results
listed two version of the movie – a special edition and the regular version. The
special edition was out of stock, but the standard version was not. This was clear in
the search results, allowing the user to navigate directly to the version that was
available.
35. List all results and let users filter them as needed, rather
than listing results separately by type.
Some search results listed items by type, showing, for instance, books separate from
movies. This typically confused users. While it is helpful to be able to look for a
particular type of result, it is better to show users all results and then let them select
the type of result they are looking for.
It is difficult to design a page with categories of results in such a way that users
instantly understand what they are looking at. Users expect to see a list of results,
not a page divided by categories. Sites often show only a few results in each
category, as well, which can make users jump to the often incorrect conclusion that
selection on the site is limited.
For example, a user on FYE.com did a search for “graphic design” on the site and
thought there were only three results. Only after she’d been on the site for 10
minutes and had conducted additional searches did she realize she could click to
view more results in each category.
Other users ran into the same difficulty. This was particularly true if users weren’t
sure which category the product they wanted would be listed under. On
BestBuy.com, a user repeatedly said he was looking for software for video editing.
When looking for the software on the site, he searched for “DVD transfer.”
While the site did offer some software results, he never saw them. He selected the
Computers category from the first categorized page of results, but then only looked
at the top category of results on that page, which was Graphics Cards and
Components. He never noticed the Software category.
The display of results on LLBean.com lead a user to believe that this page showed
the site’s full collection of women’s long underwear, when it instead showed only a
sampling.
Adagio.com did a poor job displaying search results. Each was listed with an
accompanying image, but the image did not help users identify the product or
information. For instance, a large white box with the text Tea Information was placed
next to any results from the tea info section of the site. A large graphic showing each
product’s tea leaves was listed for each type of tea, but they all looked quite similar.
Further, the images were large, which limited the number of items which could be
displayed on a screen. Product descriptions or page content was shown as well, but
the large graphic meant that one sentence descriptions were followed by an inch or
more of white space.
For common customer service related searches, take users directly to the associated
policy page. For instance, take users to shipping information if they search for
shipping, or a return policy page for returns.
Don’t show users results if no matches are found. A user searched for “candy bar” (in
quotes) on Lake Champlain Chocolates’ site and received no results. There were no
exact matches for the full term. The site included a message at the top of the page
stating no results were found and suggesting that the user broaden the search query
with “more words.” However, the site also listed recommended products, which
looked like search results.
Since the user saw results, he paid no attention to the information about the failed
search and instead focused on the products. He was confused by the products listed,
which were recommended products on the site as a whole, and not particular in any
way to his search. He said, “Why is the first hit truffles? That has nothing to do with
candy bars.”
A user on Sainsbury’s site was confused when he searched for “leaf spinach, frozen”
and received no results. He skimmed right past the area where it said no results
were found and instead focused on the promotions on the page. He said, “I looked
for ‘leaf spinach, frozen’ and got champagne and Malteasers.”
Although one user was frustrated that half.com did not have the comic book he was
searching for, he immediately realized that it wasn't available on their site, but that
related products were available on eBay. The site clearly stated that no products
were found, and offered suggestions for refining the search query.
42. Clarify if there are no exact matches but the site is making a
suggestion or best guess. Be cautious in doing so.
It can be helpful to direct users to similar products if their specific search fails due to
the site’s inventory or selection. However, this needs to be done carefully so users
understand the results they are seeing. Users assume if they run a search and see
results that those items are directly related to their query.
Several users who attempted tasks on the site CDBaby received confusing search
results. The site offered music from independent artists. However, the site did not
clearly convey this information, so many of our users searched for popular artists on
major labels.
The site had a feature that returned independent artists similar to popular artists.
The site even offered this as a tool called Sounds Like. However, users didn’t
understand that when they searched for popular artists on the site, the site was
returning the Sounds Like results, directing them toward similar artists. (Further, the
one user who noticed the Sounds Like search option thought it was a phonetic search
tool.)
One user conducted three searches for familiar artists before realizing the site might
not sell the music he was looking for. He said, “I just typed in Scissor Sisters and it
hasn’t come up with anything that’s related at all. I don’t know if this site doesn’t
have them or if the search isn’t working.” He then searched for The Beatles, received
no results, and said, “This might be quite an alternative site.”
Another user searched on Home Depot’s site for “air conditioners,” but thought there
were too many results. He searched again for “air conditioner energy-efficient.” The
site nicely stated at the top of the results page that there were no exact matches,
but that the page listed partial matches.
However, the user assumed that he had a list of all the site’s energy efficient air
conditioners and that only energy-efficient units were listed. This was not the case.
He said, “It looks like they brought me to air conditioners that are energy-efficient.
They don’t say they’re energy efficient, but I assume they are. This one says Energy
Star, but the others don’t say it. I have to think they are.”
A user searched for a particular vineyard on Wine.com, but the site did not offer the
label he was looking for. It instead suggested similar wines. However, the site did
not clarify why they were “similar.” The user decided that the site had returned other
Australian, reasonably priced wines.
A message at the bottom of The Container Store’s search results page told users
that the site did not carry the full inventory available in stores.
Similarly, Costco also informed users that inventory was different online and in
stores.
A user was disappointed that the most recent album by an artist wasn't the first
result on YesAsia.com.
Avoid showing scores to indicate how relevant search results may be. Relevancy
scores are just noise for most users, who aren’t aware of or interested in the factors
that influence ranking. Use the scores only to order the list from highest to lowest.
(For more about sorting product listings, see the Homepages and Category Pages
report in the E-Commerce report series.)
Office Depot let users narrow shredder options by cut style, height, speed, and
number of sheets per pass.
One user said after using tools to quickly narrow his choice of air conditioners on
Home Depot’s site to only two models, “That’s always helpful, the information on the
side, the filters. It’s easy to select things and filter the results. I appreciate that
when I shop, especially when I know what I’m looking for.”
Even when filtering tools narrowed users’ selections drastically, they appreciated that
it saved them from having to review many products to determine if they met their
purchase criteria or not. A user on Sports Authority’s site was looking for athletic
shoes and sorted by size. He said, “They don’t have big sizes for me, but I like that
they tell me right away they don’t have the size.” Though it was disappointing, it was
preferable to looking through pages and pages of shoes only to realize his size was
not available.
Such options are so common that users complained when sites did not offer them. A
user on Pottery Barn said, “It would be nice if you could find by your own criteria.
Just plug in what you’re looking for, rather than having to click on each set of
drawers.” She wanted to know the width of the dressers and the finish, and had to
click on each product that looked like it might fit her criteria.
Another user said, “There are quite a few websites out there that let you specify
what you’re looking for. I guess I’m going to have to look at each drawer and each
drawer’s product information because there’s no option to specify what I’m looking
for. Target.com does it and Walmart, too — they allow deeper search. The options
are just not there.”
A further benefit of faceted search or guided navigation is that it highlights important
product characteristics for users. Someone shopping for a camcorder might not
realize that they can record to a variety of formats until they see those criteria listed
on the page. A user shopping for a digital camera might not consider the megapixels
and zoom level on the camera until confronted with options. Simply listing relevant
characteristics can help educate users who are unfamiliar with the product.
Magazines.com did not offer users any way to sort the titles on product listing
pages or narrow the choices. The Entertainment section, shown above, included 6
pages of magazine titles.
The point of offering filtering options is to narrow users’ choices. It is not necessary
if pages offer only a few options. If most pages offer fewer than 20 options to users,
filtering is not necessary. Sorting is still helpful, however. (See page 102 for more on
sorting.)
If the site offers more than about 20 products on a number of category pages, it is
worth offering filtering choices to users. Otherwise, users are easily overwhelmed. A
user on DavidYurman.NeimanMarcus.com complained, “There were a lot of pages of
gemstone rings, with no way to refine the search.”
A user on Guild.com went to Paintings and clicked on the link to view all paintings.
This returned fifty pages of results.
She said, “I don’t want to scroll through 50 pages even if this is something I’m going
to have in my home.” The page offered no options for sorting or filtering, though
users could click the Refine Search link at the top to return to another page which
offered a search tool.
She started to page through the results and said, “I’m only on page 13 and I have to
go through 50 to see them all.” She later added, “I wish I could have categorized the
paintings that were under $1000. That would have made it easier. There were 50
pages of paintings, with prices ranging from $300 through $9000.”
Another user also tired of looking page to page, and said, “In my usual day, I can’t
spend too much time looking at these paintings. I’m looking for a way to maybe look
for paintings that are of a particular size or price. I’m looking around for that, but I
don’t see anything like that.” He later added, “If I was in a hurry, I wouldn’t have
found anything. I’ve noticed on other sites there’s a way to narrow, to search by
category or size. By artist. For internet shopping, the idea is speed. Size, style,
impressionism or modern, characteristics or categories.”
Even users who noticed and used the search tool were unhappy that the listing pages
did not include any sorting or filtering. One user viewed all paintings after he had
used the search tool. He had been so specific with his search that he received only
one result, so he switched to browsing. However, he said, “Most of them are pretty
expensive. I wish there was a way to sort by price, so I could still see all the
paintings, but see the ones within the price range I have.”
The filter on Nike’s site worked well for users. Users were looking for a particular hat,
and easily navigated to Women, Accessories, and Headwear, and then located the
correct grey hat.
One user said, “I’m going to Headwear. And then color — that’s very good. We’re
going to go with grey, and there’s the hat.” She later said, “It took you right to what
you wanted, without any hesitation.”
To help develop appropriate criteria, talk to salespeople in your stores, if you have
physical locations, and see what customers are most concerned about. Check search
logs to see what qualifiers users are entering with product names.
Lands' End's site offered good options for people trying to narrow their options for
pants. In the Women's section, users could select size range, leg style, specific size,
color and fabric as well as narrow by fit.
Depending on how users reached a page showing air conditioners on Home Depot’s
site, they saw different options for narrowing their choices. If users navigated via
Heating and Cooling, the only options presented were brand and price. One user
suggested, “Size seems to be important, so maybe that’s something that should be
placed on the 1st or 2nd screen when all air conditioners are displayed with their
pictures. BTU, followed by parentheses with the sizing info [information about the
size of room the unit could cool.]”
However, if users navigated to air conditioners via the Appliances section of the site,
the options listed were far more relevant and specific to air conditioners. These
included BTU, type (window, portable or wall) and energy star compliance. These
options were more clearly related to the users’ needs.
One user realized after looking a comparison table that he had been inadvertently
looking at wall air conditioners rather than window air conditioners. Armed with this
new knowledge, he returned to his search results and looked to see if there was a
way to select window or wall unit. Because he was in search results, and not the
Appliance view of air conditioners, no option was listed. Because he could not narrow
his results in the way he wanted, he tried to determine from product descriptions
which were window and which were wall units. He said, “Only some say they’re
window A/C’s.”
This forced him to come up with an alternate plan to get to the items he wanted, so
he revised his search from “air conditioners” to “window air conditioners.”
When good options weren’t available, two users tried to refine searches to reach the
results they wanted. One user searched for “energy efficient,” and then “energy
efficient air conditioner.” Another progressively searched for “air conditioners,” “air
conditioners energy efficient,” “window air conditioners” and finally “air conditioners
window energy efficient.”
By comparison, a user who navigated directly to the category page where both
energy star compliance and window unit were shown as options immediately selected
his options, saw his two possible choices, saw one was backordered, and ordered the
one in stock.
Further, neither user who searched to find an air conditioner was confident that the
items displayed really met their needs. One said, “It just brought me back to air
conditioners. I don’t like that. I would like to know these are all energy efficient and
go from there. Now I have to click on each to see more details about it.” Moments
later, she said, “I don’t want to shop here because I don’t find what I’m looking for
right away. I’d rather go to a store.” She quit the task. “Air conditioners came up
right away, they came up good. But for something as easy as Energy Star, that
should pop up as soon as they’re displayed.”
All of these problems could have been solved if each page displaying air conditioners
on the Home Depot site provided users with the same useful, relevant categories to
choose from.
When faced with useless options, users on Home Depot’s site turned to more and
more specific search terms. Search logs may well reveal product characteristics users
are looking for.
A user narrowed her selection to a size, style and color on Overstock.com (suede,
XL and Brown).
Some sites scattered options around the product listing pages, which confused users.
Several users on Office Depot’s site immediately searched the site when looking for
shredders. This led to a category page with filtering options both above the results
and next to them. Because of this design, the categories on the side of the page,
which included price and brand, were not next to any listed products. Further, the
page only showed featured items, and not the full inventory of items. All of this
made the filtering tools confusing. Most users only noticed the options at the top of
the page to select a type of shredder and failed to notice or use the filtering options
on the side of the page.
One user commented, “There were too many categories and it was hard to scan
quickly. There were options on the side and on the top. It was a lot to scan in a
second.”
FYE.com had a similar design, with some options above the product listings and
some to the side. The listings at the top of the screen were not clear, adding to the
confusion.
Don’t remove useful categories as users make selections. A user limited her selection
of cat bowls and feeders to bowls on PetSmart.com, which narrowed the initial five
pages of results to only two, which she felt was much more manageable. However,
the option to select the material for the dish (ceramic or plastic) disappeared once
she selected bowls. She was only interested in ceramic bowls.
Vitacost.com nicely showed the users the number of items available in each
category. For instance, the site indicated there were 12 Vitacost Brand items, and 62
Dymatize items.
On LionBrand.com, a user had navigated to a list of free knitting patterns for infants.
The site allowed users to sort the patterns by type, skill level or yarn, which was
helpful. She sorted by yarn because “Homespun is the only kind of yarn I like.”
However, when she did so, she was removed from the infant section of knitting
patterns and was shown all free knitting patterns for Homespun yarn. She said, “Oh,
did this take me out of baby stuff? I wanted to stay in Baby.”
A user searched for LCD monitors on Target’s site. He was first annoyed that he
could not immediately sort by brand. The site divided results into categories, and he
had to click into a category in order to get filters specific to that category. He was
then annoyed because the site didn’t allow him to select both a brand and a price
range. He could select brand or price, but not both. He said, “It doesn’t add filters. I
want Samsung, in my price range. But they only have either or.”
Similarly, a user looking for a flat screen TV complained that he could only look by
brand or by size on Best Buy, but not by a combination of both. He could view by
size and the sort by brand, but could not list only the brand he wanted in a specific
size.
Comet showed users their selected criteria at the top of the left column, above the
area where products appeared.
When a user scrolled to focus on the first listed item, the indication that he was in
the Hinari section was almost off-screen.
Some sites listed the selected criteria across the top of the screen, like navigational
breadcrumbs. This worked best if the links appeared at the top of the area where
products were displayed, rather than at the top of the screen near the navigation.
Home Depot listed users’ selected criteria, but in an area of the page that was
visually removed from either the selection criteria or the product listings.
When users didn’t know what section they were in, they sometimes thought
inventory on a site was more limited than it was. A user on Wine.com thought the
site only offered two types of wine for less than $40 because he selected the $20-
$40 price range while already in Wine Collections.
Part of the problem here was the category name Wine Collections. He thought that
was a link to the site’s collection of wines, and not a link to sets of wines that were
sold as a package. But, he was also confused because he didn’t realize where he was
in the site. Like Home Depot, Wine.com listed the users’ selections at the top of the
page like breadcrumbs. In this design, the breadcrumbs were in the body of the
page, which would have been helpful if there had not been a paragraph of
introductory text between the breadcrumbs and the wines.
Only later when he searched for “Chile” and received results did he realize there
were more than a few wines for less than $40. He said, “Here we have cheaper
wines. We have wines for less than $20, but earlier the site didn’t mention them.”
The Scholastic Store did a good job of showing users’ selected criteria. The site
summarized the users’ selections at the top of the list of criteria, with the label
Current Search and the option to clear all criteria or clear individual selections via an
X.
A user on Circuit City couldn’t determine how to change her price selection when
looking at digital cameras. Her selection was listed at the top of the page, but it
wasn’t clear how to remove it. She navigated back, via the Back button, to the point
where she made a selection in order to change it. The site could have shown her
selection with a way to remove it – using a Clear link, Show All link, or a small X to
indicate that it could be removed.
On Lands' End, a user wanted to remove all her criteria and see all her available
options again. To try to do so, she clicked on the broadest category name on the
page. However, this didn't work. She still saw only the five pairs of pants which met
her initial criteria selection. Rather than forcing the user to remove each individual
criterion, it would be preferable to allow users to click on the category name and
"reset" the page. This user instead returned to the homepage of the site and started
her search again.
Instead, users had to go back into the filtering menus to remove their criteria,
selecting Show All.
61. Don’t show filtering options when only one item is listed.
If users saw a page showing only one item, but with options for narrowing their
choices, they often thought they could change the number of items shown via those
options. This was not the case (unless users removed criteria), but the presence of
these options made users think this was true.
For example, one user navigated to the Gore-Windstopper Pants category on
ParagonSports.com when looking for ski pants. Though only one pair was listed, she
tried to use the menus to narrow the options based on size. She said, “That’s the
only one? Small, that’s it? It’s not giving me the sizes I’m looking for. Only small.”
On Overstock’s site, if a user narrowed options down to just one product, the side of
the page where options were normally listed switched to read No More Refinements
Available.
Overstock’s site informed users when there were no more filters available.
Dr. Jakob Nielsen is a principal of Nielsen Norman Group. He is the founder of the
“discount usability engineering” movement, which emphasizes fast and efficient
methods for improving the quality of user interfaces. Nielsen, noted as “the world’s
leading expert on Web usability” by U.S. News and World Report and “the next best
thing to a true time machine” by USA Today, is the author of the bestselling book
Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity (2000), which has sold more than
a quarter of a million copies in 22 languages. His other books include Hypertext and
Hypermedia (1990), Usability Engineering (1993), Usability Inspection Methods
(1994), International User Interfaces (1996), Homepage Usability: 50 Websites
Deconstructed (2001), Prioritizing Web Usability (2006), Eyetracking Web Usability
(2009), and Mobile Usability (2012). In 2013 Nielsen received the SIGCHI Lifetime
Achievement Award for Human–Computer Interaction Practice. Nielsen’s Alertbox
column on Web usability has been published on the Internet since 1995 and
currently has about 200,000 readers. From 1994 to 1998, Nielsen was a Sun
Microsystems Distinguished Engineer. His previous affiliations include Bell
Communications Research, the Technical University of Denmark, and the IBM User
Interface Institute. He holds 79 US patents, mainly on ways of making the Internet
easier to use.
Our
collective
experience
will
save
you
time…
and
money
Making
technology
easier
to
use
is
no
longer
a
nice-‐to-‐have.
Useful,
usable
products
make
money.
And
our
expertise
can
help
your
team
achieve
their
design
goals
quicker
and
easier
than
going
it
alone.
Choosing
NN/g
means
you
benefit
directly
from
our:
• Finely
tuned
methodology:
We
have
an
arsenal
of
proven
tools
at
our
disposal
and
know
how
and
where
to
apply
each
one,
taking
the
guesswork
out
of
how
to
achieve
the
optimal
design
solution
to
meet
your
business
goals.
• Comprehensive
body
of
knowledge:
We’ve
taken
the
results
of
our
decades
of
research
and
testing
and
distilled
it
down
into
actionable
guidelines,
best
practices
and
proven
methodologies.
Our
research
library,
containing
over
50
published
reports,
X
books
and
an
email
newsletter
archive
dating
back
to
1995
is
unrivaled.
• Practical
approach:
Our
approach
is
100%
practical,
useful
and
actionable.
Whether
you
attend
one
of
our
Usability
Week
events
or
invite
us
to
consult
at
your
place
of
business,
the
training
you
will
receive
can
be
put
into
action
immediately
so
that
you
can
see
the
results.
Evidence-Based User Experience Research, Training, and Consulting
Stay
Informed
Jakob
Nielsen’s
Alertbox
Newsletter
Summaries
of
our
latest
research
and
insights
published
twice
per
month.
To
subscribe:
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/subscribe
Evidence-Based User Experience Research, Training, and Consulting
TRAINING
Usability
Week
Events
Usability
Week
training
events
are
offered
in
the
U.S.,
Canada,
the
U.K.,
Europe,
Asia
and
Australia.
Each
week-‐long
event
features
full-‐day,
immersive
training
courses
where
attendees
learn
practical
skills
directly
from
experienced
practitioners
so
they
can
solve
complex
UI
problems
and
create
better
interface
designs.
Over
40
courses
offered
in
these
categories:
• Agile
• Applications
• Content
Strategy
• Credibility
&
Persuasion
• Email
• Information
Architecture
• Interaction
Design
• Intranets
• Mobile
&
Tablet
• Non-‐Profit
Websites
• Prototyping
• Social
UX
• User
Testing
• Visual
Design
• Web
Usability
• Writing
for
the
Web
Available
courses
and
upcoming
locations:
www.nngroup.com/training
In-‐house
Training
Many
of
our
courses
can
be
taught
at
your
location
and
customized
to
fit
your
unique
offerings,
methods
and
resources.
In-‐house
training
is
ideal
for:
• Large
teams
that
want
to
spread
user
experience
perspective
throughout
the
group
• Teams
working
on
large
projects
that
need
to
kick
start
the
creative
process
and
head
in
the
right
direction
In-‐house
training
information:
www.nngroup.com/consulting
Evidence-Based User Experience Research, Training, and Consulting
REPORTS
NN/g
has
published
over
60
reports
that
detail
thousands
of
evidence-‐based
design
guidelines
derived
from
our
independent
research
studies
of
websites,
intranets,
application,
and
mobile
interfaces.
Over
60
reports
addressing
these
topics:
• Agile
• Applications
• Audience
Types
(e.g.,
children,
college
students,
seniors,
people
with
disabilities)
• B2B
Websites
• Corporate
Websites
• Ecommerce
• Email
• Information
Architecture
• Intranets
• Mobile
&
Tablet
• Non-‐Profit
Websites
• User
Testing
• Social
UX
• Strategy
• Web
Usability
Shop
for
reports
here:
www.nngroup.com/reports
Evidence-Based User Experience Research, Training, and Consulting
CONSULTING
The
same
experts
who
conduct
our
research
and
teach
Usability
Week
training
courses
are
available
for
custom
consulting
including:
• Evaluating
your
website,
application,
intranet
or
mobile
interface
(average
cost
$38,000
USD)
• Usability
testing
(average
cost
$35,000
USD)
• Strategic
planning
(average
cost
$12,000
USD)
• On-‐site
training
with
your
team
(average
cost
$9,000
USD
per
day)
Consulting
details:
www.nngroup.com/consulting