Shurgard eyetracking

Shurgard Eye Tracking Case

1

Website op*misa*on through eye tracking

Agenda

1.  About me. About LBi. 2.  About Shurgard. 3.  First assessment of site performance. 4.  Methodology for the eye tracking test. 5.  The eye tracking test itself. 6.  The results. 7.  What to remember ?


2

1. ABOUT LBI

linkedin.com/in/jonathanbillen

Jonathan Billen InformaJon Architect Usability Expert LBi Brussels ONE Agency Netlash Agency.com


3

A global marketing and technology agency, blending strategic, creative, media and technical expertise to create business value.

Who we are

Where we are


4

PE

OP

LE B

RA

ND

S

Our blended services

2. THE CLIENT


5

Who is Shurgard ?

« AcJve in Europe since 1995 « OperaJng in 7 European countries

from Brussels HQ « RenJng out storage space to

private users (70%) and business users (30%)

« AcJve on the internet since 1999 « Web is primary lead-‐generaJon

channel since 2004

Consumer percepJon

•  Low brand / product awareness •  Need driven product •  Proximity is important •  Wide compe**on range •  Price range not in balance with expectaJons


6

Old web process

Select a loca*on Complete a form Price indica*on by phone

Fullfillment of the contract

MAP FORM PHONE CALL AT THE STORE

New web process

Indicate loca*on Select store and unit size

Simple form No payment

Fullfillment of the contract

HOMEPAGE SEARCH RESULT RESERVATION AT THE STORE


7

New web process

3. FIRST ASSESSMENT

ON SITE PERFORMANCE


8

Users point out the first issues

•  User tes*ng in collaboraJon with Humix •  Think aloud method •  First usability problems idenJfied •  First quick fix proposed •  In-‐depth tesJng to understand “why ?” •  TesJng of soluJons

Issue on the homepage

3 out of 6 end users did not find this entry point


9

Issue on the Search Result Page

End users don’t see the link to the size esJmator.

End users hardly noJce the search refine parameters

End users did not understand this was the bucon to the next

step

First improvement


10

4. METHODOLOGY FOR THE EYE TRACKING TEST

•  TesJng on shurgard.co.uk •  Eye tracking test in usability lab of LBi London

•  Data gathering: • Eye tracking gaze plot • Video data • QualitaJve observa*ons

Gaze plot

Usability lab LBi London

User test with eye tracking


11

10 profiles recruited by an external agency

•  5 men and 5 woman

•  Between 31 and 51 years old

•  At least 5 have experience with self-‐storage

•  Are familiar with the internet

•  Good mix in financial situa*on

Profiles of the test users

1.   Pre quesJonnaire •  Check whether person fits the profile

•  Discuss storage and computer experience

2.  ExecuJon of customer journeys with eye tracking •  Tasks in the form of customer journeys

•  5 different prototypes for the SERP

3.   Post quesJonnaire •  Reflect on the excecuted task

ConducJng the test


12

5. THE TEST ITSELF

HOMEPAGE


13

Key quesJon:

How fluently do users find the entry point for making a reservaJon?

2 / 5 respondents showed difficul*es to get started. One was assisted amer 48 sec

First observaJons


14

First observaJons

It took one respondent 28 sec to find and understand the starJng point and click to get started

First observaJons

User saw input field amer 3 sec but it took him eventually 30 sec to understand this was the starJng point.


15

First observaJons

First 3 seconds of a respondent that found and understood the homepage immediately

•  Overnight the copy above the input field was changed into a simple instrucJon.

•  From «Find your store and reserve your unit »

•  Into a simple «Start Here !»

•  An arrow was added on the CTA bucon

•  Two respondents on day 2 used new homepage

AlternaJve scenario


16

Homepage 1 Homepage 2

AlternaJve scenario

ObservaJons -‐ alternaJve

First 5 sec on the homepage: the respondent started typing amer 5,8 seconds.


17

ObservaJons -‐ alternaJve

First 5 sec on the homepage: the respondent started typing amer 4,8 seconds

Results

« Find your store and reserve your unit now »

ü NoJced by 3/5 respondents

ü Label not well understood

ü 20 – 30 seconds to entry point

« Start here »

ü NoJced and understood by all

ü Label is clear and acJonable

ü Within 7 sec


18

• "Start Here!" instrucJon: users needed significantly less Jme to find and understand the entry point compared to "Find your store and reserve your unit".

• Less memory load. More Jme to concentrate on real task.

• Change the label into a short and clear instrucJon

RecommendaJon

SEARCH RESULT PAGE


19

Key quesJons:

•  How to structure SERP page best ? •  Check boxes or slider ? •  How to improve call-‐back

funcJonality ?

Setup


20

Five variations

SERP 1


21

SERP 2

SERP 3


22

SERP 4

SERP 5


23

Confirming the selecJon AM I ON THE RIGHT PLACE ?

The first thing all users did was checking whether they had entered the right keyword on the homepage.

ObservaJon


24

Users need some confirma*on on their former made ac*on in order to mentally be able to go to the next step.

ObservaJon

Finding the right product CHECKBOX, SLIDER, RESULTS


25

• The version with checkboxes was tested 8 *mes with 4 different users

•  The slider was tested 20 *mes. All 10 test users used the sliders

?

Check box or slider ?

• All users seem familiar with the usage of checkboxes

• Users fluently began to research the list with unit sizes and refine their search results

First 3 seconds on SERP 1. First 16 seconds on SERP 1

ObservaJon: check box


26

• Usage of the slider is unclear.

• Is it used to refine the search results?

ObservaJon: slider

Checkboxes

ü Fluently noJced

ü Well understood

ü No funcJonal difficulJes

Slider

ü Fluently noJced

ü Not well understood

ü User ‘wonders’ about the funcJoning.

ü Users try to put the marker in between two metrics

Results


27

• Use the checkboxes: users are more familiar with them.

• No memory load needed to ‘wonder’ about how it would work.

•  Better accessibility for touch based devices

RecommendaJon

Calling for assistance CALL-BACK FUNCTION


28

Call back funcJonality was visually ignored.

SERP 1

SERP 2

Call back funcJonality was noJced very well


29

SERP 3

Call back funcJonality was not noJced very well.

SERP 4

Call back funcJonality was noJced but with less acenJon


30

SERP 5

Call back funcJonality was noJces but only received a licle acenJon

The best visible placement of the call-‐back funcJon:

• between the "refine search" funcJon and "search results »

• in the visual context

RecommendaJon


31

Extra: making a descision SIZE ESTIMATOR

• Women were less likely to choose a unit size without calling the call center first.

• Some users don’t want to look further at all: they wish to speak to a professional.

• Without the confirma*on and *ps, they are not likely to make a reservaJon online.

ObservaJon


32

• Whether users contact a call center depends strongly on their personality.

• Lower anxiety as much as possible by: •  Not hiding the call back funcJon

•  Announcing a kind of guarantee that if the unit size would not fit their need they can always change it.

RecommendaJon

6. RESULTS


33

Results

+30% click-‐through from home to the SERP

+5% click-‐through to the reservaJon page

+2% actual reservaJons

Next steps

•  Expert review of reservaJon page •  ImplementaJon and A/B test


34

7. WHAT TO REMEMBER

1. User-‐centered design process

PrevenJon cost

CorrecJon cost

Failure cost

Coding is long… Design is short… Paper is cheap…

Validate investments via user tesJng


35

linkedin.com/in/jonathanbillen

[email protected]

Business

Shurgard eyetracking