Business owners and marketers need not feel uncomfortable about asking their customers to serve themselves online.  We are finding in testing that consumer acceptance of a self-service model is high across a wide range of consumer target groups and industries.

The reasons for this high level of acceptance includes some obvious ones such as market maturity and increasing comfort with the internet, but in some cases the sad fact is that poor experiences with a business’s other contact channels are sending users online by default.  Customers have told us that they’re happier to transact online, even as it relates to sensitive information such as health records or financial services, than face dealing with a poorly trained and surly call center employee or store front attendant.

The online self-service model suits Australians’ increasingly busy lifestyles, as the ability to control the time and place where interactions occur means that tasks that used to be conducted on a business’s schedule can now be completed in the consumer’s own timeframe.

There are, however, areas in which many organisations offering online transactions still make it harder for their customers.

Expecting your users to interact with your business on your terms is probably the most basic but common reason why self-service systems fall down.  Often, self-service systems are designed to adhere to a business’s own internal processes, and attempt to ‘force’ customer interactions to mirror these processes.  For example, your CRM system may assign customers a unique account number which identifies them to the system.  Naturally, the simplest way for you to identify the customer when they return is to have them remember their account number.  This may be simpler for your business, but unless your customer interacts with you nearly daily or at least weekly, it’s unlikely they will remember that number.  Your user wants to interact with you on their terms, not on yours.

Being mindful of a few basic rules when implementing a self service interface will go a long way to building users’ comfort and confidence.  These include:

1. Locate the entry point for self service in a prominent and easy to find position on your website. Typically, users will look for sign in options in the top right hand corner of a page.  While in testing users are usually able to find the sign-in when it’s placed on other parts of the page, they still expect to find it in the top right hand corner location, so whenever possible it’s good to locate it in that expected location
2. Do not force users to register. Allowing users to complete a transaction without having to first register on your site can increase conversions dramatically. Wherever possible, offer users the option to register should they wish (to speed up future transactions) or to conduct the current transaction without registering first.
3. Allow users to choose their own usernames and passwords. If users must register, consider whether requiring users to remember a customer number or system generated PIN is really necessary, and whether either can be replaced by a username and password of the users’ choosing.  Users will likely have several usernames and passwords for multiple websites, and unless they transact with you on a near daily basis the chances are that they may not remember the necessary unique details required to access your site.  It’s also recommended that users be allowed to use an email address as their username
4. Make security cues and signals be prominent on the interface. On ecommerce websites, the names and logos of recognised security infrastructure providers are essential to help reassure users that they are using a legitimate website.  We would also recommend that a business provide a link to a plain English privacy policy that is free of legal jargon.
5. Alternate contact information (such as a phone number and physical address) should also be easy to find. If you think a strategy of making this information difficult to find will work to encourage your users into using self-service, think again.  Concealing this information will not build trust with your users.  Worse, you risk alienating those users who are happy to use self service but have had a problem with the process that they need resolved.  You may get away with this strategy if your service is truly unique and can’t be replaced, but you won’t be doing your relationship with your users any favours.  And as soon as they find a comparable service that’s easier to use, they’ll be off.
6. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Remember that your user is saving you money by using self service, so be respectful of their time when they visit.  It may be tempting to cross promote your other services to the users when they visit, but don’t impede their ability to complete what they intended to do.  If a user is visiting your website to check their account balance, providing a call-out box located near that information which suggests other products is the right way to introduce them to your other services.  Requiring users to click through a marketing splash page prior to reaching their own account information is not.

Improving online self service processes can be a win for everyone. Your customers can access your services when and wherever they want, whilst you can increase efficiency and conversions by moving more of you business online.

Breadcrumb trails, those links you see at the top of the page that often start with text such as, “You are here:”, provide a number of benefits to users and website owners alike:

• They act as a signpost to where the user is within a site. This is particularly beneficial to users that arrive on your site via a search engine. The breadcrumb trail allows these users to identify what section of your site that they are in, as well as providing a quick preview of the type of content the site holds.
• Breadcrumb trails also allow users to move back to any page in the trail with a single click, rather than multiple clicks of the browser back button.
• They also provide some SEO benefits and Google is now including breadcrumb trails in their search results.

The name “breadcrumb trail” suggests a path that the user has taken to reach their current location (think Hansel and Gretel) and this is certainly true when considering a very linear user experience. However, that linear experience is no longer truly representative of the way in which many users interact with websites, particularly content rich sites where users have a high level of engagement.

Consider the following example, a user arrives at the home page of a news website, they click on the primary navigation option Entertainment, then a sub-heading Movies and then an article. Up to this point the breadcrumb serves the users well in reflecting the journey.

It is quite likely that in order to increase the amount of time that the user spends on the site, in our example above, users are encouraged to click on some form of related content (e.g. blog, video, image slideshow). Typically, this content is located in a different section of the website which results in a resetting of the breadcrumb trail. This suggests that despite its name, the breadcrumb trail is actually intended to demonstrate the location of content within a site’s IA, rather than how the user has arrived at a particular page (insert image).

What does all of this mean for the implementation of the breadcrumb trail, and recommendations we make as user experience professionals? Although our experience suggests that only a minority of users will use breadcrumb trails we still feel that they have a role to play on a website; however the definition and application of that role is a lot more ambiguous than it used to be. What do you think?

Everyone’s time seems ever more tight, and having less than the ideal amount of time to complete a project seems the unfortunate side effect of that. We’ve all got stakeholders who are screaming for results, and that ends up sometimes making us squeeze our own timeframes and those of the team we’re working with.

One area of project preparation where the expectation is that time can be saved is in recruitment. We aim to have a two week window to recruit participants for a study as a general rule, but sometimes we are asked to turn things around quicker. In some instances, such as when the target is quite general or broad, asking our recruiter to turn around a list of participants faster isn’t as much of a problem, but in other instances, such as when the recruitment specifications call for a very specific target such as “Alaskan Malamute dog breeders based in Parramatta who are looking to purchase a new car in the next three months” (okay, I’m exaggerating here, but you get the picture), recruitment at short notice is not as easy.

In situations where timing becomes critical, we inevitably will have to compromise on at least some aspect of the recruitment to meet the deadline. We may have to agree to a broader age target than we would have wanted to test with, or a different mix of genders than is ideal.  These impacts can sometimes be significant on the end result of our projects, because the profiles of the users we test with do not replicate the target closely enough.  This could skew our results, or have the effect of masking significant issues that may have come to light had we tested with the appropriate target.

When we think about all of the factors that are at play in a usability project, the participants we test with are critical to the process. The most carefully crafted research plan will not deliver the insights we need about a target if the participants we test with are just too far off the target of interest. Garbage in, garbage out.

Jo and I stepped into this lift last week and just had to take a photo.  Where is the right facing button going to take us??  I guess it goes to show that implementation is so important.

Often, UsabilityOne work with clients who are constrained in the changes that they can make to their websites by design rules enforced by an international parent company. Employing a consistent design can be greatly beneficial in building a strong international brand, however, in some cases these constraints can negatively impact the user experience of a local website. When constrained by these types of design rules there are several points to keep in mind:

1. Use language that is appropriate for the local audience. It is important that the website speaks to the user in familiar language and not only in terms of product names but throughout detailed content such as terms and conditions.
2. Use images that are appropriate for the local audience. The imagery used is an important branding tool,  used to differentiate categories of content and often are navigable items. The use of inappropriate imagery can be disconcerting and create mistrust. It is important that the images used depict scenes that will resonate with the local audience.
3. Ensure that the iconography and symbols used, are appropriate for the local audience. Icons and symbols that are instantly recognisable to a European audience may not be relevant to an Australian one.
4. Where strict adherence to international guidelines creates serious difficulties for your users, be prepared to bend the rules to ensure the best user experience is provided.

For some further reading, see Christian Arno’s post on Inspect Element.

Meeting with clients in Canberra recently reinforced our belief that the topic of website consolidation is a hot issue right now. Should government departments – and to a lesser extent, corporate bodies – have a proliferation of websites for each campaign and project? Or should their online presence be consolidated in the form of one main website containing all the disparate elements of the business or body.

There appears to be somewhat of a standoff between government and bodies on whether to create – for example – campaign sites, or to incorporate these into department websites.

Creating separate campaign sites has its benefits. These sites can be designed around one focused message, cutting through the noise of the rest of the Department’s activities. However, they also introduce confusion, as users must find a separate site rather than finding all content on the parent Department site.

The Department of Health and Aging (health.gov.au) has individual websites for many of their campaigns, such as How do you measure up?(measureup.gov.au); Alcohol-related harm (drinkingnightmare.gov.au) and the national tobacco campaign (quitnow.info.au). The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (dbcde.gov.au) has lots of information about the switchover to digital television on their main website but have also developed a campaign website, Get Ready for Digital TV (digitalready.gov.au).

Whether or not to create a stand-alone campaign website  is the question. This is a question that has been increasingly prevalent lately, and we’d love to hear your thoughts or experiences…

Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has just launched yet another new venture, one that has the potential to meet a pressing need in digital payments. Square is an iPhone app that allows people to make credit card payments using only their phone. The system works by using a small device that plugs into the headphone jack and collects the cards swipe data, then users can sign on the phone’s screen to complete the transaction. In addition to its basic function of processing payments, Square also claims to simplify the sales and record keeping process for both retailers and customers by offering several features such as directly emailing receipts to customers, adding meta data such as location to receipts and allowing retailers to set up alternate workflows for common transactions.

Whilst it is unclear whether customers have to already have an account to benefit from most of Square’s features, this is definitely an exciting release for small retailers. Not only will small businesses such as couriers, street vendors and market stall holders be able to cheaply and easily accept credit card transactions, but larger retailers can now also offer on-the-spot transactions to rival the Apple Store’s system with minimal overhead.

Square is not yet available in Australia, but we look forward to getting our hands on it and seeing how the app works. We have recently conducted research for a number of clients looking at attitudes towards mobile payments, especially in the area of security. What we have seen is that products like Square will quite likely face a challenge when it comes to overcoming user’s perception that mobile and online payments are not secure. The behaviors we have observed suggest that, regardless of fact, people still see online transactions as carrying a higher risk than traditional transactions (yes, people will happily give their credit card to a stranger over the phone yet not enter it into a secure form on Amazon), and mobile transactions are even further out of there comfort zones. So the first step that a product like this will have to make is to ensure its design suggests safety and security, and to step users through the process and why certain steps are necessary in order to alleviate any security concerns.

Hopefully Square will be able to overcome the issues and persuade people that using it for payments is a safe alternative. The iPhone (and now the iPad) have opened up a new platform offering interactions that may not previously have been considered, and  designers and developers are rising to the challenge of designing for these interactions with vigour.

The registration process was going smoothly. I just had to enter a password and I would be able to download my last superannuation statement. I entered the same combination of letters and numbers that I always use for my passwords and hit ‘Submit’. Suddenly, red text flashed up and informed me this password was invalid as I needed to include a symbol. Was I meant to be psychic? With a twinge of annoyance, I added a symbol and again clicked ‘Submit’. No luck. This time it told me I had to include two symbols. With gritted teeth, I persevered. After three more attempts, I ended up with a password that vaguely resembled “saRA80#!”.

Although I had no hope of remembering this password, I didn’t bother writing it down because I had already decided out of sheer annoyance to never to use this online process again. Why was my generic password sufficient for online banking but not for this relatively risk-free task? And come to think of it, why should they get to dictate how strong my password should be? As a customer, this should be my prerogative!

Requiring complex password policies not only frustrates customers; it results in higher costs for organisations. Customers will generally either stop using the online process and revert back to more costly customer service processes (increasing call centre demand with their multitude of forgotten password requests) or  write the password down, thereby defeating the purpose of this security measure altogether.

When security policies have such a negative impact on usability, it’s time to rethink priorities. What’s more important to your customers: an impenetrable password or easy access? Incorporate this into your research to find out, or let the user decide for themselves.

Lifts can, at times, be confusing.  Is street level ’0′ or ’1′? Did I enter the building on ‘G’ or ‘B’?  Jo and I saw this example whilst visiting the Department of Justice on Wednesday.  And immediately took a snap.