All projects: Gel, Jobs, Good Todo, Games, Uncle Mark, Blog, Bit Literacy
Customer experience is harder than it looks
I have to admit something strange: I'm amused by poorly designed websites. The worse the better. Much like some people "love to hate" movie villains, I get a peculiar satisfaction from finding myself completely lost in an ill-conceived, over-designed, steaming pile of a website.
And it happens all the time. With a few notable exceptions, almost any major site, brand, or company I visit online is at least mildly frustrating - and surprisingly often I find high-profile sites that are nearly impossible to use from the first page or two, leaving me astounded at the supreme waste of time and money they represent.
And I love to hate it - the juicy ridiculousness of it all - millions of dollars poured into something that is so obviously a wreck. I think I have to enjoy it on some level, given my role as a customer experience consultant; otherwise work would be pretty difficult (see also: doctors who can't stand the sight of blood).
I'm guessing you've had a similar experience of being frustrated by a large company's website. You go online to accomplish simple task X, or shop for product Y, or browse through information Z - and the site gives you swooping graphics and miniscule text from the designers, excited (not exciting) promotions from the marketing team, and features from the geeks that act as grand staircases to nowhere... but not the thing you were looking for.
At this moment, your reaction is probably similar to mine, those four well-known words: what were they thinking?!
The solution seems so simple. Why don't these companies experience their website from the perspective of a user so that they can see what's so obvious to us? If they'd just take an outside perspective, it would be easy for them to clean up the design, simplify the paths through the site, and generally orient their offering for the benefit of the user, rather than for short-sighted, self-serving aims. The company would save money in development and maintenance, and make more money from customers, and customers would be more likely to recommend the site to others. Slam dunk, case closed. Right?
I thought so at first. When I started Creative Good in 1997, offering to help companies do just this, I figured it would be an easy sale. After all, what company wouldn't immediately see the value in listening to customers? Surely I could have an impact on enough major sites that users would generally have a less frustrating experience online by, say, the year 2000.
But a funny thing happened on the way to solving the problem: only a few companies paid attention. Instead... well, here's an example. In one of my favorite stories from the early days, I found myself, in 1998, sitting in the office of a VP of Marketing for a top-20 website, pitching him the idea I described above: listen to users, make some simple changes, and start reaping the benefits immediately.
In the middle of my pitch I noticed he wasn't paying attention. "Hey, look," he said while still checking his computer screen, "our stock is up two points today."
Needless to say, I didn't get the job. The site never improved. And today, it's no longer a significant player in its market.
It's rarely that stark, though. In lots of cases my team or I have met an enthusiastic stakeholder within the company who buys into the customer experience idea, understands the problems on the site, and wants to improve. But they're stymied by other parts of the organization who are affected by inertia, bureaucratic process, short-term thinking, turf wars, inefficiency and distraction due to information overload, and a host of other issues. There are often too many concerns inside the organization to properly focus on who's outside the organization: the customers. And so the customer experience doesn't improve, despite how obvious the need (and potential gain) may be to objective observers like you and me. Actually getting a change made is really hard.
About a year ago a talented young Web designer named Dustin Curtis posted a rant railing against American Airlines for its poor website design and suggesting a clean and attractive alternative. Mr. Curtis's frustration - rage, really - came through in his letter, in which he "vowed never to fly your airline again." All I could think was "ahh, youth." It's easy to find the problems out there but much, much harder to push through an improvement. Suggesting an improved design - as Curtis expertly did - is a tiny step in the process.
Maybe another time I'll say more about how to make improvements to a customer experience. For now, let's acknowledge that many, many high-profile websites are wasteful and way too difficult to use. And probably always will be. Let's salute those people - inside and outside those companies - who are taking on the very difficult task of doing something about it.
- - -
See also:
• The most important user experience method (written in 2003, still applicable today)
• Creative Good (my company, 13 years old, still focused on improving customer experience)
It's sad, but true. It's even sadder when you acknowledge truer statements like Jakob Nielsen's oft-quoted "People spend the majority of their time on the Internet on other websites." His point being, of course, that you should design your website to act like others'. Shudder. When clients say to me, "we want a navigation menu like AOL's," it's difficult not to just get up and walk out on the deal right then and there. But if I did, we wouldn't be making any progress at all. And while one inch forward isn't as good as a whole leap, it's better than nothing.
PS - I'm glad Dustin got a shout-out in this article. He deserves it. No matter what profession we are in, everyone thinks that their profession is something "everyone else should at least understand the basics of." We've made at least some head-way in this area over the last 100 years with cars (hey, I can change my own oil!) and over the last 20 years with PCs (though most people still don't know what a web browser is). On that note, design - in its abstract - is one area we all really should have a basic understanding of, as it helps to inform us on important decisions like: what computer to buy, what restaurant to pick, what wedding ring to splurge on, etc. Dustin Curtis is one of those designers who has a natural taste for amazing design. He's even younger than I, and I can't wait to see the World At Large discover his talents.
I think there is another, crucial element at play here: fear.
I've had great clients who agreed wholeheartedly with our recommendations, but who were afraid to make change because change risks failure, and failure is unacceptable and quite punishable in corporate America. Thus, we create a culture of fear, fear which results in apathy and avoidance.
If companies wish to improve their customer experiences, they should encourage risk-taking, not reward those who avoid it. Change can be dangerous, sure, but no improvement can be made without it.
Halfway down I started thinking about Dustin Curtis and the reply he got from AA. Then I read it...are you reading our minds?!? :)
I think the big company websites get weighed down in content, trying to make sure every last bit of marketing BS is there, instead of focusing on what 95% of the visitors are actually looking for.
Tim is right. The big company websites gets weighed down in content. We are consistently told by our visitors how much they like our website. Some even go out of the way to call and let us know. Probably because we focus on being as minimalistic as possible. Our competitors are eager to throw up every case study, article they've ever written, whitepaper, industry analysis, client testimonial, anything that will make them appear to be experts in their field, which is good, if that's what their customers are looking for. But I find that information overload can be very overwhelming. Ultimately, you want a potential customer to be intrigued enough to want to contact you and start a conversation, not make up their mind about whether or not they want to do business with you just based on web content.
I have to admit shaking my head in amazement and amusement at the stupidity of so many of the experiences offered users but for me, the problem space is simple.
Business believes they own their websites and can push anything out that they want, whether its technical wizardry or tons of content, "they are in control".
That's the mistake. Online, the user is in control. Learners were in control when they wanted to jump around inside lock-step computer-based training; they are still in control when they purchase online or visit a website to find out the current interest rate.
Business might build and maintain their website, they might think THEY can decide what they will reveal and what they will hold back but the user owns the digital space, and owners, in this case, users, like things to be the way THEY want.
I've been saying it for years - business should "beware the user agenda".
I am not so much amused by poor websites as puzzled. Time and again I find myself wondering:
"Why, why, why was this abomination let out the door and up on the Web without being properly tested?"
And when you see a user-hateful website that is the focus of a large, expensive promotional campaign at the same time, you can tag a couple more "why, oh whys" on there.
Slow, bloated pages (I happened upon a 515 KB beauty this morning), typos, jargon, crap stock photos, "click here" links, no metadata... the list of crapness goes on and on.
Mark, really excellent column today.
The reference to Dustin and AA is a good one, but have you heard the entire story!? It gets worse than just making an improved design recommendation and not pushing for change...
Dustin gets a response from a "UX Architect" at AA: http://dustincurtis.com/dear_dustin_curtis.html which is fine and if anything, stresses your point Mark (making change happen in big corp environments is not easy). Dustin even commends the UX guy on his ability and skill. You can tell the UX guy is on the same side as Dustin.
But then the story takes a turn for the worse. Unthinkable really. http://dustincurtis.com/incompetence.html I was shocked, and this only further validates the widely held belief that AA will be no more in 10 years. They seem to still only be alive because of life support (laws that give them monopolies in certain cities/areas, government in their pockets). While JetBlue is a great airline, an even better one in terms of customer experience is Southwest. Is it any wonder they are the most profitable airline in the US (if not the only one making a profit)?
I've been thinking about how annoying and difficult to use websites are. I spent about 15 or more minutes at one site, trying to find a simple piece of information-- a telephone#, because I could not get the depth of answer that I needed on the site.
I've come to the conclusion that for all the technological wizardry, multi-media, and what-have-you, from a design standpoint, surfing the web is still a 2D experience and everything that a website is trying to communicate is crammed into that dimension, giving equal weight to all information presented, rather than allowing the user to dynamically make that decision on any given visit depending on what they want to get done.
The "real world" on the other hand, is multi-dimensional, and we are wired to seek and process information within that context. Even though it is often complex, to some degree we are still able to choose what we attend to or filter out based on our location relative to the data, putting us more in control. We can also change that relationship on the fly, which cannot be done (at least not readily) on a website. Yes we can navigate to different levels of a website, but it is just to more flat presentations of data.
I think you are absolutely right.
The problem could be solved by recognising the importance of UX as a key role within an organisation, and giving that person / that team more weight. All too often the UX team has to fight against all that you mention and they rarely get the last word. Other people higher in the hierarchy assume their role for crucial decisions and live with shrinkwrapped, challengeable statements like "but people don't scroll" or "we don't want to add an extra click" or "I prefer this version" without arguments as to why...
I'm not a web designer, but I sure can relate your experience.
I graduated from a liberal arts college and the collateral material I've received from them is abominable. Halfheartedly photoshopped crappy postcards and fridge magnets... I once sent them a letter to complain.
Of course, I didn't get a response and their graphic design continues to depress me. But I felt like they needed to know that the lousy quality of their work speaks volumes about their university. Even if they don't notice, their audience just might.
It's been years, but I'm still ticked off by it. I guess as an industrial designer it's my curse to care.
In the past five years I've taken the time to send feedback to probably 50 companies whose websites frustrated my efforts. Many were commercial sites who lost my business, not only due to poor design, but due to serious flaws in the mechanics of the site. I carefully documented my experience and explained what I was trying to do. In all that time, I received not one personal thank you or request for more information! I only received a few automated replies. Why don't I quit? I have to believe that somewhere, at some time, enough cries from lost customers has got to get through to someone. Maybe not?
This is such a comforting article because I wrestle with trying to sell usability everyday. I am AMAZED and frustrated every time people resist it because to me it is black and white/right and wrong. Yet I struggle with developers and designers who don't see it and don't value usability. It is just nice to know that it isn't just my problem. Sad.