PUBLIC SITE USABILITY TEST
KEY DETAILS
My Role: UX Researcher
Timeline: April 9, 2024 - April 16, 2024
Tools: Lyssna
PROJECT CONTEXT
GSG’s public sites listed all payment methods in the shopping cart, graying out unavailable options with a tooltip explanation. In contrast, the legacy site did not list unavailable payment methods. UX was tasked with determining which method (grayed out vs. not shown) was clearer to customers.
GOALS
The goal was to assess customer clarity and behavior regarding unavailable payment methods and determine the preferred design approach.
RECRUITING
A total of 50 participants were recruited through Lyssna's Panel, with 25 participants assigned to each test version. However, due to two participants in Version A not following instructions, the final analysis included 48 participants.
METHOD & PROCESS
In this study I employed a comparative testing approach to evaluate user preferences and behaviors regarding unavailable payment methods on the public and legacy sites. Two test versions were developed in Lyssna:
-
Test Version A: This version presented participants with a checkout scenario where unavailable payment options were grayed out. Participants were shown a screenshot reflecting this design and asked to respond to open-ended questions about their immediate reactions and next steps upon noticing the unavailability of their preferred payment method (E-check).
-
Test Version B: In this version, the unavailable payment options were completely removed from the list. Participants were similarly shown a screenshot and asked the same open-ended questions as in Version A.
For both tests, participants were presented with the following instructions:
Imagine that you are using our site to purchase a new license plate for your vehicle. Typically, you prefer to pay for important items like this using your bank account (E-check).
These initial instructions were used to simulate the experience of a user checking out on our site and having a desired payment option that would ultimately be withheld from them. These instructions were also intended to align with the screenshots provided by stakeholders who requested this study.
After reviewing the instructions, participants were presented with a screenshot of an unavailable payment option design.
In test Version A, the unavailable payment option was grayed out. In Version B, the unavailable payment option was removed. Each screenshot was presented with the following sentence and two open-ended questions:
When checking out, you notice that the E-check payment option isn’t available.
-
What is your immediate reaction to E-check being made unavailable?
-
After noticing E-check is unavailable, what would be your next step?
After answering the open-ended questions, both test versions asked participants the following multiple-choice question:
In general, when you’re checking out and a payment method isn’t available, would you rather have that method grayed out, or not be shown at all?
-
Don’t show the option at all
-
Show the option grayed out
-
No preference
-
Other
This question helped me gain insight into their general preferences outside the context of this study, and was an initial indicator for participant inclinations towards graying out or removing payment options.
Participant responses to the above question provided added context to the final portion of the study which consisted of the following preference test and short answer:
For our site, which design do you prefer: Unavailable payment option grayed out or not shown at all? Please briefly explain your preference.
-
Design 1 (Grayed Out)
-
Design 2 (No option Shown)
The selected methodology aimed to eliminate bias by exposing participants to different initial designs and gathering qualitative and quantitative data on user preferences and behaviors.
ANALYSIS & SYNTHESIS
Participants in both tests generally preferred not to see unavailable payment options, finding this approach less confusing and frustrating. Some participants appreciated the grayed-out option for its explanatory value, especially if the unavailability was temporary.
FINDINGS
Most participants preferred the design where unavailable payment options were not shown at all, considering it clearer and less frustrating. The presence of convenience fees influenced some participants' choice of payment method.
IMPACT & REFLECTIONS
The study indicates a strong preference for removing unavailable payment options, suggesting this approach is less likely to confuse or frustrate users. This insight can guide design decisions to enhance user experience by focusing on clarity and reducing unnecessary information.