Designer survey discovers three things you already know

There's a new survey comparing how designers and users see the Web. I saw at least one distraught reaction to the report, but the disparity in responses is nothing but predictable. Of course designers and users view the Web differently. The critical question throughout is whether users still can accomplish what they need to online. Some questions help illuminate this, and some just confuse things.

(The questions below are paraphrased, because the audiences were surveyed differently. Check the survey report link above for the accurate questions.)

Question 1:  In your opinion, how important is good visual design? (Very important, Important, Somewhat important, Slightly important, Neutral.)

Panicky sound bite: Over 80% of designers answer Very important, but only 50% of users do!

My take: I'm surprised the difference isn't even greater.  Who are the 20% of designers who think visual design is unimportant, and how can I avoid ever working with them?

On the other hand, I translate the opinions of 50% of users as "I take visual design for granted, except when it gets in my way." For most sites, visual design should be there to support user tasks. Business goals like branding and differentiation are secondary.

This is a poorly stated question. A user's opinion about the importance of visual design doesn't matter at all. What matters is whether the visual design helps or hinders users in accomplishing their goals.

Question 2:  When you visit a web page, do you usually know where you are, where you can go next, and which pages are related? (Almost always, Most of the time, Rarely, Almost never, Don't know.)

Panicky sound bite: 70% of designers think users can Almost always orient themselves on their websites. For a typical website, only 10% of users answer Almost always!

My take: Looking more closely at the data, there's another interpretation:  90% of users can orient themselves at least Most of the time.

This answer, again, is not a bit surprising. Observe users trying a new website, and it's obvious "almost always" is too high a threshold. Over and over in user tests, my participants will struggle mightily finding things or making an application work for them. I'll stew in sympathetic frustration for a while, then ask them "How do you feel about your experience so far?" The most common answer is "It's okay so far I guess."

Users expect to have trouble figuring things out. It's unfortunate because they tend to blame themselves for problems designers should have anticipated. On the other hand, it's unrealistic to expect that navigating a new website will have no learning curve. That's why when 80% of users report they're oriented most of the time, it perfectly matches my expectations.

Question 3: If the people who designed the web site could act as your personal guide, would it be helpful?

Panicky sound bite: 40% of users believe a personal guide would Definitely increase their effectiveness, but only 15% of designers agree. Designers overestimate the clarity of their work!

My take: When you visit an unfamiliar library or bookstore, to find a specific book, you probably do one of three things:

1. Ask someone who works there
2. Look for a map to orient yourself, then find the book yourself
3. Just start looking

On the Web, there's no direct analogue to the first option. If there were, of course some people would use it. 40% seems high to me, however. It's a good reminder how much your site's new users value step-by-step instructions, breadcrumbs, and clear "escape hatch" links back Home.

Comments

[Craig Stoltz]

Joshua--

Great post, and thanks for the nod to my own blog entry on the survey. It brought me to your excellent blog, which I only now discovered.

You're right about my interpretation of the survey. My view of the data is colored by the viewpoint of someone (me!) made weary and old by interminable, unproductive looks-good vs. doesn't-work exchanges with designers.

From where I sit design should support function and create a low-friction user experience. I haven't at this point read enough of your blog to say so for sure, but it appears we agree on that.

Anyway, thanks again, and I suspect I'll become a regular visitor.

Cheers,

Craig

[Joshua Ledwell]

Thanks Craig, I'm planning to read more of your blog, too.

[Andrew Wirtanen]

#1 and #2 are expected, as you said. #3 is the most interesting to me.

"On the Web, there's no direct analogue to the first option. If there were, of course some people would use it."

I've seen many websites that have that "live chat" option. Do people use it? Another example of this is Tango by H&R Block which offers "Unlimited Support & Assistance" in the form of a web chat. Every time I have used online chat, the person has to use a template, and does not seem to be able to answer advanced questions. Since it would be impossible for a person to offer chat support for every website on the Internet (and be able to help people instantly), is there an acceptable AI solution? What if, for popular websites, there was a video of a live person to answer questions? Would that be creepy? Would it be cost effective? I don't know if there is an acceptable solution.

[Joshua Ledwell]

I agree about live chat support -- it sounds like a good idea, but in reality users find it slow to ask questions and they get unhelpful answers. The cost of live support too, as you point out, is prohibitive for most websites.

I model the "person who designed the web site acting as your personal guide" after the kiosk check-in at the airport. People who are comfortable and familiar with the system breeze through. Less experienced users can quickly have a person behind the desk help them.

It's a nice model (minus the typical long queues and travel hassles of course!) but not too practical.

[Sean]

I love that headline "Designer survey discovers three things you already know" w00t!