Lisbon UxCocktail Hour

June 4th, 2014 by James

UxCocktail Hour

UXLX is happening this week in Lisbon. That can only mean that the legendary UxCocktail Hour is back as well! After four years, we’ll be bigger and better than ever!

UxCocktail Hour is the only unofficial fringe party during UXLX. If you are in Lisbon, come and join us for a drink as the sun goes down at the Miradouro São Pedro de Alcantara (pictures of the miradoro).

The idea of the UxCocktail Hour is that after a day in a conference room in modern Expo, to have a drink before dinner overlooking old Lisbon. Don’t miss seeing a city in daylight that Charles Dickens described as even more beautiful than Venice.

There will be a bus from FIL, where UXLX is being held, to Miradouro São Pedro de Alcantara where the UxCocktail Hour takes place. The bus leaves FIL just after 18h15 to take you to the party.

For the local UX community, and anyone else who wants to make their own way to the UxCocktail Hour, the drinks start at 19h00.

If you want to join the UXLX official dinner, it is happening a short walk down the hill in Terreiro do Paço. Alternatively, you can join us for dinner (“ask us for details”).

Where and When
Thursday 5th of June 2014
19h00
Miradoro São Pedro de Alcantara (map)

Bus Schedule
Trype Oriente Hotel 18h15 | 18h30
Rotunda FIL 18h35 | 18h45
Miradouro 19h00 | 19h15

Save your seat on the bus. Sign up here: vista.webnographer.com

About the organizers
Webnographer is a usability agency that collects data, and generates insights to back up design decisions. It has offices in Lisbon and Ireland.

Web Made Good mix innovative technology with great design to make the web a better place. They have offices in Lisbon and London.

ONDACITY is the leading provider of relocation services to Lisbon. It is about launch a new product offering “War Rooms”, or Project rooms to people wanting to escape to Lisbon where they can be creative. The founders of Ondacity are from Malta and Australia.

Getting Customer Discovery Right

May 7th, 2014 by James

3836441271_5a9f4597f3_z

Think your idea’s that valuable? Then go try to sell it and see what you get for it. Not much is probably the answer. Until you actually start making something, your brilliant idea is just that, an idea. And everyone’s got one of those.

Jason Fried – Rework

One of the fastest growing research methodologies for startups is called customer discovery, which is part of the Lean startup movement. The method, if it is done rightly, is great for identifying potential user needs. But if done wrong, can lead the startup going in the wrong direction.

A friend of ours, Santiago was thinking of starting a company aimed at tourists in Lisbon. He had joined a startup accelerator. Accelerators are meant to do exactly what they are called, accelerate startups.

Santiago came to us very sad and depressed as he had just tried Customer Discovery, and he had not really found any customers. Customer Discovery, he was told, is to go out and try to find customers. The issue was after a day he had only found one potential customer for his service.

In fact, there was a massive potential for his idea, the challenge was that he had been instructed the wrong way.

Just because you have only seen white swans does not mean that there are no Black Swans. (Black swans are native to Australia, and were not discovered until the 17th Century). The accelerator’s had just pushed him out of the door and told him to find tourists. He was not given either the method or the time to think about where or who his customers were to enable him to test his idea.

If Santiago had started with a hypothesis, his life would have been simpler. A hypothesis is a prediction of the research outcome. Coming up with a hypothesis would have forced him to think through both who, and where his potential customers where.

After we sat down with him, and helped him come up with some hypothesis, he carried out the research in another part of town and found many potential customers. Even if he had come back with negative results, with a hypothesis he would have known how he was wrong, and therefore be able to change his assumptions for the next round of tests.

A useful method for coming up with a hypothesis is Jeff Gothelf’s Proto-Personas. Jeff’s method helps one to be fast, and to give some structure to your idea of whom you think your users or customers are. You can very easily start with these proto-personas, and then use your research to try to discover them.

The take away from this is that if you use a Hypothesis, or make assumptions before carrying out your research, even a negative result will be useful. Also be careful on who you take advice from. Bad advice may mean ditching an idea that could work.

Related articles

» How to do Customer Discovery by Steve Blank on Slideshare
» 23 Remote Usability Methods by Webnographer
» Discovering WHY from numbers by Webnographer

Image credit

Photo by Francisco Vicente

“Why You Only Need to Test with 5 Users”
is no longer relevant

April 29th, 2014 by James

5 users is not enough anymore

The status quo for User Experience (UX) is to test a website with only 5 users.   We keep getting asked why – if this is true – do you need to use a tool like Webnographer to test with more users? The perceived wisdom is that 5 users will find 85% of the site’s usability issues.   Without addressing issues like, how the context of the lab effects the users behavior, here is our answer.   We argue that the idea that you only need 5 users is very old, and needs updating.

The underlying assumption

Jakob Nielsen, a Usability guru, 21 years ago wrote a paper that said that you only need to test with 5 users to discover 85% of your usability issues [1][2]. The claim is based on the  formula (1-(1- .31 ).   The formula is simple.   Nearly every UX Consultant quotes it. But the formula makes a huge assumption in that usability issues have a visibility of 31%, which means that the usability issues affect at least 31% of your users. The question is does this still hold up today after so many years?   In the time since Nielsen discovered the “formula” both the technology, and the people using software has changed dramatically.   I will provide evidence that we need to revisit the constants used in the formula, and show that we need to be testing with more than 5 users.

Technology change

Back in 1993, when the formula was first introduced, the World Wide Web was only one year old.   Nowadays, we take for granted that if you need to book a flight you just visit Expedia, Kayak, or the airline’s website. Back then if you needed to book a flight you had to go to a travel agent, who had months of training to use the Computer Reservation system.   Windows 3.1 was also just released, which was the first popular Windows operating system.   Before then most people used DOS, they interacted with the computer through a black screen.   To just copy a file you needed to remember and type a series of commands.

PC_DOS_1.10_screenshotMacintosh_Mavericks_Desktop

In these past 21 years the profession of the Interactive Designer has been created.   It was in 1994 that Carnegie Mellon University starts offering a degree in  Interaction Design [3], followed by other universities around the world.   In this time period, we have learned a lot more about what works and what does not in designing interfaces. Since then, computer systems have both become easier to use, as well as people becoming better at using them.   What this means is that the obvious and big issues have probably already been discovered.   Designers know about the obvious mistakes.

Demographic change

Since the Journal Article was written, usage of computer systems has exploded.   Only 3 million people bought Windows 3.1 in the first 3 months in 1993.   Recently Windows 8 sold 60 million copies in 2 months [4].   Back then, a popular application would sell in the thousands mainly in the USA or Europe.   Now it is common for a website to be used by millions of people around the world. It is easy to dismiss the idea that 5 users in Texas can predict how users in England would use a website.   In fact, Nielsen on his website describing the method goes on to say that “You need to test additional users when a website has several highly distinct groups of users”.   Nielsen does recommend to test 3 users from each category [1].    How many different distinct groups does a modern website have?    Is it easier just to take a sample of users from the site, or it easier to try to categorize users into different groups? Even small websites get 10′s of thousands of users a month.   Therefore, even an issue that affects 10% or 20% of users impacts 1,000′s of users.   Though the issues are getting smaller, the number of people experiencing them is increasing.

The discoverability gap

Nielsen’s assumption is that the smallest issue will affect at least 31% of users.   Using his formula, the chart below shows the likelihood of an issue being discovered by testing with 5 or 80 people.   And there is a large discoverability gap between both. A test with 5 users only discovers 85% of issues that affect at least 31% of your users.   This means that 5 users only identify major issues, and it leads to smaller but still important issues being overlooked.   In contrast, testing with 80 users will discover 98% of issues with a visibility as low as 5%.

the_discoverability_gap_chart

It may be easy to think that a 5% issue is not that important. However, a 5% issue on a website with 100.000 users, means 5000 users struggling to find information, or being unable to complete a purchase. This is ultimately a large amount of revenue lost. Additionally, data collected in the last 2 years through Remote Usability Testing backs up the importance of fixing smaller issues.   It shows in the chart below that the majority of issues have a low probability of a user failing in any one place, and that issues are widely distributed across the sites.   56% of all issues have a visibility of less than 31% (they affect less than 31% of visitors).   In practical terms, this means that because 5 users can only reliability find issues with a probability of more than 31%, they leave 56% of all issues undiscovered. Discoverability gap based on 1 year of usability testing data

Occurrence versus frequency

It is worth pointing out that Nielsen’s formula is about occurrence of an issue.   In other words, does an issue exist or not.   For example, does a haystack have a needle in it.   It does not estimate the frequency of an issue.   In other words, how many needles does the haystack contain.   We will deal with estimating frequency in another article. Far more users are needed to estimate frequency of an issue with a low margin of error, than to discover if the issues exist.   Quantifying an issue is important in that, as we are faced with more issues, we need help in prioritizing them.

Conclusion

For finding big issues early on in the development process, methods like Guerrilla UX testing can make sense, but for production other methods need to be coincided. When Nielsen came up with the formula testing with many users was expensive, nowadays with technology like Webnographer, testing with more users is cheaper than testing in the lab.   More people are using  technology and are  experiencing more varied issues than 20 years ago.   We now have to tools for finding smaller issues, so we should use them.   Do get in touch if you have any questions on how to test with five or five thousand users.

Related articles

» 23 Remote Usability Methods Webnographer
» Discovering WHY from numbers Webnographer
» 5 Reasons You Should And Should Not Test With 5 Users MeasuringUsability

References

[1] Nielsen, Jakob, and Landauer, Thomas K.: “A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems,”Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI’93 Conference (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24-29 April 1993), pp. 206-213.
[2] http://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-you-only-need-to-test-with-5-users/
[3] http://design.cmu.edu/content/master-design/
[4] http://techland.time.com/2013/05/07/a-brief-history-of-windows-sales-figures-1985-present/

Image credit

People MosaikDOS Photo, Mac OS X Mavericks

3 Case Studies that make the UX argument

March 26th, 2014 by Bruno Lucas

Some rights reserved by Je.T. (Attribution Share Alike)

We often get asked for case studies of Website Funnel Optimisation.

A funnel is way of visualising data. As this is often a competitive advantage, companies are not keen on publishing this information.

As can be seen in these studies by simplifying and reducing the steps these websites where able to massively increase their conversion rates (and sales). These are the case studies that we aware of. If you know of any more please add them in the comments.

HSBC case study

This is an interesting case study on how HSBC Hong Kong went from 8 to 10 inquiries to 800 per month by cutting the numbers of form fields from 14 down to 3. See page 28 to 30.

Source:
Bank 2.0: How Customer Behaviour and Technology Will Change the Future of Financial Services

The 300 million dollar button

The “Three hundred million dollar button“, is a great example of a form that was super simple, it asked for an email and password, but customers still did not buy. Carrying out the usability testing helped identify the why.

The form was meant to help repeat customers fulfil a purchase on the site. First time users were very resistant to registering on the site, as they felt they would be giving away information to be used for marketing purposes. Even repeat users, who had previously registered, had problems recalling their login information and either used the password recovery link or resorted to multiple registrations.

And the solution?

They took away the Register button. In its place, they put a Continue button with a simple message: “You do not need to create an account to make purchases on our site. Simply click Continue to proceed to checkout. To make your future purchases even faster, you can create an account during checkout.”

The results: The number of customers purchasing went up by 45%. The extra purchases resulted in an extra $15 million the first month. For the first year, the site saw an additional $300,000,000.

Source: https://www.uie.com/articles/three_hund_million_button/

Expedia increased revenue by $12m

In a similar case, Expedia used analytics to find out why their customers were not completing a purchase, even after clicking the buy button and entering their billing information.

By analysing what was going wrong they worked out that one data field – “Company” – was confusing customers, causing the transaction to fail. Expedia simply deleted the confusing data field and saw an immediate jump in successful bookings

Source: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f23222dc-cc63-4ffb-bc7a-775bbf1303c4 and here http://www.singlehop.com/blog/infographic-tips-for-increasing-contact-form-conversions/

These small details matter, and they can range from the choice of words to the way buttons are laid out.  With a solid research methodology it is easier to pin point where these changes need to happen. With remote usability tests and surveys we are able to get the view point of the user.

In the past we applied our remote usability testing tool to Travelport for their new product launch. The project involved travel agents in 5 different countries, and helped provide insights into the usability and user experience of this new product.

Photo credits: Je.T – Flickr.

Events at Webnographer in Lisbon

January 16th, 2014 by James

1070060_375775072544686_1305704640_n

Going forward nearly every week there will be a meetup at Webnographer’s office in Lisbon. Ideas are created and spread through people meeting. Today we are lending our office for an event on Javascript called require(lx) next week we have a restarted Lisbon UX Cocktail hour, and the week after a Hacker News meetup on Technology and entrepreneurship. We also have in the plans an event on Growth Hacking (Technology meets Marketing).

London, San Francisco, Paris, Boston and Berlin have 100′s of meetups happening every week. Not everybody knows everybody and a themed event can help jell connections. They also act as a port for visitors to a city.

 

Today, January 16th: require(lx)

On the Javascript framework Hapi.js by the core developers of the software: Wyatt Lyon Preul and Ben Acker. RSVP here.

 

Thursday, January 23rd: Lisbon Ux Cocktail Hour.

Google’s Tomer Sharon talking on Start-up and UX research. RSVP here.

 

Wednesday, January 29th: HNLisbon.

Talks on Technology and entrepreneurship to be announced. Join the group here.

 

Growth Hacking

[Exact date still to be confirmed]

Ricardo Nunes, Head of Social Media at Mindshare Lisbon on Adaptive Marketing.

 

I have to thank João Pinto Jerónimo, Bruno Barreto, and David Dias the organisers of require(lx) in making it so easy.

 

Some pictures from previous events we organised…

1264313_10151660440412810_344416316_o

922445_10151447152582810_898706555_o

994870_374809809307879_1306158893_n

 

 

 

 

 

1244388_10151660441157810_62737700_o

4019058079_fc6619bacc_z

428430_342051152583745_2111950018_n