The simple fact is that lifestyle imagery is engaging and fun: just look at the stack of Williams-Sonoma or Patagonia catalogs on the average consumer’s coffee table. However, turning that imagery into something web-ready by adding copy takes too much time and specialized resources (designers) and might even detract from the imagery itself. This is disappointing because as in the offline world, vivid imagery is engaging and can both build brand and increase the chance a customer will buy that item.

Fluid Experience to the rescue…

The shoppable lifestyle imagery component of Fluid Experience allows business users to add helpful tooltips to images so your customers can find what they want more quickly. The functionality is templatized so you can preconfigure brand appropriate fonts, colors, styles, etc.  allowing your designers to rest easy knowing business-types won’t meddle with their design. Once the banner is created, it can be previewed and then deployed to your site right from the Fluid Retail admin tools allowing you to push new banners live in less than five minutes.

What’s more, you can omit tooltips and add arbitrary links to various calls-to-action throughout the banner. Finally, you can place multiple banners into a merchandiser which allows users to navigate through elegant cross-fading or scrolling.

Satisfy your user’s need for interactivity and make better use of your brand imagery. Contact support@fluidretail.com to learn more about shoppable lifestyle imagery today.

Several years ago, I had the “misfortune” of being introduced to my first digital SLR camera. I was immediately hooked and since then I’ve been suffering the same symptoms as all other camera hobbyists: a compulsive need to purchase (or drool over) expensive camera accessories and gear. So when I “need” more camera gear, I’ll go online to shop because, aside from the obvious convenience factor, I like the ability to bargain hunt and easily research products. But with so many online camera retailers out there, it’s getting pretty hard to differentiate between the sites. They all sell the same products, offer the same product information, in a similar layout. So when I do my research, I’m usually looking for two things – product price and customer product reviews. These are the two main components that really help me determine whether the product is highly recommended at a price point I’m comfortable with – which ultimately affects my decision to buy. But are there other things that retailers can do to help differentiate themselves above the rest?

Recently, I went online shopping for a Canon 430EX II Speedlight flash, a nice addition to my Canon digital SLR camera. As I did my price and product research, I decided to take an in-depth look at various product detail pages (PDP) of online camera retailers to see what similarities and differences they had.

My initial search yielded some pretty dreadful results. Sites like www.17photo.com and www.fadfusion.com tried to cram as much information as possible into their PDPs hoping that something would connect with the customer.

17Photo PDP

Fad Fusion PDP

Other sites such as www.fotoconnection.com and www.us1camera.com simply didn’t offer enough product information.

US1 Camera PDP

Most of the other camera sites I visited used a typical PDP layout: product name, price, and image at top followed by a tabbed interface below detailing the overview, technical and product specs, and related accessories. I’m a very visual person so the biggest problem I had with this layout was the lack of integration between the product image and the product features. Instead they were deliberately segmented into separate areas of the page forcing me to scroll up and down the page to read everything. So when I saw a cool product feature listed like “Wide-angle pull down panel”, there was no visual reference to the product image for me to make that connection. Was this truly the best way for a user to engage with the product?

Another common PDP feature I noticed was the ability to enlarge the product image. A nice feature, in theory, especially if the initial product images are small. For most sites that offered this functionality, clicking on the “view larger” button produced a new window pop up containing the larger image. But with no reference to the product specs, it really didn’t provide me any new information. Surprisingly, I came across two sites, www.radioshack.com and www.adray.com, whereupon clicking the “View Larger” button produced a pop up window containing the same sized product image. Talk about a waste of a click!

Radio Shack - Image Zoom

Surely there were retailers out there with better PDPs that provided a cohesive and engaging customer shopping experience. I finally stumbled onto a fantastic photo and video site called B&H Photo Video (www.bhphotovideo.com). I searched for my Canon 430EX II speedlite and landed on a PDP page that, at first glance, looked very much like all the other PDPs I had previously visited (although not as crowded and easier to take in). Above the fold was the product image, product name, and price. Below the fold were tabs that covered accessories, features, specifications, included items, and customer reviews. I then noticed a link by the product image named “View Demo”. I clicked on it and a new window opened loading a fully interactive flash demo (no pun intended). Immediately I noticed that I had all the information I needed about my camera flash in one defined space. Each section was organized in stacked accordion panes making it very simple and intuitive to navigate. Not only did I have access to product description, features, and specs, but I could also click, drag, and rotate the product image so I could view in all angles. This was already more engaging compared to other sites where I only saw one predefined angle. I was instantly hooked.

Here is a breakdown of how the information was organized in the demo.
360 Product View:
360 View
Rotation Angles
Multi View

Images:
Side View
Back View
Lens Extended
Front View
Flash Turned
Mounting Foot

More Information:
Description
Features
Specifications

Demo - 360 Product View

Demo - Product Images

Demo - Product Description

The best feature of all was something called “Multi View”. Clicking on this immediately split the main screen into equal quadrants showcasing a different view of the product (front, mount, rotated, back). When I clicked on a view, the other 3 quadrants minimized in size as the selected view grew into focus. On top of that, animating red “hot spots” were featured on various locations of the product vying for my attention. For example, when I moved my cursor over the red hot spot by the mount, a hop up appeared saying “Easy Attaching and Detaching: One-touch, quick-lock mechanism for easy attaching/detaching flash from camera.” Not only had this demo managed to engage me with the product, it successfully did so by integrating the product views with the product features and specs. The product demo validated my product research efforts which in turn made me feel confident in my decision to buy. It also invoked a feeling of trust with the retailer, B&H. I felt that this retailer was valuing my time spent online by providing added value that was relevant and appealing.

Demo - Multi View

Demo - Multi View Hot Spot

Having a product demo available for such a feature-rich product like the Canon Speedlite makes sense. The product is offered at a high price point and that alone can be a big barrier for customers to overcome. But if retailers can find the right combination of visually engaging and pertinent material that will best connect the user with the product then it accomplishes several things:

1) Satisfies customers who are doing product research to better understand the product they’re interested in
2) Gives customers the confidence and motivation in making that decision to buy, especially when the product has a high price point
3) Offers added value that differentiates itself from a competitive marketplace
4) Encourages customers to come back for repeat business

As any camera hobbyist can attest, there’s never enough gear you can buy; if camera retailers can balance their product offerings with engaging supporting material that inspires confidence and motivation to buy, they’ll have customers for life.

My initial goal was to research and write a blog on sneakers, the sneaker culture, and what drives a ‘sneakerhead’ to seek the most limited/hard to get/wait-in-line-for-2 days type sneakers. But as I set out on my task to contribute to the Fluid blog, I stumbled onto the site miadidas.com. I say ‘stumbled’ because I have not heard or seen much about this site. I knew about NikeID, YourReebok(formerly known as RBKCustom), and the newly updated Vans Custom site among others, but was surprised and somewhat disappointed about just discovering the custom site for Adidas shoes. I’ve seen the in-store experience at the Adidas store in San Francisco, but was not aware it was migrated to the web – or at least a version of it.

With that said, I decided to focus my attention to the site and give my personal review.

OVERVIEW

“In 2008, adidas Originals successfully introduced its in-store customization tool, mi Originals.  Now, mi Originals is taking steps to broaden its product offering for the streetwear community with the US launch of miadidas.com.”

The site launched in February 2009 with the Superstar, ZX 700, Stan Smith, and Gazelle. Since then it has added the Stan Smith CF and Forum Lo to the Originals line along with a ‘Sport’ line which offers 13 different types of models catering to Basketball, Soccer, Running or Tennis. Prices range from $95(Gazelle) to $240(Predator Power Serve – soccer shoe), which is about 20% or so above the retail price of its inline version.

HOMEPAGE

The home page displays three models for each line – Originals and Sports – located at the bottom of the page. Clicking on any of the shoes brings up a nice hero shot and some quick blurb of its history (Originals) or quote by an ‘athlete’ (Sports). There is navigation at the top which filters the products either by Gender (Men / Women) or Line (Sports / Originals) or by All Products. There are also links to Help, an E-newsletter, a Store Finder (which I wasn’t sure why since this is about making/buying custom shoes and not inline) as well as a My Account page.

Still on the homepage, I did notice some inconsistency with how you were able to start customizing. If you click on any of the ‘Sport’ shoes, the hero shot includes a link to start customizing, but the hero shots of the Originals do not include this link.*

*Update – This has now changed from my initial review. There are now links to ‘Start Customizing’ for both Sports and Original.

If you decide to see all products, you will be taken to another page that has Sport and Originals separated into two columns populated with various shoe inspirations – about two or so for each model. A ‘Details’ link beside each custom shoe will take you to a page specifically for that model providing description, three different shoe views, and additional inspirations for that particular shoe.

At this point, I was ready to start customizing. I simply clicked on the ‘Customize’ button which is visible at various areas on the page. I decided to go with the Superstar II for various reasons – nostalgia, love for the ‘shell-toe’, love for RunDMC, or love for the 80s – not sure, but I digress.

GETTING STARTED

The main customization area is one screen separated into three vertical sections. The left side is split into four panes – Side, Top, Bottom and Personalize. The middle section is the information or selection area. This is where you select your size, gender, colors and materials for the different parts of the shoe. The right side has an image of the shoe being customized which updates as various selections are made. The shoe is a 3D model image powered by Holomatix Blaze3D, or so it says when I right-click on that area.

You are able to rotate the shoe 360 degrees by dragging your mouse in a specific direction. There are also links at the bottom which allow you to change Background (white or black), change views (Top, Bottom, or Side) and Zoom (you can rotate while in Zoom mode which is pretty cool).

Once you’ve selected your size/gender, the left panel becomes ‘available’. It starts grayed out until you select size/gender. Before I dive in, I want to spend a few moments to talk about the Size selection. You are asked to select a Gender, Size as well as Width. With the Originals, the Width is usually always ‘Medium’. With the Sport shoes, you are able to choose a specific size and width settings (Narrow, Medium and Wide) for both the left and right foot. As the site says:

“Every foot is different. Even your own two feet are not alike. So instead of making your feet fit into some average shoes, why not make the shoes fit your feet?”

Believe it or not, there are some people that have this need. Both the left and right foot can finally be happy together.

Brilliant.

CUSTOMIZING

So back to my Superstar customizing – I start with the ‘Side’ which opens up another panel with various side images of the shoe, each image having a certain piece highlighted to represent what will be customized. I’m asked if I would like perforation on the shoe or a print. But ‘print color is not available if you select no print or perforation’. This type of messaging is everywhere to the point of annoying confusion. I decide to go with the ‘classic trefoil’ as my print and proceed to select a print color before I am presented with another error message.

“The combination of print (color bloom) and lateral rear quarter (color bloom) is not allowed. Please change on the above options and try again.”

So if I wanted to have my print to be the ‘color bloom’ I would need to go to the next step and change the color of the ‘lateral rear quarter’ to something other than bloom. And if I decide to change the lateral rear quarter material from leather to suede, I get another message telling me I have attempted something that is not allowed. I think this would have been better represented in one main pane giving the user the visibility as to what is/is not available based on their selections. If I select a print, I see that only certain colors/materials become available. I totally understand the need for rules surrounding colors/materials/patters but I think it could have been better presented to the user. And if it wasn’t for the visual, would the average person really know what a lateral rear quarter was?

I continue through the rest of the shoe – Top and Bottom – encountering the same ‘messages’ as I continue to customize my work of art. I keep on pushing forward not letting the bombardment of ‘try again’ messages deter me from completing my masterpiece.

PERSONALIZE

Now that I am pretty much satisfied with my color/material layout, it’s time to personalize. The Personalize area allows you to select a lace jewel and/or personalize your shoe with embroidery. The lace jewel gives you two options: birth date of your shoe or trefoil. The birth date is a pretty cool idea especially if the date is significant in some manner.

Adding text personalization to the shoe is pretty standard and has the same type of ‘profanity check’ present on similar sites. Although, in Seth Rogan fashion (see Tonight Show appearance late 2008), I was able to find some phrases/words that did not make the cut. Insert evil laugh here.

The Personalize area differs based on shoe. For example, the Stan Smith CF allows you to personalize the top and middle strap of the shoe. You can also add a ‘city print’ to the shoe (i.e. “I ‘trefoil’ Amsterdam”) with about 14 cities on the list – sadly no San Francisco.

The TS Bounce Commander (basketball shoe) even allows you to have a player quote and autograph on the underside of its lace cover. The athletes are obviously limited to those sponsored by Adidas, but very cool nonetheless. There are more cool personalization options based on shoe that I will not detail out here, but definitely good to see Adidas expanding this area of customization.

SAVE / SHARE

If you aren’t ready to purchase, you can Save your work to your ‘My Account’ page. You’ll be prompted to sign in(if you aren’t already) or register for an account to save your shoe in progress.

My Account list is almost a closet of sorts, displaying all the shoes you’ve saved.  It’s a very clean, but plain interface.  From this page, you can Add to Cart, Edit, and Send to a Friend among others.

The Share functionality is pretty limited. With Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and Digg encompassing the social universe, none of these options were available. What makes it even more amusing is the fact that there is a miadidas Twitter page (@miadidas), but no way to access it from the actual site. The only Share option was via email, which works well. But there are times when I need to show my masterpiece to the world and get the thumbs up of approval. I would have thought a few ‘Share to Social Sites’ option would be available.

ADD TO CART / CHECKOUT

Pretty standard stuff here. You are presented with an image of the shoe you just customized along with the option to update/remove quantity, save to your account or re-edit by clicking on the shoe name.

Shipping is a flat rate of $12 regardless of how much you have in your cart with delivery estimate of about 3-4 weeks which is on par with other site.

SUMMARY

All in all, Adidas’ entry into the online customization world has gotten to an ok start. I could definitely see some improvements in the user follow as it relates to rules with colors/materials as well as addressing some of the consistency issues. But for the most part, the experience was good. But I’m not sure if most of the ‘good’ is based on the fact that I love Adidas originals and having the opportunity to customize them is pretty sweet.

I would love for them to expand the ‘Share’ feature considering how popular social sites are. They could start by tying in their Twitter page with the actual site.

I did like the use of 3D, which gives more flexibility when it comes to rotating and zooming. The personalization options were a definite plus along with the number of shoes available. They just didn’t go with their most popular lifestyle/sport shoes, but also offered sport focused shoes such as soccer cleats. I’ll definitely be getting the word out and will definitely be back to see what other creation I can conjure up and call my own or as RunDMC said, “My Adidas…”, or in this case mi adidas.

Pros

• Size/Width selection for both left and right shoe
• Shoe rotation and zoom capabilities
• Use of 3D modeling
• Personalization options
• Number of shoes available
• Pattern/material options
• Flat shipping rate

Cons

• User flow / shoe placement inconsistencies
• Presentation of rules for colors and materials
• Blank shoe can be easily accessed for Sport line but not Originals. Need to click ‘Start Over’ before presented with blank shoe option.* This has since changed.
• Sharing limited to Email only

References

——————

www.miadidas.com

http://www.press.adidas.com/DesktopDefault.aspx/tabid-4/79_read-10186/

Recently, Adobe asked Fluid to share our approach of rapid prototyping with the Adobe Fireworks and Adobe Dreamweaver developer’s community and we were both honored and excited to do so.

Our in depth article, “Rapid interactive prototyping with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript using Fireworks and Dreamweaver CS4″, can be found on Adobe’s website here:

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/fireworks/articles/rapid_interactive_prototyping.html

First and foremost, think about your web site as your “packaging,” and design accordingly—do not create a barrier to entry that separates customers from their end goal and hinders conversion.

When we reconsider the previously discussed factors of packaging design in this context, they align nicely with some familiar elements and ideas of good usability. We’ll review our packaging design principles in a new context below. As a case study, we’ll use the Rich and Skinny brand jeans site (http://www.richandskinnyjeans.com/RichAndSkinny/).

Design Principles, Revisited:

1.   Messaging: The messaging component of our “packaging” isn’t that different between the aspects of physical objects and designing for interaction online and beyond. The key difference, however, is that there is often more to say—and it’s easy to fall into a trap of veritable content-overload. The most effective sites often present one singular, captivating message. As a design guideline, I often ask myself, “What is this page saying?” And if the answer is, “Too much,” I reconsider the purpose and focus of the page and its message.

Case Study: On first look at the home page of Rich and Skinny Jeans, all of the components on the home page combine to deliver a successful and compelling brand message. The message of Rich and Skinny goes beyond simply selling jeans. They’re selling their lifestyle, and that message is clear, fun—and inviting.

2.   Presentation: Previously, I described presentation as the way in which messaging and content are formatted, stylized, and presented. When we consider an interactive experience, presentation becomes critical: going beyond visual design, successful information design presents new challenges. Designers should consider how the information hierarchy affects page scanning and overall readability to ensure that the message being presented is clearly communicated. The use of intuitive user interface elements will ensure that intended interactive behaviors can be easily anticipated and deliver the expected results.

Case Study: Rich and Skinny excels in delivering a completely immersive experience. The use of video and sound throughout the site, especially on the “catwalk” of the category page, reproduces the nuances of a personal, in-store shopping experience. All the elements combine to put the customer into the site, delivering presentation that goes beyond mere passive viewing.

3.  Structure: In our packaging discussion, we defined structure as the framework that supports and organizes the messaging and presentation. In our online world, structure speaks to the underlying site architecture and navigational systems that support site content and facilitate intuitive movement from one area of the site to the next.

Case Study: What’s great about Rich and Skinny is the navigational system. While the site architecture itself is fairly simple, the metaphorical system of the navigation continues to tell the story of the Rich and Skinny lifestyle. Customers select models in a dressing room, or “enter” rooms of the R&S house to delve deeper into the brand.

4.  Brand Artifacts: A product’s packaging may itself be a brand artifact, an object that is in itself compelling enough to notice, preserve, and collect—how many readers have saved your various iPod boxes? An interactive experience may provide tangible brand artifacts—a desktop wallpaper for downloading, a song of the week—or intangible ones, such as the lasting impression of the overall brand experience that causes you to return to the site or share the link with a friend. And these intangible effects are the most intriguing. As we design, we must actively think about the opportunity to create branded artifacts as we ask ourselves, what is the lasting effect that our customers take with them from this experience?

Case Study: The overall experience across the Rich and Skinny site creates a lasting impression that the customer takes with them after they leave. The story of the brand is so vivid and the shopping experience itself is so much fun that traditional ecommerce sites feel slightly disappointing after spending time on Rich and Skinny. R&S does carry its presence onto Facebook and Myspace (as additional artifacts), but it is the brand impression on the site itself that carries the most impact as an artifact of the experience.

We have reviewed several principles of packaging design and applied them to the practice of interactive design. It’s a slightly different approach to thinking about how we approach the design of a page, a web site, or an application. But, as we endeavor to think critically, we must move between physical space and virtual space in our design thinking. And in doing so, we utilize design principles that are essential to successful communication in any context or media.

We couldn’t get the package open.

Mom tried. I tried. No dice. Pliers were used. Even larger pliers were used. Finally, with a mighty tug, I yanked off the package’s lid—and in the process firmly socked myself in the eye.

So, what’s going on here? I wondered. This particular incident stayed with me because I remember how immediately I noticed the product’s packaging, and how it instantly made an impression on me. But I didn’t notice any obvious indicators of the inherent difficulty—or the black eye—that the packaging held in store.

What I did notice was that Oil of Olay stood out clearly on the store’s shelves. Amidst a sea of products, this new packaging was a success. An obvious “eye-catcher,” the clear material, bold, graphic colors, and sculptural design imparted feelings of a premium, luxury product, elite enough to appeal to older customers, edgy enough to attract younger customers. That’s pretty powerful stuff: if package design has the potential to assure and attract a wide age range as well as 1st- and Nth-time users, it has achieved success.

I reviewed Oil of Olay’s package design. In doing so, I identified four factors that are essential to successful packaging:

1.      Messaging: The content, point of view, and/or brand message to be presented.

2.      Presentation: How messaging and content are formatted, stylized, and presented.

3.      Structure: The framework that supports and organizes the messaging and presentation.

4.      Brand Artifacts: Any tangible or intangible brand impressions that last beyond the initial interaction with the packaging and product.

Put together, all four of these factors comprise the vehicle by which to deliver a product to its intended audience. Or, more simply put, that’s the box that my Oil of Olay stuff came in.

But it’s more than a box! This is the point of entry through which a customer will engage with a particular brand, experience their product, and ultimately decide whether to purchase and (hopefully) return to the brand again faithfully.

And herein lies my key complaint: Oil of Olay may have designed what appears to be successful packaging, but it is in fact a huge barrier to entry.

I may like what I see, but I literally can’t get at what I really want—and that’s the product lurking behind all this damn packaging! The method of presentation has created an obstruction that impedes the fulfillment of my original goal. And, in turn, what type of “brand artifact” does this experience create? What is my lasting impression of my experience with the brand? It’s not a positive one, I’m afraid: I’m left thinking, “I’ve had enough of this, let’s go check out the other brand at the end of the shelf.”

This physical experience easily translates into the online realm. The four factors that comprise the elements of packaging design also serve as key principles that must be considered when designing an interactive experience.

Tomorrow, we’ll present Part 2 of this article and discuss how the factors of good packaging design are translated into principles for interaction design…check back then!

Every week the IxD (Interaction and User experience design) team at Fluid gets together and discusses new ideas, current trends in our field, best practices, design patterns and anything that we may have on our mind that relates to design.

This week Dave, Director of Information Design and Usability,  challenged us to think about the following:

“I’ve been thinking about findability and discoverability (especially since I started thinking about interactive merchandising as casual gaming), and I am increasingly convinced that findability and discoverability are distinct attributes of web content, though I am not entirely clear yet (conceptually) where they are similar and where they overlap.  Initially, it seems like this:

Discoverability – more about fun, content is “hidden” and meant to be found, the content is non-essential to the experience, finding the content may be surprising or unexpected, finding the content is often pleasing, tends to be more of an exploratory and individual/independent experience

Findability – more about usability, content is more likely to be important or essential to the experience, users may seek or need the content, content may not be immediately visible but is not hidden, easy to find, users probably guided to the content with labels and directions, tends to be more of guided or directive experience with help from the UI

I’d like your thoughts and ideas on this: “

The team’s response to Dave’s questions are listed below:

Andrea’s Response:

My knee-jerk reaction is that discoverability, while more pre-disposed to being fun, is inherently about learning and intuition. Findability need not be anti-fun, but it is inherently about efficiency and being clunk-you-over-the-head obvious.

Discoverability, at its core, should play off of previously learned behaviors and patterns of interaction. when I go to a new bar, I’m pretty sure the loo will be in the back, because that’s where it was in the last 100 bars I went to. Discoverability recognizes the frequency and need in which we rely off of our intuition. In doing so, we may learn a new task more easily if we are able to relate it to a previously learned task. When we recognize similarities, we feel at ease. We anticipate what comes next and finally we begin to recognize differences between the old and the new, again increasing our learning.

Findability, one might argue, exists–in the most extreme sense–in lieu of intuition. I’m not saying discoverability and findability are absolutely orthogonal, but there’s certainly an inclination. If one assumes that there are no similar, previously learned patterns, or one is lacking intuition, findability ensures that one can still complete the desired task. If I am a teetotaler and I’ve never been to a bar before, I might have no idea that the loo is usually in the back, but if I wander around and see the restroom signs that are clearly marked; I know I have found the loo. Findability is the “clunkingly obvious” factor.

In my examples above, I don’t mean to suggest that findability is boring, or can lack delight, fun, or, more importantly, persuasion. From a content perspective, the authoritative tone of brand and persuasion should probably be the most findable parts of a web site. I think persuasion might be more essential in findable content, whereas it is more easily a “nice by-product” of discoverable content.

What’s interesting in the storytelling article is that the author gives us a bunch of examples of storytelling, but I think she could have gone a bit further and gotten more granular.

For example, when I am designing a web page/site/interface, I think of the features on the page as characters in a story. Kind of like playing with Barbies, you grab a bunch of features, put ‘em together, throw ‘em around, and see how they interact with each other…then you place ‘em where they make the most sense in the arc of the story you’re trying to tell. Some features are main characters, some are supporting, and you’ve got to work with that. of course, the user is a character as well; i’m just sayin’, the user is not the *only* character.

The best example of this is Jones’ example about the benefit of unread content and the mini cooper web site. Jones mentions that mini creates credibility through the presence of its company history. let’s say that “features and specs” about the mini are a character and “company history” is a character…for the purposes of this story, “features and specs” are the main character, but “company history” is a supporting character, and “he” is still pretty important to have around. we might not pay a lot of attention to him, but his presence (here, findability) on the page lends credibility to the brand. Craft your story (and your interaction design) from there.

Paul’s Response:

Since the subject has a lot to do with storytelling, I wrote this like I was telling a story.

“Choose Your Own Adventure: Findability vs. Discoverability”

It’s no longer enough for users to be able to find your site, and then find what they’re looking for once they’re there. Now, they have to enjoy the experience — and, if possible, participate in it.

It’s helpful to think of this in terms of two different types of users: the Finder and the Discoverer. The Finders know what they want and where they’re going. They may have already formed a mental map of how to get there, and a web site’s success may depend on its navigation and search matching the user’s expectations. Discoverers are less linear. They want to explore, and be entertained and surprised along the way. They may not know exactly what they’re looking for, but they feel it. For discoverers, it’s as much about the journey as the destination.

One way to think about how to engage both types of users is through use of the Story. At Fluid, we always try to use a narrative structure to explain our work and vision to the client. In essence, we try to keep the customer’s story as the guiding theme across all our deliverables and presentations. So, what kind of story are we going to tell the Finder versus the Discoverer?

Think of the Finder in terms of the shopping funnel. It’s a short story or a haiku. The Finder wants to get to the end as quickly and easily as possible. They want to get from point A on the home page to point D in the shopping cart, with brief stops at a category, index and detail page along the way. It’s hard to avoid the spatial metaphors, but it’s not just three-dimensional. Time is also a factor. The finder already knows what they want and doesn’t want waste a lot of time getting there.

In contrast, the Discoverer doesn’t want a short story, they want an open-ended Choose Your Own Adventure book, or maybe movies on demand. Instead of trying to speed them along a linear path, our goal is to keep them interested, and moving, as long as possible – until they realize they’ve come to the right place. The Discoverer is sticky and needs a sticky site. The Discoverer can be either passive, wanting to be entertained, or active, wanting to have more control over how they move through the site, and even interact with it. The Discoverer needs more lateral and contextual relations between content, and not just the basic linear site navigation.

While we’re on the subject of stories, user-generated content is a way for users to make themselves part of brand’s story. For example, user reviews are a way for customers to share their opinion of a site or a product. It’s a way for Discoverers to leave a sign that they were there.

One area where the Finder and Discoverer types may overlap is in social shopping. Just as many malls and stores aspire to be social spaces and not just a shopping destination, the Finder can become a Discoverer by bringing in a friend who may encourage them to look outside their original goal and try something new.

We need to design web sites that engage both types of users, and take into account that most users are a combination of the two. It’s not so much that these are different types of users, so much as they are different types of search strategies or behaviors. We need to give the right level and amount of content in the right time and place, with clear paths to more: more depth, more range, or more similar (moving up and down in granularity, or horizontally through relationships). The key seems to be choice: giving the user the ability to choose how they move through the site rather than forcing them into one path, but not so many choices that the user becomes paralyzed or lost.

The choice on which approach to emphasize will vary by client. I think findability is more important for large-scale retail sites, whereas discoverability is more important for brand sites.

My Response:

First, a user’s browsing/searching behavior is never linear in nature. I don’t feel that the typical use case is that a user will come to a site looking for a specific very granular piece of information. Rather, I am more inclined to think of a user’s browsing behavior in regards to what some researchers are calling berrypicking”.

The “berrypicking” model has two main points. First, as a user searches for information they are constantly learning from their search/browse interaction and thus the nature of their search is constantly changing and adapting directly from the information they are discovering. Thus, through the process of browsing their search goals may be constantly changing from their initial intent. Originally a user may have been interested in findability and then upon reading something new, their goals may have changed to discoverability. (and vice versa.)

The second point is that a user’s informational needs are not satisfied solely through the finding of a set of documents or results. Rather, the main value of search exists in the accumulation of bits and pieces of information along the way. (i.e. Life is a Journey, not a destination) . This second point made me think about the design principle of providing alternative interfaces for both novice and expert users. It seems to me that a well designed interface should be able to support the needs of both findability and discoverability. Thus, as the users informational needs change a well designed interface will provide opportunities to dive deeper into a subject matter or discover a related item. I think a good example of providing an interface that is useful for both for novice and expert users is the TED home page. www.ted.com A user interested in finding a specific talk can reorganize the page using the list format or access the search box, while a user more interested in discoverability can browse the content by interacting with the images or browsing filters on the page.

In addition, I was thinking that the granularity of the information being presented is directly correlated to findability and discoverability. I don’t necessarily think of discoverability as content that is “hidden” and meant to be found, but rather it is content that is more abstract in its presentation and subsistence. (i.e. A related item link, Or a short blur about sustainability with a link to learn more.) In addition, when I think of findability, I think of content that is more complete and concrete in nature. (i.e. product details page, a technology details page, or an article page).

Thus, as a user bounces back and forth between findability and discoverability, what changes is the level of abstraction of the information being presented. Low level of detailed information will lend its self to findability while high level of detail will lend itself to discoverability.

These packages range from $25,000 – $45,000 and are designed to let our clients tap into our expertise in ecommerce customer experience without breaking the bank.

The four initial offerings include:

• A high level expert review of your online store, delivering a prioritized list of areas for immediate improvement including key dropout points in the conversion cycle.
• Targeted analysis of your product detail page and identification of key areas for improvement. Final deliverables include analysis of current page, redesigned schematics and a few visual design directions.
• Checkout flow analysis, investigating the process from cart to transaction and including detailed suggestions from wireframes to visual design.
• Web 2.0 interactive merchandising audit that identifies crucial areas for customer interaction and ways in which rich media can engage shoppers and move them toward a conversion. This solution includes design direction as well as creation of functional, production-ready interactive merchandising components.

We are excited to offer solutions that are specifically designed to meet the needs of the current challenging environment. Thus far, we have had a strong response from retailers looking to use these packages to learn from this year’s holiday season and implement a more effective site in early 2009.

• Create an experience that inspires trust, confidence, and credibility in all customers.
• Provide quick and easy access to consolidated account data and all transactional functions.
• Offer improved and new functionality without displacing or deprecating existing functionality customers had come to expect and rely upon.
• Modernize the site’s design to leverage new interaction patterns to provide access to deeper content without overwhelming or alienating customers.
• Consolidate the site’s research data and information into a more logically organized structure to improve findability and usability.
• Integrate the many marketing and awareness campaigns into a single, rule-guided system for presentation within the account management center.
• Extend the brand guidelines from the print, broadcast, and online marketing to the customer account center while crafting a reliable, efficient, and focused customer experience.

Schwab’s previous site (which is still available during this transition period) has been serving their customers for more than six years. During that time browser technology and customer expectations have changed, the site (like all web sites) grew organically to accommodate changing business needs, and the customer experience become fragmented and occasionally unfocused. Fluid was charged with helping Schwab craft a new, unified vision for the customer experience and then defining a design system that would essentially be everything to everyone, because in the world of finance the margin of error is zero. Mistakes in the customer experience cause customers to doubt the reliability of a system, and when that system is responsible for their money customers have no tolerance for mistakes.

The design process lasted ten months, starting with six weeks of stakeholder interviews and customer research. We crafted wireframes for hundreds of distinct pages and screens for six months, and during this time we went into the usability labs with click-through prototypes for eight rounds of testing with actual customers. Any feature or function that did not test well would be re-designed and tested again – only when an interaction was successful in two consecutive rounds of testing would it be removed from the task list and marked as “validated.” At the same time we were crafting and testing prototypes, we were also working closely with the internal brand group to establish a look-and-feel for the entire customer account management center, and in the last three rounds of testing we presented prototypes that incorporated the updated visual design, because the way a web site looks can actually have an effect on usability.

When all of the core and essential functionality and the new look-and-feel had been tested and validated, we moved into a refinement phase to extend the design to the remainder of the account management center. The project culminated in the delivery of a pair of extensive style guides that defined the design system and patterns for the interaction, information, and visual design.

Now, more than one and one-half years since the end of the design phase, the new Schwab Customer Account Center is being rolled out to all customers.  How well has the design been implemented, and how well does it hold up? I’m happy to say that it has been implemented very well – the design and experience are true to the vision and to what was tested so successfully with so many real customers.  Compare for yourself:

The previous Schwab Customer Account Center:

The new and improved Schwab Customer Account Center:

The new design increases content density, the organizational structure is actually flatter and makes it easier to find information, functionality has been made more efficient, and the entire experience from account data to transactions to market research is now consistent and on-brand.

Congratulations to everyone at Charles Schwab who had a vision for excellent customer experience and service, who demanded exacting standards, and who maintained focus while seeing this project come to fruition! Fluid is proud to have been a partner in this effort and in your continued success.

We routinely ask participants in prototype testing to pretend they need to complete an action by creating a believable scenario for them (e.g., you just bought a new MP3 player and want to download some new music for it.) Jared Spool’s research has found that people who are not really interested in an activity behave differently on a web site than people who are genuinely interested in that activity.
What we need to be aware of (and what Jared Spool nearly alludes to) is that the bigger the difference between what people want to do and what we ask them to pretend to do, the greater the possibility that they will not behave accordingly. So, asking a Wall Street executive to pretend to be interested in The Jonas Brothers will probably be less accurate than asking female highschool students to pretend to be interested.

Jared also finds that asking people to pretend to shop for something they do not want or need is less accurate then asking them to shop for something they do want or need. At Fluid we sometimes find ourselves in this situation in prototype testing where not all of the participants actually need the products being sold on the site being testing, but there are a few things we can do to improve the accuracy and relevancy of our testing observations:

1. Recruit from real customers who already visit and shop on the site, because they are already interested in the content, products, and features,
2. Recruit for the appropriate demographics and interests in participants to improve the probability that even if they are not actual customers they will be still be interested in the content, products, and features of the site,
3. Recruit for specific needs (e.g., recruit people for customizing wedding invitations right at the time they are planning a wedding and need invitations.) Obviously this is more difficult, but it should produce more accurate observations.

One of the limitations we have with prototyping testing is that we cannot adapt the task to the participant after they arrive. Prototypes typically have a pre-defined set of tasks and available options, which means we need to be careful and recruit the appropriate participants who will match the prototype tasks rather than adapt the task to the participant.

If we were testing a fully functional and available web site, we would have more opportunity to adapt the tasks to the participant (e.g., ask someone to shop for a backpack rather than shop for a dress), but we still need to recruit participants who would be interested in the available range of products. If the only products a web site sells are shoes, then we cannot recruit for just any shopping need; we should try to recruit people who need and like to shop for shoes.

When we are preparing for prototype testing, we ask all of our clients to provide actual customer lists for participant recruitment so that we know our participants are at least interested in the content, features, and products of the sites and prototypes being tested. If we cannot recruit for a specific need, we are at least able to recruit for characteristics that make that need more likely to be present in participants.