What is Mass Customization and what are its Benefits?

Mass Customization is the process of providing the low unit costs of mass production with the flexibility of individual customization (definition modified from Wikipedia's Mass Customization entry). Essentially, this means delivering customized products to each end-user based on their own design -- and on a mass-scale. Typically, high-level customization occurs on a small scale due to complexity with technology, manufacturing, supply chain, and/or product design.

Some industries however do benefit from advances in these key functions and are capable of providing mass customization to the masses. The capabilities in and of themselves however, do not automatically equal success. The purchase process also plays a key role in the ability to market, merchandise, and sell mass customized products.

What is a Considered Purchase?

A Considered Purchase is one where the product or service purchased is durable, long-lasting, and of solid benefit and enduring value. Products or services that are a considered purchased are owned over a long period of time (definition derived from http://www.smithdahmer.com/content/difference-and-truth-about-considered-purchase). This means the frequency of purchase is low, but the level of engagement is high when the end-user has arrived at the point of purchase decision.

What is a Mental Model?

A mental model is an explanation of someone's thought process about how something works in the real world. Mental models help shape behavior and set an approach to solving problems and doing tasks (definition derived from Wikipedia's Mental Model entry). Mental models are developed with exposure to a problem or task, so the less frequent the exposure means a more simplistic mental model if the problem or task is complex in nature.

The Role of a Sales Associate in Considered Purchases

In an environment where mass customization and considered purchases are a reality, simplistic mental models interfere with the end-user's ability to successfully comprehend the choices they are presented with and therefore they require a significant amount of help to reap the benefits of mass customization and to achieve satisfaction with their considered purchase. Help may come in the way of a sales associate who is a seasoned expert. This is why many considered purchases are accompanied by a professional sales associate (buying a home, buying a car, buying flooring, etc.) because they are there to remove the roadblocks to purchasing.

Sales associates however, can be expensive to retain and keep trained if products and services that are considered purchases change regularly. Additionally, the departure of an expert sales associate, or a high turnover rate of sales associates can wreak havoc on the success of your ability to sell considered purchase products because when end-users enter your environment trying to understand considered purchases without that associate's expertise to guide them (because of their simplistic mental models), they will be lost.

If not lost, they will not reap the benefits of mass customization in your products and will instead choose the path of least resistance because of their low confidence level and still-simplistic mental model. And at the end of it all, you will lose to lower margin competitors who offer the same basic features at cheaper prices.

Offering More Choice than a Mental Model was Built on

At the crux of mass customization benefits is giving end-users nearly limitless choices. This often means introducing possibilities that end-users previously did not know were available to them requiring them to stop and consider their purchase at each step of the way a new piece of information is presented. Herein lies the dilemma: offering more choice than a mental model was built on. How do end-users take advantage of the choice if their mental model wasn't designed to understand choice? How can you effectively expand the user's mental model without overwhelming them? And how is this all done without relying on a sales associate to facilitate the process?

Enter usability & content.

Why Usability & Content Strategy Matter

Usability is the ease of use and learnability of an object or process. Self-service systems are only successful when they are easy to use. "Easy to use" can take on several forms, and in an environment where simplistic mental models exist, mass customization is available, and the product or service is a considered purchase, usability must not only be viewed as an interface element, but as a means for providing a process around consuming content and further developing a mental model.

Content aids in educating an end-user, and expanding their mental model to develop an understanding of the choices available to them. The content developed for a user experience is as critical as the interface design elements that are responsible for aiding an end-user through a system.

Vague shopping process familiarity exists in traditional Marketing roles

On the other hand, with Digital we typically see a marketing team with vague familiarity around the intricacies of the touch points of a shopping process trying to build comprehensive shopping experiences.

User Experience is not a marketing campaign

Because the rules of store operations, merchandising, and customer service are different in a digital world, we see little crossover in the expertise of these traditional departments, and marketing departments fall back on what they do best: campaigns. Making a big splash with a new idea, hoping it sticks, and moving onto the next budgeted initiative. The problem is that campaigns have a short life-span, and you never want to treat your digital experience like a campaign.

Enter the User Experience (UX) practioner

UX practitioners will excel now and into the foreseeable future as marketing departments in both retailers and brands work to bridge cross-channel shopping gaps with digital. It's these folks who will help map touch points from the traditional world to the digital world, and vice versa because they see the details so no stone is left unturned.

Experiences are never-ending

An experience is never-ending; campaigns and products do however come to an end. Marketing Departments must rid themselves of this mentality and embrace an era of User Experience design.

For years, manufacturers build product, sell it into a retailer, and wipe their hands of most responsibilities after the fact -- often focusing on promotional calendars to help drive point of sale with some arm's length control over point of purchase signage.

As the shift to building experiences becomes more of a priority for brands and manufacturers, they find themselves with an organizational structure and culture that may be highly unprepared for what it takes to embrace this new experience-driven mentality.

These are exciting times for consumers as retailers and manufacturers push the envelope for their attention across channels. These are equally exciting times for retailers and manufacturers as the advances in consumer technologies and their expectations are driving substantially different conversations at the brand and retailer level than in years past.

However, a template won't fix a fundamental misunderstanding of the commercialization process.

The Purpose of Commercialization

Commercialization is about transforming the value proposition of your brand or product in bite-sized chunks that are tailored for the end-user at the appropriate stage in their shopping process.

Commercialization is NOT about picking items from a menu of capabilities from your marketing communications department and web teams to randomly fit as many tactics as possible into your available budget. Remember, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

1 Simple Tip to Factor User Experience into Commercialization

A general rule of thumb I use is asking one simple question: What is the next step you want the consumer to take?

If you can't answer this question, put your work on pause and honestly map out the context in which the consumer is arriving at this point in the shopping process and how your message is going to help them proceed to the next step.

Ask this question frequently throughout your commercialization plan and you will find yourself building a mental map of how your target end-user is navigating your product category. This will help you frame up the user experience across multiple tactics in-store and online in digestible chunks.

Why do consumers call customer service?

Maybe it's just me, but when I spend my time to call customer service, it's to get a specific issue resolved on that call. I do not call to "leave feedback."

Additionally, I go online first, perform a Google search, and see what resolutions are available to my problem (if any). My confidence level in finding an answer to my question on a company website is low. Odds are, I will find a discussion around my topic with other consumers who are experiencing the same issue. All of this takes place completely externally of a company's call center.

So, why are companies relying on call center data to measure satisfaction?

Call centers were previously the "front lines" of interaction with your customers. This is no longer the case. Online communities are the front lines. Let's take a look at a few examples:

1.) Apple's iPhone 4 Antennagate

Apple's antennagate was a great example of where Apple released statistics based on their own call center and support center data. While the data supported the fact that the antenna issue was small relative to previous reception issues on older iPhones, in no way did their data incorporate feedback and comments from the public. I own an iPhone 4 and didn't have the problems that others reported, but at the same time, Apple's call center is the last place I go for support for my device.

2.) Spike TV: "We actually don't get many viewer calls..."

Similarly, (I'm an MMA fan) Spike TV recently aired a tape delay of a UFC event that took place in the UK. The tape delay allowed Spike to air the show during primetime hours (8PM-11PM Eastern) in the U.S.

Because sports newscasts like ESPN report on the news in realtime, many MMA fans were furious when ESPN posted fight results during College Football on Saturday as the live event took place in the UK.

This prompted the MMA community to question why Spike TV would air the broadcast via tape delay. Their research shows that primetime is the best time -- and I totally understand this. It's actually when I want to watch these events (rather than early afternoon). However, this is what I found interesting:

There was quite a bit of hand-wringing among MMA fans this weekend over Spike TV showing UFC 120 on tape delay from London, leading to some fans finding out the results of the fights before they aired in the United States. But Spike TV says that the hand-wringing has been limited to a relatively small number of fans, and that the majority of viewers prefer to watch the fights in prime time.

"We actually don't get many viewer calls," said David Schwarz, VP Communications at Spike. "I've never received any and I know it's very minimal.

(Source)

I'm not even sure where I would go to call Spike TV. Their website contact form is only a customer service contact form (no email address, either). It's no wonder why they don't receive many viewer calls...and they shouldn't use this as the only source of data to measure satisfaction.

3.) Domino's Pizza utilizes multiple communication channels

A company can no longer rely on just their internal data they collect when a consumer calls or emails.

Via brandchannel.com:

Weiner says the new recipe "came from the thousands of direct consumer feedback messages on several media channels."

Domino's had an image problem with the public. They performed focus groups to understand why. Notice how they reached outside their normal data collection channels to truly measure satisfaction...we're not talking just call center data to back up a change in product.

Kudos to Domino's (and their new recipe is better, too!).

Consumers talk about brands outside of a brand's communication collection points

It's easier for me to post my opinions on a blog, Twitter, or Facebook. There are a lot of other opinions from consumers on these networks, too. Companies need to invest in monitoring tools to measure true satisfaction of their products -- because consumers are shifting behavior more and more to posting to their communities online than to offering feedback directly to the company.

In fact, it's not even a behavior shift because public opinion has always lived outside of a brand's communication channels -- there's just now technology to broadcast your opinions.

And for businesses, technology exists to measure consumer comments and sentiment outside of your normal data collection channels like customer service, email support, and product surveys.

I say this because every time I open the refrigerator, I can't quickly identify which type of milk the two 1-gallon containers are without carefully reading the tiny letters on the package:

Consumers are trained to shop by skim, 1%, 2%, and whole milk. Yet the Publix label emphasizes "reduced fat" (their 2% name) and "low fat" (their 1% name) as the primary label. This is a usability faux pax because the single, most important descriptor on this product package is not the primary part of the label.

When there are no standards, use best practices

When there are no color-coding standards (Publix uses green and pink for their 2% and 1% color labels, respectively -- other suppliers use different color schemes) and the product packaging itself is identical, then the most important part of the packaging label needs to describe what the product is. "reduced fat" and "low fat" are not how consumers shop for milk.

This would be like Apple calling their line of iPod Touches something other than the storage size that differentiates them:

Here's how Apple really does it. This makes sense to the consumer and doesn't force me to explore more to understand what each of these products means. Milk labels should also leverage this best practice:

Marketing organizations fall prey to waterfall approaches to updating websites and this generally is a result of an annual budgeting process. Since you'd never leave a retail store untouched for weeks or months on end, why should your online visitors suffer this mistreatment with your site?

It doesn't matter if you sell online or not, your website is a storefront, not a campaign. As such, maintaining a website is a process, not an event.

Consumer-friendly messaging, right?

Aside from the visual design of the site, it's the vague message that has my eyes rolling. Basically, this website exists to tell you your tax refund status, but the Department of Revenue cannot provide specific estimates on when individuals will receive their refunds. But alas, everyone who is due a refund will receive a refund! I guess that makes it all better, right?

Imagine if you placed an order for a product, it's been weeks and you haven't received your shipment. You call the retailer only to hear them say "we can't provide you with a status of your order but rest assured, you will receive your shipment."

Voice of the taxpayer online

I would love to see a government site use OpinionLab or ForeSee Results on their sites. Taxpayers should then be able to see the aggregated feedback ratings & scores. Government website operators could then focus on ease of use and helpful tools online. Messages like above only insult taxpayer intelligence and further throw gas on the fire.

However, I'm wondering when they (and other satellite & cable providers) will begin to think differently about how they present channel guides both online and via the TV remote?

Here's DIRECTV's guide:

These are mainly local channels. Wouldn't it be better to offer a filter that said "Local Channels" that I could click and see these? I'm not familiar enough with the Station IDs to know if they represent ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. Sure, I can generally tell by the programming listed, but still. This would never fly on a major retailer website for listing products this way.

If TV stations were like consumer products...

If this were an e-commerce site, end-users would be driven away if they were forced to only view products by numerical product ID and a short-code. Through history of channel surfing by number, I suppose this method of thinking is engrained in many people's minds.

However, with the volume of channels being what they are, presenting them in numerical channel order is a growing usability challenge. I live in a world where I DVR virtually everything and watch it at a later date. I am completely channel number and station ID agnostic -- I honestly don't know what channels "my shows" are on.

Searching for TV shows

Let's look at keyword search results for "olympics"

Support topics are shown first. Then site pages.  Hopefully there's research to support this ordering, but generally speaking, a topic like "olympics" is probably more related to TV programming than a support article. "Satellite doesn't work" would certainly be a reason to show support articles first. Below the fold (scrolling down on a 20" monitor) I see 5 results for TV programming.

I don't know what NBCw vs. NBCwHD means. Unfortunately there's no title for me to click on to find out why this matched my search for "olympics." Let's click "view all":

More empty titles. Again, search results displayed by channel and then by date with no sorting options.

DIRECTV offers a slick option to "Record to DVR" from their website. As such, having the ability to filter search results by content rather than channel and date/time is important because on the web and with the ability to "Record to DVR", the channel and date/time are irrelevant.

Old design = 20 headlines to scan. New design = 72 headlines to scan.

Previously, CNN.com provided a 2-headline synopsis of across 10 categories and at any given time throughout the day, I could visit their homepage and get a quick run-down of all that was going on in the world.

With the latest redesign, this quick run-down became much more time-consuming. And there was no way to tailor the news categories to my preferences. The previous website didn't offer this option either and was less important, but the new design now features 6 headlines across 12 categories.

That's 72 headlines I now have to scan as opposed to the previous 20 headlines. This is a huge increase in content and considerably more "work" to scan.

Google's "news" personalization, simplicity, and path of least resistance wins

I ventured upon news.google.com and found it quite easy to personalize the sections I am interested as well as sort them in the order of importance I want them to be in. This feature in itself was enough to win me over -- the way in which they aggregate news from multiple publications is also a benefit.

CNN.com's one-size-fits-all approach to homepage news doesn't appeal to me anymore. I've abandoned them because I've found an alternate service that meets my needs. What's interesting is CNN provides unique content but this is not enough to win me over because it's too difficult to get the information I desire quickly.

A commoditized business should focus product innovation on user experience and ease of use

"News" as a product is commoditized and is partially why newspapers are on the decline. If the product research or delivery mechanism doesn't cater to the changing needs of consumers or customers, then business will be lost to the competitive set. This concept applies to virtually all business, and not just news websites.

CNN.com offers a beautiful new redesign, but has chosen a path that devalues consumers who share my news-consumption preference. I don't know if this is intentional or not, but through further insight-gathering and subsequent innovation with their website, they would recapture my interest.

There are astute strategies to be found in each of the profiles in this issue. Here are 10 lessons that all e-retailers can take away from the innovations of this year’s Hot 100 online retailers.

1.) Connect with consumers

2.) Go mobile

3.) Be an expert source

4.) Make navigation more useful

5.) Personalize the experience

6.) Make tough purchases easy*

7.) Sell yourself

8.) Create a sense of urgency

9.) Connect site and store

10.) Play the value card

*Levolor.com was highlighted in the "Housewares / home / hardware" category and the feature can be seen here. More specifically, we addressed the #6 lesson above of "make tough purchases easy."

This is the synopsis graphic Internet Retailer publishes for each of the Hot 100 sites outlining things such as technologies and vendors/partners used:

Step 1: The homepage

• After visiting the homepage of PizzaHut.com, you see a very clear "Order Now" button. No confusion here.

Step 2: Enter delivery address

• My primary concern here is whether or not Pizza Hut recognizes my address since our home is newer and is often not found in mapping databases like Google Maps or Mapquest. No issues here -- it lets me proceed with my order, no questions asked.

Step 3: Pizza menu

• Body of page: The featured products tab is highlighted by default and I see two featured products.
• Right-hand side of page: Here it clearly shows my order is for delivery and which Pizza Hut location will be delivering my order. This is helpful because if I change my mind and order this for carryout, I may want to pick up from a different location (i.e. if I'm ordering from work and swing by a different location on the way home). Smart.
• Cons:
  • There's an unusual amount of white space due to the right-hand side of the page containing an advertisement reminding me "don't forget dessert!" Recommendation: This may benefit from more relevant placement after I've added an item to my current order.

Step 4: Building the first pizza of the challenge

• No search. As mentioned in a previous post in the Outback configurator, there are no search options on PizzaHut.com. Since I understand the products, I can generally find what I need, however I'm looking for "deep dish" pizza which means "pan pizza" on the Pizza Hut website. Subtle difference, and a search option would ultimately clear this up for me either by returning the Pan Pizza result or providing me a "did you mean pan pizza?" alternate search.
• View Larger Image: I took these screen shots in Safari 4 and unfortunately this link does not work. Recommendation: at this point it may be more relevant to use the page real estate to show some pricing (i.e. Small Starting at $9.99, Medium Starting at $11.99, Large Starting at $13.99).

Step 5: Configuring the first pizza

• This preselects the crust as "Pan Pizza" based on the item chosen in Step 4. It can optionally be changed to another crust type at this point.

• The defaulted list of options.

• Pros:
  • Straight-forward -- intuitive option layout indicating you can have sauce, cheese, and other toppings on the left, right, or whole of the pizza.
  • Based on the criteria outlined in this pizza configurator challenge, I was able to successfully build the pizza I wanted without confusion
• Cons:
  • "x2" while less intuitive means twice the topping. I'm not sure why sauce and cheese doesn't have a "x2" option -- instead these both have an alternate selection called "EXTRA." Recommendation: When user interfaces are inconsistent, it leads to confusion. If you're doubling the topping or adding extra, it's typically best to utilize the same user interface options for selecting this.
  • No pricing is listed, so you don't know how much additional toppings will cost. In fact, as I will point out later, you can never understand how the cost of the pizza is calculated because you only ever see the total cost. If you are on a budget, you have to guess your way through the pizza configurator and hope that you land within your price range. Recommendation: Show the surcharge next to each topping. There's enough page real estate to do it, so there shouldn't be any layout challenges in doing so.

Step 6: Add first pizza to order

• Pros:
  • As you add items to your order, they are shown on the right-hand side of the screen. This is helpful if placing a large order to ensure you don't miss a line item.
• However, what's wrong with this picture? No details on the pizza. If you have multiple pizzas on an order, it would be impossible to tell the difference between them all. Let's click on "Show details."

• Cons:
  • This reads rather unfriendly for me. Recommendation: A bulleted list would be more appropriate using the graphical indicators like on the configurator screen to indicate which side of the pizza the toppings are being added to.
  • Again, no pricing to indicate surcharges for the extra toppings. Recommendation: Showing surcharges by topping would enable consumers to edit the configured pizza and add, remove, or substitute toppings that make sense for their budget. If my budget is $15.00, nobody wins by not showing me the surcharges because I'll play with the various configurations until I get my order to be in the budget I'm working within.

Step 10: Configuring the second pizza

• The second part of the challenge is to order a large, hand-tossed pizza with as many toppings as possible to test the limits of the pizza configurator. Here we go:

• I was able to select every possible topping. However:

• Cons:
  • After the 6th topping, this message popped up each time I added an additional topping. Recommendation: If you can't successfully make something, then it probably shouldn't be offered for purchase.
  • If you do still offer to make it, is there any guarantee that it will be fully cooked? Or do the cooks just throw their hands up after the pizza rolls through the oven? Recommendation: The error message is a bit vague and while I understand there may be problems, I would rather be restricted from ordering it at all if there's going to be an issue with the product...or at least be provided with a means for contacting the store for special instructions for cooking.

Step 11: Add second pizza to order

• Exact same concern as in step #6 above. This time the problem is evident. How do two large pizzas amount to $52.82? Let's click "Show Details" to see.

• Cons:
  • Same concerns as #6 with the addition of the following insight:
  • Toppings aside, there's no way to see how much each pizza on this order costs. For the budget-conscious, this presents a problem. When I got to the local Pizza Hut, I get an itemized breakdown on my receipt, shouldn't the website behave similarly?

Step 12: Checkout

• I'm showing the checkout pages to illustrate any additional merchandising efforts and here Pizza Hut is promoting stuffed pizza roles and P'zone pizzas.
• Pros:
  • This is a nice layout, easy to understand pricing, easy to see how to add to cart. Plus, they have provided photos at the top of the merchandising offer which show the products.
• Cons:
  • On their main menu, they had a right-hand advertisement saying "don't forget the dessert!" However, here I am at the checkout page and I don't have the dessert, but they are not promoting dessert -- they are trying to sell me products that could essentially amount to an entire meal on their own. Recommendation: This is an example of a missed merchandising opportunity because the website isn't smart enough to realize I already have my main course in the cart, ready to check out. They should be targeting other items to compliment my order. (This appears to be a trend as I review more sites, Outback suffers from it, too)

(Brief) User Experience Analysis

Pizza Hut's site suffers from browser-specific issues in Safari that have been prominent for a couple years (as long as I've used Safari, actually). While these do not hinder my ability to place orders, it's the equivalent to eating at one of those wobbly restaurant tables (because the floor isn't level). While this doesn't deter you from leaving, it sure is a nuisance and plays into the overall customer experience.

Outside of this, I personally use Pizza Hut's ordering site the most primarily because we choose carryout a lot and it's one of the closer locations to our home. The very fact that they have a configurator is reason enough for us to choose Pizza Hut over another local pizza establishment because of the convenience of ordering online.

A comprehensive analysis of Pizza Hut, Papa John's, and Domino's configurators will follow after each review is posted. Stay tuned for my next review of the Papa John's pizza configurator as a part of this "building your pizza online" series of posts.

vs.

vs.

This is the third post in a series of product configurator reviews and I'll review the online configuration process for ordering pizzas. Pizza is a simple product which everyone understands, so the product configurator probably needs to be less about form and more about function. At the end of the day however, these online configurators are designed to sell food that should be appealing to the potential buyer and we'll walk through the "build your own pizza" order process from each of these nationwide chains.

The Rules

Like any good usability study and to properly benchmark each product configurator, the intent is to use each configurator for the same exact purpose. Here's what we'll be walking through on each of the configurators:

1. Configure an order for delivery to my home address
2. Build 1 pizza with the following:
   1. Large deep dish crust
   2. Extra cheese on the entire pizza
   3. Pepperoni on 1/2 of the pizza (because that's all my wife likes)
   4. Sausage, green peppers, and onions on the other 1/2 (for me)
3. Build a second pizza with the following:
   1. Large hand-tossed crust
   2. As many toppings as possible (to push the constraints of the configurator)
4. See the individual costs of each pizza, delivery surcharges, and taxes. While this is making my hungry while writing, I unfortunately will not be placing my order.

The Purpose/Goal

The purpose of this is to identify the site with the best configurator. "Best" is defined as:

1. Easiest to use/navigate
2. Fewest clicks
3. High degree of confidence that the order will be accurate when received by the store
4. Visually appealing -- it should make me want to order the product!

Let's see how each site stacks up!

PizzaHut.com

At an estimated 2.4 Million U.S. visitors per month, Pizzahut.com is ranked at #523 in the Quantcast index. PizzaHut.com ranks highest among these three sites in terms of Quantcast-estimated traffic. That equates to a substantial number of configured orders every month from consumers ordering online.

PapaJohns.com

At an estimated 1.5 Million U.S. visitors per month, PapaJohns.com is ranked at #1,006 in the Quantcast index.

Dominos.com

At an estimated 1.7 Million U.S. visitors per month, Dominos.com is ranked at #855 in the Quantcast index, slightly above PapaJohns.com but still behind PizzaHut.com.

The Usability Challenge

Due to the number of screen shots, each site is covered in a separate blog post:

1. View the PizzaHut.com Pizza Configurator Usability Challenge
2. View the PapaJohns.com Pizza Configurator Usability Challenge (link will be updated after the review is complete)
3. View the Dominos.com Pizza Configurator Usability Challenge (link will be updated after the review is complete)
4. View the Final Analysis (link will be updated after all 3 reviews are complete)

Tags: configurator, product configurators should imitate real life guided selling, usability, user experience

]]> http://www.ebusinessblog.org/531/configurator-usability-challenge-building-your-pizza-online/feed/ 0 http://www.ebusinessblog.org/898/configurator-usability-challenge-ordering-online-from-outback-steakhouse/ http://www.ebusinessblog.org/898/configurator-usability-challenge-ordering-online-from-outback-steakhouse/#comments Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:40:57 +0000 Eric Long http://www.ebusinessblog.org/?p=898

This is the second post in an ongoing series of product configurator reviews in which I review the online configuration process on websites.

Recently I placed my first online order with Outback Steakhouse for curbside pickup. I appreciated the ability to order online but found some usability concerns that I'd like to outline in this post. Prior to this online order, I was neither aware of online ordering or curbside pickup at Outback. This is mostly due to the fact that we do not frequently dine there (2-3 times per year on average).

The purpose of this post is to articulate how user experience in a physical store environment (in this case, the Outback restaurant) is not always reflected online. Companies large and small need to factor the physical experience requirements with the virtual experience requirements. If an Outback restaurant was presented like their online ordering experience is presented, there would be few repeat purchasers.

On with the screen shot reviews:

Step 1: Main Menu

My initial reactions:

• No search. This is an area that I haven't seen many online restaurants embrace, yet. If I know what I want, I should be able to search for it. However, I can somewhat understand why it's not offered because restaurants generally try to emulate their physical menus -- which obviously do not offer searching capabilities.
• One long, scrollable menu. The left-hand navigation is a series of anchor points. This was an interesting concept that didn't bother me, but came across as non-standard. This layout would be more of a problem if there were a lot of pictures.
• Lack of pictures. The only menu item with a picture is the Aussie-Tizers at the very top. This is an online merchandising faux pax. Hard to up-sell someone, especially with food, if you can't see what it looks like -- this is why restaurants typically have the "dessert cart" to show off / upsell their desserts when you think you can't fit anything else in your stomach.

Step 2: "Configuring" Baby Back Ribs?

• Clicking a red link in the left column forces the right column of the browser window to refresh.
• OK, I see Baby Back Ribs on the right-hand side of my screen.
• I have to click on links in the right-hand side to further configure this order (i.e. "click to substitute").
• Usability concern: Clicking on links generally takes me away to another page (I want to order Baby Back Ribs -- will I need to re-add them to my cart after leaving this page because I'm not clicking "Add to Order" yet?). Very non-standard.

Step 3: "Configuring" the sides

• I "click to substitute" Aussie Fries for a Signature Side Salad (if you've ever ordered fries with a curbside pickup order from any restaurant, you know that the fries are soggy by the time they make it back to your house).
• I don't understand what "Special Instructions" are for. In my first pass through their site (before taking screenshots), I entered my salad dressing type here. The last thing I wanted was a salad without salad dressing.

Step 4: Choose side salad type

• Right-hand part of the page has refreshed again, now asking me for a salad type. Again, not that I personally need them, but showing pictures here would really help upsell to other types of sides/salads. Instead I go for the old faithful "House Salad."

Step 5: Choose salad dressing

• Page refreshes again and asks me for the salad dressing type. For some reason, this is a drop-down menu instead of radio buttons like the previous page. Subtle interface issues like this make for additional usability concerns when switching question/answer display types.

Step 6: (Upsell time) Salad or Soup?

• I just completed 3 separate clicks to override Aussie Fries for a Salad, chose my salad type, then chose my salad dressing. Now I'm being asked if I want a side salad? This configurator is not intelligent enough to detect if you've already ordered what it's asking you for.
• "Click add to order to proceed" is counter-intuitive. If I don't want anything, then I shouldn't be taking the action to "add to order" my "No soup or salad" option. A simple "no thanks, skip this option" would be more appropriate wording.

Step 7: Additional add-ons?

• I just got finished making it through 6 separate pages and I still have not added Baby Back Ribs to my order.
• Again, trying to up-sell without supporting photos of these "Add-on Mates"
• Like in step #6, counter-intuitive use of "click Add to Order to proceed"
• And the mysterious "special instructions" field still exists -- I'm not sure what instructions I would add here? It would help if they provided examples of what information they would look for here.

Step 8: Completed Baby Back Ribs "configuration"

• 8 pages later and many more clicks than that, I have added Baby Back Ribs to my order. That's quite a few clicks and now I'm really hungry.
• Other concerns about this page include:
  • Tax is only estimated and may vary by store location. There is technology available to accurately calculate tax for each individual store.
  • "No Add-On Mates, Thank you (click Add to Order to proceed" is an actual "option" on this order. This is not user-friendly.
  • Would like to see the ability to duplicate an item in the order

Overall User Experience Analysis

The non-standard navigation (split left & right columns), numerous clicks for ordering Baby Back Ribs, no indicator as to how many steps are in the process to configure an item on the order, and the overall lack of standard online shopping functions (photos, sorting by price/name, searching, etc.) put this site near the bottom of the "easy of use" list for me, personally.

Had this been a local mom & pop restaurant, I would have called in my order because I would not have trusted the website enough. Because Outback is a well-known brand name, I was able to look past these usability flaws and place my order online. I would speculate that by making usability improvements to eliminate these barriers, they would see more curbside orders being placed online and their call-in orders would decrease.

Product configurators should imitate real life guided selling

In the real world, if a waiter would have walked through the same set of questions I had answered on the website, it would have aggravated me: When I substituted the side salad for Aussie Fries, I should not have been asked again if I would've liked a side salad for an additional $2.50. This is where product configurators online need to reflect real-life scenarios and not function like a computer running through a list of questions.

Fortunately, most people "get" the restaurant ordering experience and can look past these usability flaws. However, for manufacturers and retailers selling products which consumers do not purchase often, product configurators must be highly intuitive, helpful, and be positioned to up-sell but most importantly to answer questions about the basic options being presented to consumers.

Above (via the Ford website): How is reading this much copy in a small, scrollable area convenient or easy for online shoppers?

This mentality reminds me of the early days of web development where print designers tried to make the transition to designing for the web without understanding the constraints and ways to leverage the web medium for interface design. A design would be done, printed and viewed for approval, and then the content would be crammed in to fit with the design aesthetic. This is not how the web works! Users scroll, websites offer interactive features, and there are ways to expand design templates elegantly.

Concern over "below the fold" syndrome

There's a valid concern that content appearing "below the fold" (below the initially viewable area in the browser without scrolling) on a website is not seen and not clicked on as often. Usability and eye-tracking studies have proven this. However, in the below full-screen example, we've done a disservice to the end-user by putting copy into such a small, scrollable area that it renders it rather useless:

This is a case where the template design fails to accommodate the content on the site. When the template doesn't work for the content, it results in usability issues. When you have supplemental content to display in an interface on a website, it's best to leverage the benefits of the interactive medium. See the below example in our product configurator:

Above: Here we have more information available to further explain these options. So as to not overwhelm the end-user, we don't want to always display all content on screen so we give them the option to "learn more."

Above: After clicking "learn more," we use an animation to give the effect that the "learn more" text is extending the length of the "inside mount" option. This is a much more elegant and user-friendly way of retaining the design aesthetic while maintaining the usability of the site. See it in action anywhere you see the "learn more" link.

Voice of the consumer should prevail

These design deficiencies really should get flushed out with "best practices" documentation and usability testing and the voice of the consumer or end-user should prevail. While its tempting for online product managers to create aesthetically-pleasing sites, this can't get in the way of the usability and the reason why the consumer is visiting your site in the first place - for information to purchase. Impede their research and they'll quickly be on another website looking at competitive products.

In our household, I manage the bills. Years ago I installed Quicken on my Mac and used it as a central way for managing all of our finances: credit cards, checking accounts, savings accounts, investments, loans, etc. To this day, it is still the primary financial management software I use.

Since my wife was never one to enjoy talking about our bills, and because I had always done it, there was never really a way for her to easily become engaged in the process which she neither liked or, quite frankly, was good at! Then came along Mint.com.

I'm the DBA, she's the business user

The relationship we've had prior to the use of Mint.com was very much like the DBA (Database Administrator) and the Business User requesting reports. Businesses with poor business intelligence and reporting solutions suffer from inundating DBAs (Database Administrators) with writing queries and developing custom reports every time a business user wants to see sales performance vs. a budget.

Without an easy-to-use reporting solution businesses suffer when Business Users are not engaged in analyzing data. The same was true here -- Quicken, a desktop application, had no user-friendly way of distributing budgeting or reporting data on a regular basis to my wife. I had to be the one to generate it because, simply put, the user experience and usability was just not where it needed to be for her to be engaged.

Mint.com is the dashboard we needed for our personal finances

While my wife still doesn't dare open Quicken to manage our finances, Mint.com offers us easy, straight-forward access to balance alerts and budgeting. What's even better is the iPhone app where she can quickly pull up our budget for the month while she's out shopping and have instant understanding of where we are financially. This, combined with weekly summaries of spending vs. budget puts our finances at her fingertips without the complexity of knowing how to use Quicken.

User experience & usability win, again.

The Mint.com model is proof that simplicity in an application that is easy to use is a winning combination. As was pointed out by adaptive path, Quicken's acquisition of Mint.com this past week equated to $5 Million value per employee, making an incredible case of user experience being the winning anecdote to Mint.com's success.

Take a complicated process, make it easy, and you will win.

Mint won our family over by taking the complication of weekly bills and budgeting by making it quick, fun, and easy to understand. Online businesses that focus on similar principles will trump their competition.

I work in the home decor industry, blinds and shades in particular. The shopping process for understanding, selecting, ordering, and installing custom blinds and shades can be daunting if it's unclear what is available to you as a consumer. Plus, when it comes to home decor and fashion, there is a lot of emotion involved -- how you furnish your home says a lot about you and your family so the last thing you want to do is make a very expensive design mistake.

More Options = Better. Right?

Not necessarily. However, the Blinds and Shades industry is an old industry rooted in differentiation by product options and colors. In an industry determined to never be outdone by its competitors, window treatment manufacturers both benefit and suffer from being able to cater to the millions of variations of window sizes in consumers' homes to the unique decor tastes of consumers laying down their hard-earned money. The engineering and manufacturing behind the products is complex, but when it comes to presenting an ordering screen to an untrained user, it's a whole new challenge.

DIY Product Configuration & Ordering

The problem that has manifested is an industry offering such confusing products that only a designer or decorator could assist a consumer in purchasing. So, how does one create a website to help DIY'ers who choose to go at it on their own?

When taking all of the products, colors, options, and manufacturing limitations into consideration across 100+ billion ordering combinations, this makes for a very complex product configurator. Mocha or Chocolate colored finish? Inside or out-side mounted installation? Motorized or cordless control mechanism? What type of decor do you have in your room? What type of room will this blind or shade be installed in? If you've gone through the process of outfitting your home with new blinds, you know that it's challenging.

Key components to a product configurator are all about usability

Usability in a product configurator means:

1. Showing options with photos or videos
2. Offering feature/benefit statements for each option
3. Categorize options into digestible steps
4. When a conflict is detected, provide messaging in plain English and in a relevant location.

Step 1: Showing options with photos or videos

One of the fundamentals. Consumers will buy what they can see. Case in point, here is a $1,530 "Track Pack" option on the Ford Mustang without pictures:

Step 2: Offering feature/benefit statements for each option

A couple years back I was looking at Ford Mustangs on Ford's website. In the configurator, I was presented with an option of a rearend gear ratio of 3.73. I went back recently and took a screen shot of this because Ford is still doing it. What's wrong with this picture?

I don't know what the factory default rear axle ratio is. Being a "car guy," I know the benefits of gearing up or gearing down, but without being able to compare this option to what's offered by default, it's hard to justify the $495 price tag. I have to leave the product configurator and search around on the site to see if they've listed the default rear axle ratio specifications somewhere.

Step 3: Categorize options into digestible steps

Oh, how it's daunting to enter into a product configurator without an understanding of how many steps or questions there are to answer. Blinds and Shades in particular can be upwards of 25 questions just to get to a completed configuration. The tricky part is dividing the total number of questions into logical buckets or steps. Consumers do not configure products in linear fashion, particularly when comparing pricing online, changing options, and running into option conflicts. They hop around, jumping out of predefined order. It's important to categorize questions so a consumer and quickly remember where they saw an option.

Step 4: When a conflict is detected, provide messaging in plain English and in a relevant location.

Again, Ford is on the right track by showing the conflict, but what is always difficult to decipher is the why behind conflicts like this:

What's happened here is the 3.73 rear axle package is already included in the "Track Pack" option. In order to understand this however, I have to separately click on the "Track Pack" option and the "Rear Axle Package" option to see if I can come to my own conclusion as to why these two options cannot be ordered together.

In the case of blinds and shades, I've configured a Cellular Shade that is 83" wide X 60" tall:

I've chosen the "cordless top down/bottom up" option but I see an error message that explains the why behind the conflict, not simply "this option cannot be ordered." It allows me to either alter my measurements on my shade or choose another control option. I don't have to click around on the options to understand why this particular option cannot be ordered.

We did however take liberties in updating products based on new product rollouts and added functionality that didn't previous exist. Here are some before and after screen shots:

Product Navigation (Old)

Old site consisted of a 4-layer navigation schema:

1. Choose Product Category
2. Choose Product Type
3. Filter Product List (Choose 1 Finish, Style, and/or Collection)
4. View Product (See details, finishes, etc.)

The problem with this style of navigation is it forced the end-user to make too narrow their product selection too soon in the process just to see a product list. Finish coordination across product types is important in cabinet hardware, so the desire to see "all products with a satin nickel finish" needed to be possible. With the old site, this could not be done.

Above we see Decorative Hardware product types.

Here we see a product listing, but we can only choose from thedrop-down menus for further filtering options.

And here we see product details with finishes. Lots of unused real estate.

Product Navigation (new)

A simple 2-step process exists:

1. Choose Product Category (from the main navigation of the site)
2. Select multiple filters and see your product results

Select multiple filters across multiple filter types. An additional bonus is seeing the filter "counts" so there's no guesswork when you're clicking on options wondering if you will see any additional product results or not.

Clear visibility in the left-hand navigation of what filters are selected and which product results you're viewing. Additionally, there are "results per page" options as well.

Product comparison also didn't exist on the old site. It is now available on the new site.

Image zooming was also unavailable on the old site. Thanks to Adobe Scene7's dynamic image zooming technology, we use it on all product pages to enable the end-user to zoom in on-the-fly on the product image.

Table Stakes

It seems odd to be showing some of the above features as they are mostly "table stakes" features these days. However, there are many large e-commerce sites that still do not offer simple things like product image zooming, unlimited product comparison functionality (do I really need to be limited to comparing 3 products at a time so the site design stays scaled proportionately?), and "results per page" customizations. Amerock.com is now fairly level-set with these "table stakes" features an we begin the continuous improvement with repeatable processes.

There was a good post and subsequent discussion started at this blog asking "Why do enterprise applications suck?"

There is no disputing that most enterprise apps are terrible. Let's examine why:

1. Enterprise applications span careers. Very rarely do you get an opportunity to start at ground zero in the enterprise with an application. Web startups have the luxury of starting with a blank sheet of paper. In the enterprise, you're either integrating with legacy systems or building on existing processes that are engrained in the business. Furthermore, long-tenured "champions" are hard to come by as it relates to enterprise applications which brings me to my next point:
2. Enterprise applications are inherited. In my case, I've inherited a handful of applications from predecessors who inherited applications from their predecessors. Often times in the enterprise, applications that have been in production have years of usage behind them and are tightly woven into day-to-day business processes. Well, there must be documentation on how the software operates, right? Not quite.
3. Enterprise applications are wide in focus. Most web-based startups are narrow in their focus. In the enterprise, one solution rarely fits all needs and business processes, so you're forced to do patchwork between disparate technologies. The startups that try to be "all things to all people" ultimately fail. Look at these lists of startups out of TechStars and you'll find that they're all laser-beam focused. Enterprise application providers are selling "one size fits all" solutions to corporate clients, so don't plan on there being a community of "theme developers" for your enterprise app like there are for WordPress blogs.
4. In the early days, the enterprise valued function over form. Looking back as little as 5 years ago, companies were still just discovering web technologies. When going from a manual, paper-based process to your first automated, electronic solution, everyone's going to love it. Fast forward a few years and here we are, usability stewards with high expectations of web application usability. We've been spoiled with free services from the Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, and other online entities.

There's a paradigm shift taking place with the expectations of applications

The evolving nature of web applications is no different than any other maturing industry. Automotive manufacturers experienced the same challenges. Early automobiles valued function: getting you from point A to point B. As that became the standard, automobiles had to differentiate on other features. Early enterprise applications valued function, however in the world of applications, advancements are not measured in decades like automobiles, they are measured in years or even months.

The enterprise will catch up.

Just like most consumers don't rush out and buy the latest car or truck to take advantage of the latest and greatest innovations from the manufacturer, enterprises aren't going to invest in software upgrades that don't promise increased top-line sales or improved bottom line results.

That 1999 model year vehicle still serves its purpose -- insurance is cheap, you have no car payments, and it still runs despite the occasional service it requires. The bells and whistles in new automobiles sure are attractive but they just aren't enough to sway you to make the plunge for a new automobile. The same thinking is taking place in the enterprise with regards to the applications the organization invested in years ago.

New ad size: 300x250

In addition to new features and functionality added to the site, we've also incorporated 300x250 banner ads. Since I run this site as a hobby-based business, it's important that we generate revenue from as many different sources as possible in order to pay for operational costs.

How will the economy impact banner ad revenue?

With the economy going the way it is, we've seen a text link-based company (ZTMC Marketing) pull ads from our site due to client cut backs. Fortunately, we are diverse in our implementation of ad networks. We run ads from Tribal Fusion, ADSDAQ, Casale Media, Google AdSense, ShoppingAds, and Text-Link-Ads.

This is part of the reason we've expanded to offering the 300x250 banner ad size (in addition to 728x90 and 160x600). We now have additional inventory heading into the first of the year when our traffic typically peaks (due to enthusiasts staying indoors during the winter months).