Usability Review and
Competitor Analysis
13th January 2016
CONTENT
1. Conversion Goals
2. User Journey Analysis (Desktop & Mobile)
3. Heuristic Review
4. Google Analytics Review
5. Live User Testing (Focus user groups)
6. Recommendations
1. CONVERSION GOALS
By identifying key conversion goals and assigning a level of priority,
we can focus the target user’s attention accordingly. Making sure the
user completes these processes in the least amount of steps,
resulting in a higher conversion rate and meeting business
objectives.
PRIMARY
Complete credit card / loan application
Landing page & application process
NOTE: All user testing / analysis is focused on evaluating the
usability of the online application process for credit card and/or
personal loans from various competitors. This included the
onboarding journey from landing on the homepage to successful
application.
2.A. USER JOURNEY DESKTOP
Home page
A1
Financial Services
(Menu)
A2
Enter 15 form
fields
A6
More info
(Credit Card)
A3
Select Credit Card
again
A5
Apply Now
A4
Enter 18 form
fields
Next
A7
A8
TIME:
03:52
OUTCOME:
10 Steps
Submit
A9
Confirmation
Wait 2 – 3 Days
(Call Back)
A10
2.B. USER JOURNEY MOBILE
2.B.1. HOME
2.B.2. SELECT MENU
2.B. USER JOURNEY MOBILE
2.B.3. SELECT SERVICE
2.B.4. SELECT READ MORE
2.B.5. SELECT APPLY NOW
2.B. USER JOURNEY MOBILE
2.B.6. ENTER PERSONAL DETAILS
2.B.7. ENTER FINANCIAL DETAILS
2.B.8. CONFIRMATION PAGE
2.C. USER JOURNEY FORM FIELDS
Total amount of form fields
33
Total amount of required form fields *
16*
2.D. USER JOURNEY COMPETITOR ANALYSIS
TIME: 01:56
OUTCOME: 7 Steps to complete process
TIME: 02:28
OUTCOME: 8 Steps to complete process
TIME: 03:52
OUTCOME: 10 Steps to complete process
TIME: 08:08
OUTCOME: 24 Steps to complete process
TIME: 09:35
OUTCOME: 21 Steps to complete process
TIME: 13:21
OUTCOME: 25 Steps to complete process
TIME: 14:02
OUTCOME: 19 Steps to complete process
2.E. MOBILE APPLICATIONS COMPETITOR ANALYSIS
Showing which competitors application process is mobile friendly.
3. HEURISTIC REVIEW
This is a usability testing method for finding the usability problems in a
user interface design so that they can be attended to as part of an
iterative design process. Heuristic evaluation involves having a small
set of evaluators examine the interface and judge its compliance with
recognized usability principles (the "heuristics").
FOCUSING ON:
A. Features & Functionality
B. Homepage / Starting page
C. Navigation
D. Search
E. Control & Feedback
F. Forms
G. Errors
H. Content & Text
I. Help
J. Performance
3.A. WOOLWORTHS RESULTS 72/100 (GOOD)
Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and complete vast
majority of important tasks.
A. Features & functionality 12.4/20 (62%)
F. Forms 11,2/13 (86%)
B. Homepage / starting page 5,2/10 (52%)
G. Errors 10,4/13 (80%)
C. Navigation 20,8/26 (80%)
H. Content & text 12/15 (80%)
D. Search 4/8 (50%)
I. Help 10/12 (83%)
E. Control & feedback 4.8/8 (60%)
J. Performance 7/11 (63%)
Best Performing:
Worst Performing:
F. Forms 11,2/13 (86%)
D. Search 4/8 (50%)
I. Help 10/12 (83%)
F. Homepage / starting page 5,2/10 (52%)
3.B. DIRECT AXIS RESULTS 66/100 (MODERATE)
Users should be able to use this site or system and complete most important tasks,
however the user experience could be significantly improved.
• A. Features & functionality 12,6/20 (63%)
• F. Forms 4,48/13 (34%)
• B. Homepage / starting page 7,2/10 (74%)
• G. Errors 9,8/13 (75%)
• C. Navigation 16,6/26 (63%)
• H. Content & text 11,2/15 (74%)
• D. Search 8,4/14 (60%)
• I. Help 8,4/12 (70%)
• E. Control & feedback 6,4/8 (80%)
• J. Performance 3,4/11 (30%)
Best Performing:
Worst Performing:
E. Control & feedback 6,4/8 (80%)
J. Performance 3,4/11 (30%)
G. Errors 9,8/13 (75%)
F. Forms 4,48/13 (34%)
3.C. CAPITEC RESULTS 93/100 (EXCELLENT)
This site or system provides an excellent user experience for users. Users should be able
to complete all important tasks on the site or system
A. Features & functionality 17,4/20 (87%)
F. Forms 13/13 (100%)
B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%)
G. Errors 13/13 (100%)
C. Navigation 24,8/26 (95%)
H. Content & text 14,4/15 (96%)
D. Search 14/14 (100%)
I. Help 11/12 (91%)
E. Control & feedback 5,4/8 (76%)
J. Performance 8,8/11 (80%)
Best Performing:
Worst Performing:
F. Forms 13/13 (100%)
E. Control & feedback 5,4/8 (76%)
B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%)
A. Features & functionality 17,4/20 (87%)
3.D. STANDARD BANK RESULTS 76/100 (GOOD)
Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and should be able to
complete the vast majority of important tasks
A. Features & functionality 14,8/20 (74%)
F. Forms 13/13 (100%)
B. Homepage / starting page 6,6/10 (66%)
G. Errors 9,8/13 (75%)
C. Navigation 19,8/26 (76%)
H. Content & text 11,4/15 (76%)
D. Search 6,4/8 (80%)
I. Help 9/12 (75%)
E. Control & feedback 7,6/8 (95%)
J. Performance 9/11 (81%)
Best Performing:
Worst Performing:
F. Forms 13/13 (100%)
B. Homepage / starting page 6,6/10 (66%)
E. Control & feedback 7,6/8 (95%)
A. Features & functionality 14,8/20 (74%)
3.E. RCS RESULTS 71/100 (GOOD)
Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and should be able to
complete the vast majority of important tasks
A. Features & functionality 13,8/20 (69%)
F. Forms 8/13 (61%)
B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%)
G. Errors 7,6/12 (58%)
C. Navigation 19,6/26 (75%)
H. Content & text 11,4/15 (80%)
D. Search 10,8/14 (77%)
I. Help 7,2/12 (75%)
E. Control & feedback 5,4/8 (67%)
J. Performance 6,6/11 (60%)
Best Performing:
Worst Performing:
B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%)
G. Errors 7,6/12 (58%)
H. Content & text 11,4/15 (80%)
J. Performance 6,6/11 (60%)
3.F. ABSA RESULTS 66/100 (MODERATE)
Users should be able to use this site or system and complete most important tasks,
however the user experience could be significantly improved.
A. Features & functionality 12.4/20 (62%)
F. Forms 8/13 (61%)
B. Homepage / starting page 5,2/10 (52%)
G. Errors 10,4/13 (80%)
C. Navigation 17,8/26 (68%)
H. Content & text 12/15 (80%)
D. Search 4/8 (50%)
I. Help 10/12 (83%)
E. Control & feedback 4.8/8 (60%)
J. Performance 7/11 (63%)
Best Performing:
Worst Performing:
I. Help 10/12 (83%)
D. Search 4/8 (50%)
H. Content & text 12/15 (80%)
B. Homepage / starting page 5,2/10 (52%)
3.G NEDBANK RESULTS 71/100 (GOOD)
Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and should be able to
complete the vast majority of important tasks
A. Features & functionality 13,8/20 (69%)
F. Forms 8/13 (61%)
B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%)
G. Errors 7,6/12 (58%)
C. Navigation 19,6/26 (75%)
H. Content & text 11,4/15 (80%)
D. Search 10,8/14 (77%)
I. Help 7,2/12 (75%)
E. Control & feedback 5,4/8 (67%)
J. Performance 6,6/11 (60%)
Best Performing:
Worst Performing:
B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%)
G. Errors 7,6/12 (58%)
H. Content & text 11,4/15 (80%)
J. Performance 6,6/11 (60%)
3. HEURISTIC COMPETITOR ANALYSIS
SCORE
:
93/100
EXCELLENT: This site or system provides an excellent
user experience for users. Users should be able to
complete all important tasks on the site or system
Best performing:
Forms 13/13 (100%)
Worst performing:
Feedback 5.4/8 (67%)
SCORE
:
76/100
GOOD: Users should be able to use this site or system
with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast
majority of important tasks
Best performing:
Forms 13/13 (100%)
Worst performing:
Homepage 6,6/10 (66%)
SCORE
:
72/100
GOOD: Users should be able to use this site or system
with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast
majority of important tasks
Best performing:
Forms 11,2/13 (86%)
Worst performing:
Search 4/8 (50%)
SCORE
:
71/100
GOOD: Users should be able to use this site or system
with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast
majority of important tasks
Best performing:
Homepage 10/10 (100%)
Worst performing:
Errors 7,6/12 (58%)
SCORE
:
71/100
GOOD: Users should be able to use this site or system
with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast
majority of important tasks
Best performing:
Homepage 10/10 (100%)
Worst performing:
Errors 7,6/12 (58%)
SCORE
:
66/100
MODERATE: Users should be able to use this site or
system and complete most important tasks, however the
user experience could be significantly improved.
Best performing:
Feedback 6,4/8 (80%)
Worst performing:
Performance 3,4/11 (30%)
SCORE
:
66/100
MODERATE: Users should be able to use this site or
system and complete most important tasks, however the
user experience could be significantly improved.
Best performing:
Help 10/12 (83%)
Worst performing:
Search 4/8 (50%)
4. GOOGLE ANALYTICS REPORT
Tracking WFS users to gain insights to their
behaviour, devices they are using, and identifying
any problem areas.
Reports can be segmented and filtered to reflect the needs of your business.
Real-time views let you know which content is popular, how much traffic is
pointing to that content, and how successful you are at converting them into
customers.
4.A. ANALYTICS OVERVIEW (Sep 1, 2015 - Nov 30, 2015)
Unique users:
Pages per session:
Bounce rate:
1,622,315
8,42
30,87%
Returning users:
65,6%
Desktop users:
Mobile users:
Tablet users:
58%
32%
10%
Bounce rate: 43,15%
Bounce rate: 33.82%
Bounce rate: 23,61%
Analytics overview shows a very healthy application, users are viewing a high volume of
pages per session and returning regularly. 30,87% bounce rate is excellent conversion
for an e-commerce site. Mobile device bounce rate is high at 43,15% and should be
addressed to see why users are exiting.
4.B. LANDING PAGES
www.woolworths.co.za
Sessions:
Session duration:
Bounce rate:
895,656
00:05:56
10,57%
www.woolworths.co.za/store/fragments/wfs/wfs-index.jsp
Sessions:
Session duration:
Bounce rate:
32,793
00:04:58
13,19%
4.C. ORGANIC WFS KEYWORDS
Within the top 50 keywords, these are relating to WFS:
KEYWORD
SESSIONS
BOUNCE RATE
DURATION
4.D. POPULARITY PER REGION
PROVINCE
SESSIONS
BOUNCE RATE DURATION
5. LIVE USER TESTING
The evaluation of WFS and competitors by typical
customers or target groups as they normally would
in the real world.
This helps in evaluating software more accurately as we observe first
hand what users do, like, and struggle with when applying for a credit
card or loan.
All user testing done on:
Chrome Version 46.0.2490.80
5. QUESTIONS ASKED DURING USER TESTING
1: (Without clicking anything) Take some time to scan over the homepage.
1.A: Have you been on this website before?
1.B: Does it look professional, trustworthy, easy to read, and represent the brand?
1.C: Did you know that this site offers credit cards and loans to users online?
1.D: Would you trust this brand enough to signup for a credit card or loan? (If not) please explain why.? 1.E:
Would you prefer to complete your application yourself or request someone to call you back on the phone
to do it for you.
2: Please start your credit card / loan application.
2.A How hard was it to find where to start your application?
2.B: Is there enough easy to read information to help you decide to proceed (anything missing that you
would expect to see).
2.C: Please complete your online application.
3: Thank you for completing, in your own words please describe how you found that process?
3.A: Was there any sections in particular that you battled with and why?
3.B: Is there anything that you can suggest to improve this process to create a more enjoyable experience.
NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL
5.A WOOLWORTHS USER TEST
SCORE
65
WATCH TEST
NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL
5.A WOOLWORTHS USER TEST (Mobile)
SCORE
60
WATCH TEST
NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL
5.B CAPITEC USER TEST
SCORE
69
WATCH TEST
NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL
5.C RCS USER TEST
SCORE
32
WATCH TEST
NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL
5.D ABSA USER TEST
SCORE
11
WATCH TEST
NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL
5. STANDARD BANK USER TEST
SCORE
00
WATCH TEST
Credit card applications failed while user testing
NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL
5. DIRECT AXIS USER TEST
SCORE
45
WATCH TEST
NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL
5. NEDBANK USER TEST
SCORE
65
WATCH TEST
NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL
5. USER TESTING COMPETITOR ANALYSIS
SCORE
SCORE
69
65
SCORE
SCORE
32
SCORE
00
45
SCORE
65
SCORE
11
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on our
usability review and analysis of targeted users, across
the desktop and mobile platforms.
6.A. CALL TO ACTION HOMEPAGE
There is no clear call to action from the busy
home page. Users battled to find where to
apply online. The navigation link “FINANCIAL
SERVICES” is broad and non-descriptive to
everyday users.
We recommend using something clearer:
APPLY NOW
FOR YOUR WOOLIES CARDS ONLINE
6.B. SEARCHING FOR CREDIT CARD
Currently, search results do not display
financial products and services. Many users
are more inclined to search rather than
browse.
We recommend including financial products
and services into search results.
6.C. INTUITIVE APPLICATIONS
Users did not know which credit card they
could apply for.
We recommend moving this important
information above and in line of the users
focus.
6.D. URL REWRITING
WFS Landing page
Credit Cards
Application
URLs are not currently rewritten in a short descriptive and SEO friendly way. This is how
they will be displayed in search results and in the user’s bookmarks.
We recommend using short descriptive URL’s:
www.woolworths.co.za/financial-services
www.woolworths.co.za/financial-services/credit-cards
www.woolworths.co.za/financial-services/apply-online
6.E. REDESIGN STEP INDICATOR
The current step indicator can be confused
for clickable tabs.
We recommend redesigning it:
1. Clear Labelling;
Step 1: Enter personal details,
Step 2: Enter Income & expenses.
2. Moving it to the top of the page, above
all form elements.
6.F. PRE-POPULATE FORM FIELDS
The product option is chosen before the
online application begins. Users are are not
re-selecting the option at the start of the
application.
We recommend a pre-populated option
based on the user’s initial choice.
6.G. POSTAL CODE SEARCH
Users are required to search for postal codes
and cannot physically enter the code.
We recommend using an auto suggest field
for Suburb, that will drop down and suggest
postal the user can select. Remove search
button and postal field.
6.H. RSA ID OR PASSPORT NUMBER
Non-South African residents cannot apply
without an ID number.
Competitors have ID or passport number
options.
We recommend allowing users to input ID
or passport numbers.
6.I. INSERT DEFAULT VALUE FOR AMOUNTS
Users who did not fill out non-required
fields did not input 0 as the value. When
selecting “NEXT” “DONE” they all had to
scroll back up to the top and battled with
what they were expected to input into these
fields.
We recommend inserting a default value of
0.00 for non required fields.
6.J. INTEGRATE APPLY WITH SITE
Currently, clicking “APPLY” opens a new
window with different URL.
This separates it from the user experience,
without explanation and giving the user a
chance to orientate themselves.
We recommend creating one seamless
experience for users, from landing on the
homepage to successful application.
6.K. KEEP USERS INFORMED
Currently, after completing the online application, a WFS
consultant will call within 2-3 days and a message is sent by
mobile only.
We suggest that after an application has been made,
whether successful or unsuccessful, that users be informed
immediately via email on current status.
6.L. ADD TRACKING TO APPLICATION PROCESS
Google Analytics can be used for reporting and to track the flow of users. This will give
us a conversion rate and allow us to see where users are exiting before completing the
process.
LANDING
WFS
APPLY
CONFIRMATION
1
2
3
4
THANK YOU