New Tools Conversion Point Architecture

Here are the details on our award winning web design model Conversion Point Architecture.

View what we do, what we deliver and you can decide how well it will work for your new site project.

Why Video Testing is better then Metrics Testing

Why Video Testing is Better than Metrics Testing Alone
Until you have seen video testing, you may be skeptical about the power of what it can teach us about web site behaviors. By using the right approaches and asking for insights beyond basic (though also essential) task completion tests, you will learn what is and isn't working on your site and why.
Video testing can be complicated and involved but it need not be. We know from independent research that tests of only 6 people will reveal over 90% of a site's problems.
What this doesn’t say is that in addition to understanding the problems, careful testing can also reveal a range of solutions to these problems that simple or even complex traffic analysis tools or metrics testing, fail to reveal. By metrics testing, we mean the tools we use to analyze traffic logs which record visitor behaviors. These tools can measure statistics like page views, number of visitors, navigation paths thru sites, search keywords and orders and conversions. Metrics testing is helpful but we believe that video testing offers far more for a variety of reasons.
Video Testing is Quicker
We are promoting a new version of video testing which we call Rapid Deployment Testing. Larger companies may quickly draw from a local pool of available candidates and run tests within hours of designing the test. During the design process, developers often come up with questions about best practices, in part because these practices continue to change and improve. What was great a year ago could well have improved by now. By testing one or two simple procedures, without full scale site testing, in only a matter of hours we can gain actionable insights into these procedures. For example: What is the key messaging on a landing page? Is the call to action visible enough? Why are people missing a particular message?
Video Testing is Extendable
Smart companies will begin to build, and hopefully share in a "YouTube" environment, video clips of certain procedures so that stakeholders can review commonly tested behaviors like sign up forms or My Account shopping behaviors. Having these review materials readily available to designers will improve their design process, without the need to conduct new tests, thereby improving the quality of the prototypes and speeding up design. This assumes that a thorough video test will be run before launch to ensure that any unseen flaws will be revealed. Building a best practices library should reduce design questions, improve prototypes and if it is updated allow for the library to be continually improved as each stakeholder learns more and shares that learning.
Smaller Sites Can Benefit Immediately
Metrics testing is only helpful for sites if they have significant enough traffic to conduct a test. Typically, the longer a test takes, the less reliable it is. Ensuring valid statistical significance takes a deeper understanding then simply counting visits and conversions. Sites which lack the traffic to even obtain statistical significance are unable to use metrics as a reliable testing medium. Video testing gives smaller sites immediate results and input without the time needed to get the required traffic.
Video Testing is Impactful
We know that numbers are hard to argue with and that data can be compelling; however, Americans in particular are greatly swayed by video as well. If we see it on the small screen – we believe. Often when I present metrics analysis, the numbers seem to raise more questions, whereas video testing seems to raise more interest. Several short clips showing user frustration and annoyance go a long ways towards convincing reluctant stakeholders to make changes to a site. In fact, a peer ran a video test where she actually tested the company execs on their own site. The problems they exposed (the execs could barely use their own site), promptly resulted in seven figure funding for a full usability lab.
Video Testing Works as Well on Prototypes as it Does on Existing Sites
There simply is no metrics testing available for prototype sites. I don't know how a site can be safely developed if we can't test early in the design process. Failing to test early and often has shown that we are doomed to costly changes on the back end. By using the great prototyping tools for wireframing sites, such as Microsoft Visio and Axure RP to name two, you can build realistic prototypes which behave almost exactly like active sites. The agility of these tools allows testing multiple graphic treatments and conversion paths of even relatively large sites in only hours. Video testing quickly allows us to measure the relative merits of each possibility.
Video Testing Measures Graphic Impact
It is very hard to measure how a site's graphics will impact customers from metrics testing alone. In video testing, we simply ask about the look and feel of a site. If we use our learning styles research to understand how important images and graphics may be to a particular audience and determine that our audience has a higher percentage of visual learners, we need to pay much more careful attention to visual impact. Metrics testing can compare which graphics may get more clicks, which is important. But why one works better normally cannot be determined by metrics alone.
Video Testing May Be More Accurate
I test in part because I know my limitations. I know from over 10 years of experience that people will not consistently react the way I expect. That they will not always respond the way I anticipate and they will not always understand what I want to communicate. Every time I decide that "this particular site can be launched as is", I force myself to test, and always find significant room for improvement. (In all fairness, I do get it right a lot, but testing always makes my work better.) When I am using metrics testing alone, however, understanding why people may click on one thing or another is usually based upon my best guess. Despite years of metrics testing and gaining certification in the skill, I am much more comfortable with the proof that video testing offers then the conjectures I am forced to make with metrics testing.
Video Testing is Reliable
Metrics testing can be reliable as well, however, there is always a significant margin of error in traffic reporting and we cannot predict if future browser changes or changing cookie behaviors will reduce its accuracy even over the short term. Video testing is quite indisputable. What you see is what you get. The biggest criticism is that the test sample is usually small. I agree, however when you do a lot of testing, you will soon see how little a difference it makes and the research on sample size is very clear. Even small samples turn up most problems (as I said over 90%).
Video Testing Gives Understanding on an Emotional Level
Buying is an emotional process. We think it is a calculated procedure, but it is much more emotionally based than most believe. Video testing gives immediate and honest understanding of the emotions of buying (see last article on body language). No metrics tool I have seen to date gives me any insight into emotional behaviors.
Video Testing Provides Solutions
Metrics testing certainly shows that problems exist, but the only way to test solutions with metrics is to test a variety of solutions using a multi variable optimization tool, such as Google Optimizer or Optimost. These are good tools, however, they rarely actually reveal the problem in the way that testing does. Clearly metrics testing can demonstrate that a call to action can be improved. However, video testing will immediately show when it is the message or the persuasiveness of the site that is the problem instead of the actual call to action. Metrics testing can also easily test multiple messages effectively. However, video testing often immediately identifies the problem as being in the initial message and if the tester listens carefully and probes for understanding, you may be rewarded with a variety of new suggestions as well. This is one small example of the ability of video to offer solutions. It has helped in graphics, page elements, design, processes, and of course messaging.
Video Testing is a Great Pay Per Click Tool
Metrics has dominated the PPC arena while video testing has yet to make much impact there, and I don't understand why. Here at Web Marketing Resources, all our video testing of web sites begins with search; we measure the impact of search results and PPC ads on an emotional level. We watch to see what the behaviors are and why competitors may draw more clicks. In a recent test, we asked every participant if they ever clicked on PPC ads and 40% said: "Never." That percentage may change in the future but it certainly led us to try to make changes to how our organic results appeared on Google. When we went on to test landing pages and more importantly the conversion path, what we learned will insure great returns for the client. Why is that so many PPC professionals seem to stop testing with the landing page? The entire conversion path needs to be tested and there is no better tool for immediate understanding than Morae and a good consultant.
Video Testing Isn't THAT Expensive
It probably costs less than you think, though it is not cheap. Even starting from scratch you have most of the essential equipment except a web cam. You do not need a lab, in fact in many cases it can be preferable to test in other environs. You do need the software and the cost equals a day or two of consulting costs. You will have to pay your test candidates from $25 to $50 per hour, more in the big cities. Metrics testing is less expensive unless you choose to purchase the more expensive traffic analysis tools (which many experts feel are necessary). Google Analytics is free and getting better all the time but deeper keyword analysis still seems to require higher end programs. Whatever way you look at it, though, metrics testing is less expensive. However, if you run the simple cost justification tool Dr. Deborah Mayhew published in a recent TechSmith article, the cost of testing is negligible compare to the huge benefits it offers. Bottom line, total software and hardware cost for video testing, (assuming you have a computer) is under $2,000. It is hard to quantify what a consultant will charge for a video test, though the range of $3,000 to $50,000 for a full blown large scale site test is probably realistic. If we begin to amass a user experience library (hint hint TechSmith), we may all reduce some testing costs to zero, though we will never eliminate the need.
I realize that metrics testing offers many powerful insights and that is in an essential part of online marketing. In the interest of improving our "art", I welcome its proponents to share their insights and refute or comment on my points. I look at traffic metrics every day, and I will continue to do diligent traffic analysis.
Video testing is certainly more complicated and challenging than metrics review, and this often translates to higher cost. But good basic video testing is within the purview of the small business person now. We gladly train our customers so that after we leave they can continue testing on their own. I should say that advanced user testing skills take time and learning to develop. However, don't let that keep you from diving in. You will find it worthwhile and Morae offers a free fully functional download trial period.
To be honest, when we recommend a testing strategy going forward, it always includes keeping a careful eye on traffic metrics as well. As much as we would like to think that web marketing is a solid science, the truth is that one of the things that make it most exciting to me is that we learn more every day, and anything which expands that learning (or challenges it) is a good thing, be it metrics or video analysis. I suggest that you consider using Morae in new and creative ways, and I guarantee that you will find the results will improve your bottom line.

Usability 201 Testing a Website's First Impression

Morae 201: Gaining Deeper Insights and Earning More Revenue
By Todd Follansbee, Web Marketing Resources
Abstract – Learn the reasons why and the techniques for improving how you do user testing on web sites. Understanding the psychology behind user behaviors will help you deliver better recommendations and guidelines for site improvement. There is much to learn and this article addresses some of the first hurdles to be faced.
Traditional software usability engineering sprang from the desire to improve software as work tools on the job and at home. Efficiency of use and the ease of learning the user interface were of prime importance and testing focused on: task completion, navigation and basic site functions. Along came web sites and it all became far more complex. When testing the user experience on web sites, understanding immediate site impact and messaging play a critically important role. This is not to say that site usability is any less important, but if you cannot motivate the user to enter the site, good usability is wasted.
What are test participants thinking and how can we find out?
The question becomes: "How do we get inside the mind of the user during site testing to understand initial site impact and motivation?" How does a usability engineer understand and quantify questions of psychology and persuasion? I have been studying this for ten years and have found that Morae is the essential tool for recording these results. However, the tester must also develop new skill sets and tools to understand how to interpret the data.
Many years of sales and marketing training have shown key areas to begin your studies. First, people display distinct Personality Profiles in life and when we understand these, we understand how to motivate behaviors. The best known personality test is the Myers Brigg test, but I find that it takes way too long to complete for most situations. In conjunction with a psychology/profiling team, we built a personality profiling test which delivers results quickly and easily. I suspect that there are likely alternates available in the marketplace. Our entire learning styles and profiling tests can be completed in 15 minutes. It is always done after the user test though since I have found that "personality testing" done prior to site testing puts users into an overly defensive and uncharacteristic mindset.
To further complicate things, users typically display different Personality Profiles at work than they do at home. Therefore, if your goal is to understand messaging and shopping behaviors, it is a mistake to test a woman shopping for shoes online in a formal businesslike usability lab rather then a relaxed home environment. If you are solely testing goals such as task completion however, you can test in most any environment.
Second, people learn in different modalities or Learning Styles. Some prefer to learn from images, some from text, and some from action (though there are actually several more learning styles according to whom you study). Most people use a combination of learning styles with a stronger preference for one particular style. When we understand these styles, we understand better how to communicate with the user.
There are also correlations between professions and both Learning Styles and Personality Profiles so when I architect a web site for these personas, I craft messaging and motivational statements to better appeal to these qualities. I believe that failing to understand Learning Styles and Profiles puts you at risk of making mistakes in interpreting behaviors if you are looking beyond task completion.
How do we begin to use these new skills in the real world?
Next we review some essential skills which can dramatically improve what we learn from user testing right now. In future articles we can explore these complex issue more deeply.
The Tee UpIf the test site is a consumer home shopping product, I test candidates in a home setting (yes, even in their homes). I bring Morae installed on my laptop. I typically have one or two travel keyboards so they can have their choice of a laptop keyboard, a straight keyboard or a curved keyboard, whatever they are most comfortable with. I always bring one or two mice for them to choose from. It is far more effective to demonstrate that you are concerned for their comfort — they feel less like a test subject and it puts them more at ease.
The setup is relaxed: coffee, jeans, a few jokes, strong focus on "disarming anxieties" and, until I feel that the user is in the right mindset, actual testing does not begin.
I test B to B sites in a formal work environment: suit and tie, formal greeting and handshake. While a usability lab can work in some situations there are others where you need the typical work environment including distractions, noise, behavior patterns, etc. Often the best solution is to test in the environment itself. Morae's portability makes this possible.
An Essential First TaskIf I am testing a site which has competitors, the first task, after the verbal tee up, is to begin at Google and search to find the product or service we are testing. They have no idea which web site I am testing. In the typical shopping/surfing experience people need to make comparisons and when users know that they have alternatives, they are quick to abandon sites which do not appeal. It is essential to understand site appeal first of all, and beginning at Google (or their search engine of choice) will accurately reflect the real world shopping experience in the test.
By starting at Google we also learn new search keywords, see what phrasing and ads motivate them and learn what they feel is most important in the search. The value of this learning may be as strong as any single test result from the site. Starting with search quickly takes their mind off "the test" and puts it into shopping mode. Occasionally, if the site search rankings are poor, we build a mock Google page where the test site will rank highly enough to insure they get to the target site.
Video clips of customers abandoning sites in favor of competitors have a powerful impact on your clients, so be sure to probe for what users liked about competitive sites. It helps the client understand what is working elsewhere and, as consultants, you may be able to expand the scope of the test to include competitor's sites to help understand how to improve the client site. If you aren't delivering information about site competitors, you are missing revenue opportunities.
What do I ask and what should I be learning?
Here is our procedure for the first part of site testing, the opening steps. In future articles, we will look at gaining deeper understandings of the sell path, the close, the consensus component, and the follow up.
I typically ask this series of questions (marked in bolded italics). Following each question below are the typical insights I am looking for.
Once they arrive at the target site; I suggest that they, "Feel free to look around the home page." Do they scroll, what is above the fold, what is attracting their attentions, what is their initial eye path, what does their body language tell me? Note for yourself how few will scroll, despite the clear instruction.
After no more then 10 seconds, I minimize the page and pull their attention from the monitor, then ask:
"Can you tell me what business they are in?" Is the site's value proposition clear? When searching, users click on links for sites that can be: informational sites like Wikipedia, comparison sites, blogs or most anything, so it is important to know if people recognize immediately whether the site is a seller, manufacturer, wholesaler or otherwise.
"What are they selling?" They need to understand what is being sold or at least that the site contains the desired product or service instantly. It is dangerous to make assumptions about what people know. Can they find the product? Does the sales information focus on product benefits which motivate, or simply features which are rarely as compelling?
"Looking at the site, what do you know about the company and its product?" Is the company credible, have they heard of them, what is their brand impact, how do they feel about the company?
Then we probe for deeper understandings.
"What is your impression of the site? Is it professional? Are they a big company? Are they American, English, Indian? How does the site make you feel?" Would they buy from this site? What are the emotions that the site evokes? Do they feel good enough about the company to consider the "next step", be it buying, subscribing or learning?
"Did you notice the navigation?" Is the site structure clear?
"What do you think you can do on this site?" Does the navigation clearly represent the site's capabilities? What are their expectations for the site?
As I take some time with these probing questions, I watch the user carefully and look for any body language or behaviors which will clue me as to when they want to move on (i.e., behaviors typical of frustration or discomfort).
I keep the web cam close so I can see eye movements as well. I look at body language on the video a couple of ways to confirm if the words they are telling me are consistent with their behaviors. I have recordings of users showing intense looks, really struggling with a site to the point of nearly sweating, and in the next breath say how easy the site is to use. A simple voice recording or a less vigilant observer would easily take the wrong input from a test like this.
I probe with follow up questions, but not so much as to become too annoying or distracting. More than five minutes is probably too long before I return to the site, as I am looking for initial reactions in this first pass. I do not comment in any way other than supportive, and I am not quick to comment at all — people will tend to fill silence with more thoughts, and often these secondary thoughts provide more insights then the first comments.
Once the initial questions are done, I maximize the screen again and begin more task analysis. Towards the end of the test, I ask many of these questions again to determine what messages and information have moved from short term memory to long term memory. This is particularly important to understand the client's branding.
Learning more
The Stanford Web Credibility studies have shown that 47% of users make buy decisions based upon the site itself. I infer this to include: usability, graphic design, messaging and basically a superior user experience. There is nothing more important to web success than the user experience, and understanding first impressions are a key step to understanding the user experience. Morae allows us to capture that experience in a portable, thoroughly professional and reliable tool. As importantly, it allows us to share these findings with key personnel. Using Morae to record messaging, persona behavior and the persuasive elements of conversion will make you money both by improving your websites and offering new services as consultants.
I will be happy to share the deeper insights that we have begun to explore here in future issues of TechSmith's User Experience Newsletter. We will discuss techniques to interpret body language; how to increase those reactions, and most importantly the future implications of this knowledge. It will change the way we design and build the web sites and intranets of the future. This is beyond behavioral targeting; it combines in-depth persona understanding with usability and site marketing to deliver web sites which deliver better results.

Usability 201 measuring First Impressions

Morae 201: The First Eight Seconds
I believe that task completion is an important measure of site effectiveness but when we want to really understand how a site is working on a persuasive level, Morae makes it possible to measure how appealing, exciting or threatening a site may be. In the last article I promised some new approaches to site evaluation.
Intentional or not, users often lie. Or more accurately, their words misrepresent their feelings. Our bodies and faces, however, reveal our feelings very effectively. While I will touch on some of the obvious indicators, I encourage you to learn the powerful skills of understanding body language. I recommend: "The Definitive Book of Body Language" by Allan and Barbara Pease. This book will help you greatly in life as well as user testing.
How do we use body language and what do we look for?
We want to understand how users feel and react to the home page or landing page. While any video tool can capture facial expressions and therefore body language indicators, Morae's rich functionality, including the picture in picture recording format, easily ties any indicator to the screen shot. You can also increase the size of the customer's face in relation to the screen shot for greater detail. Likewise, as the keystroke logging records any missteps, you can emphasize the impact of these software issues by replaying demonstrative facial frustration responses. Remote observers focusing on body language alone can also easily tag and mark points of interest for later review.
Ensure that you have set up the user test in the right environment appropriate to the site goals (e.g. home - for personal shopping behaviors or office/lab - for business related sites). Then, launch the test from a search site or via the ways we discussed in the last article.
Now encourage them to scroll around the page (amazing how rarely they do) for about 8 seconds.
When reviewing the video after the test, I study their body language in these first 8 seconds nearly frame by frame to measure the homepage impact.
Do their pupils dilate significantly? This is a sign of interest or excitement.
Do their eyebrows rise or lower, an indication of whether the site is threatening?
Do they smile, sneer, recoil, relax, "dive into the site"? All obvious measures of site appeal.
What happens with blink rates? Closing eyes is a retreat indication.
What is happening to the facial muscles in the seconds the site first appears?
Do their hands rise to their face, a stronger indication but rare since hands are normally fixed on the keyboard?
These indicators must be taken in context of what is happening around you, meaning, pupils can dilate from a window shade closing or opening. Also, each individual indicator must be viewed in conjunction with the behavior of the entire face.
Reading these behaviors is a skill that comes with learning but I encourage you to practice it. You will find that this is key to really understanding the impact a site has on users. If, for example, pupils contract, eyebrows lower, mouth corners turn down or lips compress, the head moves back and eyes close more frequently and for longer moments, I would consider recommending a significant brand or home page redesign. Rarely would you find such a series of strong indicators, but you might. Remember that these indicators may take place within the first second or two of the site's appearance. If it occurred with only one participant, I would review how they scored on learning styles and behavioral tests (as discussed in the last article) and try to understand their behaviors better.
And after the first 8 seconds?
After the first 8 seconds, I reach in and minimize the screen to a blank desktop screen. I probe for understanding by asking questions like:
If this site were a person, how would you describe their personality?
Do you feel as though this site was designed for you?
Do you feel welcome at this site?
Normally, usability engineers recoil at such vague "touchy feely" questions. However, my purpose in asking may not be what it appears. I want people to consider their feelings but I don't worry too much about their first response - I listen carefully to what they say after they give their initial answer. I rarely jump in with another quick question; I let silence work for me and allow them to fill it with whatever comes to mind. If you try this, you will find some great insights into site impact.
After we have gone thru the initial set of questions, depending upon how much time we spend on the answers, we either jump into these very important follow up questions or allow them to view the site for 8 – 10 more seconds. We ask:
Can you tell me what business they are in? (How clear is their value proposition?)
What message do you remember from the page? (What are their key messages and what is their brand impact?)
Can you describe what the page looks like? (What is the users graphic sense, and learning style, what page elements of the site were memorable?)
What does the site want you to do at this point? (What are the calls to action, is the page confusing or clear, what can we expect for behaviors?)
What about the page compels you and how? (No explanation needed.)
I don't feel that I can give a worthwhile site assessment unless I understand these elements. Task completion gives important insights into how a user experiences a site, but it is also important to understand how effectively a site can persuade someone.
Beyond Traffic Analytics
Many conversion experts skip user testing and look only at traffic analytics to understand how a site is performing. Traffic testing is an important part of site conversion analysis. However, if you try these direct user test techniques, you will quickly see how much more you can actually learn from your test subjects. You will come to understand personas and user behaviors on a much deeper level, and approach user experience testing and site review with a new appreciation of the recording tools we have available.
Traffic metrics analysis alone rarely teaches us what we don't know. Meaning we can see where bounce rates are a problem, but not much about what is causing them. Advanced direct user testing teaches us the why's about user behavior as well. I believe it is the way of the future in user experience work and Morae makes it possible.
Next time you run a user test, look carefully at lighting and head positioning to ensure that the face and especially the pupils and eyes are clearly visible. Putting time and new skills into interpreting how people react in the first 8 seconds will help your site reviews improve dramatically.
As the test progresses beyond the first 8, use your newfound understanding of body language to better understand barriers to task completion as well. Frustration, confusion, anxiety, fear, and resentment will all be more obvious even as they tell you they "like the site". (As a bonus, the next time you are teaching, playing cards, negotiating or just sitting in a bar, you will be far better equipped to see what is actually going on in the other person's mind across the table.)
Eye path during these first 8 seconds can be another important indicator, and we have developed some surprising techniques to get some beneficial data using Morae which we will discuss in an upcoming article.

I have also added a news digest with what I find to be interesting current marketing articles which affect user experience issues at www.webmarketingresources.net/news.html
Here are abstracts of articles about UE, some have been published, some are about to be. They are available at www.webmarketingresources.net/WMRArticles.html

Ending Search to build Business! An unusual approach to competition. Counter Intuitive but it worked. It is a case study of a technique used to provide competitive information to help prospective buyers decide between products. By providing this information on their own and the competitions' products this company stopped many prospective buyers from further searching which increased sales.

What are the benefits of doing a Usability study for a site in redesign? – this is a review which identifies the reasons to do a usability study during a redesign by looking at the impact of other studies and discussing the potential for cost savings and the competitive advantages it offers. Basically doing usability work up front gets the site up faster, better and for less money..... really. Don't agree? Speak up.


Building a Sign up Page that Converts! - How to build successful sign up pages, common mistakes to avoid and how-to's. It is truly amazing how many lousy sign up forms are out there. UE and conversion folks live for info on this. There is lots out there, here is my take.
l
Colorblindness and Usability - this early study reviews the impact of colorblindness on usability for Microsoft, Amazon and IBM. 10% of males are colorblind and unless you follow these simple guidelines and test for this issue you may be losing thousands of dollars. This article earned millions for Amazon and probably Microsoft as well. Yet the principle is widely ignored but it is so simple to fix.

Hey Welcome!
This is about sharing ideas, examining old and new ones and helping to make web sites work in a manner that does not require figuring, guessing or assumptions.
It works, you get what you want, and you move on. Sounds simple but we all know its not.
The more I learn, the more I realize ......

My focus has been examine how the way people think and learn and then see how those qualities impact the way they use a site. We do video testing, body language studies, and assorted profiling research just for starters, it goes way beyond that. I don't know of anyone else who is working intensively with this. Certainly they must be out there so please clue me in.
I've had some remarkable success but for the most part this is all way too far out there for most people yet. Hopefully not you! It's been a long strange trip, but hop on the bus let's see where we end up.