Decoding Taylor Swift: A data-driven deep dive into the Swiftie psyche 👱🏻♀️
Taylor Swift's music has captivated millions, but what do her fans really think about her extensive catalog? We've crunched the numbers, analyzed the data, and uncovered some fascinating insights into how Swifties perceive and categorize their favorite artist's work. Let's dive in!
The great debate: openers, encores, and everything in between ⋆.˚✮🎧✮˚.⋆
Our study asked fans to categorize Swift's songs into potential opening numbers, encores, and songs they'd rather not hear (affectionately dubbed "Nah" songs). The results? As diverse as Swift's discography itself!
Opening with a bang 💥
Swifties seem to agree that high-energy tracks make for the best concert openers, but the results are more nuanced than previously suggested. "Shake It Off" emerged as the clear favorite for opening a concert, with 17 votes. "Love Story" follows closely behind with 14 votes, showing that nostalgia indeed plays a significant role. Interestingly, both "Cruel Summer" and "Blank Space" tied for third place with 13 votes each.
This mix of songs from different eras of Swift's career suggests that fans appreciate both her newer hits and classic favorites when it comes to kicking off a show. The strong showing for "Love Story" does indeed speak to the power of nostalgia in concert experiences. It's worth noting that "...Ready for It?", while a popular song, received fewer votes (9) for the opening slot than might have been expected.
Encore extravaganza 🎤
When it comes to encores, fans seem to favor a diverse mix of Taylor Swift's discography, with a surprising tie at the top. "Slut!" (Taylor's Version), "exile", "Guilty as Sin?", and "Bad Blood (Remix)" all received the highest number of votes with 13 each. This variety showcases the breadth of Swift's career and the different aspects of her artistry that resonate with fans for a memorable show finale.
Close behind are "evermore", "Wildest Dreams", "ME!", "Love Story", and "Lavender Haze", each garnering 12 votes. It's particularly interesting to see both newer tracks and classic hits like "Love Story" maintaining strong popularity for the encore slot. This balance suggests that Swifties appreciate both nostalgia and Swift's artistic evolution when it comes to closing out a concert experience.
The "Nah" list 😒
Interestingly, some of Taylor Swift's tracks found themselves on the "Nah" list, indicating that fans might prefer not to hear them in a concert setting. "Clara Bow" tops this category with 13 votes, closely followed by "You're On Your Own, Kid", "You're Losing Me", and "Delicate", each receiving 12 votes.
This doesn't necessarily mean fans dislike these songs - they might just feel they're not well-suited for live performances or don't fit as well into a concert setlist. It's particularly surprising to see "Delicate" on this list, given its popularity. The presence of both newer tracks like "Clara Bow" and older ones like "Delicate" suggests that the "Nah" list isn't tied to a specific era of Swift's career, but rather to individual song preferences in a live concert context.
It's worth noting that even popular songs can end up on this list, highlighting the complex relationship fans have with different tracks in various contexts. This data provides an interesting insight into how Swifties perceive songs differently when considering them for a live performance versus general listening.
1. The "Midnights" Connection: Songs from "Midnights" like "Midnight Rain", "The Black Dog", and "The Tortured Poets Department" showed high similarity in set list placement. This suggests fans see these tracks working well in similar parts of a concert, perhaps as a cohesive segment showcasing the album's distinct sound.
2. Cross-album transitions: There's an intriguing connection between "Guilty as Sin?" and "exile", with a high similarity percentage. This indicates fans see these songs from different albums as complementary in a live setting, potentially suggesting a smooth transition point in the set list that bridges different eras of Swift's career.
3. The show-stoppers: "Shake It Off" stands out as dissimilar to most other songs in terms of placement. This likely reflects its perceived role as a high-energy, statement piece that occupies a unique position in the set list, perhaps as an opener, closer, or peak moment.
4. Set list evolution: There's a noticeable pattern of higher similarity between songs from the same or adjacent eras, suggesting fans envision distinct segments for different periods of Swift's career within the concert. This could indicate a preference for a chronological journey through her discography or strategic placement of different styles throughout the show.
5. Thematic groupings: Some songs from different albums showed higher similarity, such as "Is It Over Now? (Taylor's Version)" and "You're On Your Own, Kid". This suggests fans see them working well together in the set list based on thematic or emotional connections rather than just album cohesion.
What does it all mean?! 💃🏼📊
This card sort data paints a picture of an artist who continually evolves while maintaining certain core elements that define her work. Swift's ability to create cohesive album experiences, make bold stylistic shifts, and maintain thematic threads throughout her career is reflected in how fans perceive and categorize her songs. Moreover, the diversity of opinions on song categorization - with 59 different songs suggested as potential openers - speaks to the depth and breadth of Swift's discography. It also highlights the personal nature of music appreciation; what one fan sees as the perfect opener, another might categorize as a "Nah".
In the end, this analysis gives us a fascinating glimpse into the complex web of associations in Swift's discography. It shows us not just how Swift has evolved as an artist, but how her fans have evolved with her, creating deep and sometimes unexpected connections between songs across her entire career. Whether you're a die-hard Swiftie or a casual listener, or a weirdo who just loves a good card sort, one thing is clear: Taylor Swift's music is rich, complex, and deeply meaningful to her fans. And with each new album, she continues to surprise, delight, and challenge our expectations.
Conclusion: shaking up our understanding 🥤🤔
This deep dive into the Swiftie psyche through a card sort reveals the complexity of Taylor Swift's discography and fans' relationship with it. From strategic song placement in a dream setlist to unexpected cross-era connections, we've uncovered layers of meaning that showcase Swift's artistry and her fans' engagement. The exercise demonstrates how a song can be a potential opener, mid-show energy boost, poignant closer, or a skip-worthy track, highlighting Swift's ability to create diverse, emotionally resonant music that serves various roles in the listening experience.
The analysis underscores Swift's evolving career, with distinct album clusters alongside surprising connections, painting a picture of an artist who reinvents herself while maintaining a core essence. It also demonstrates how fan-driven analyses like card sorting can be insightful and engaging, offering a unique window into music fandom and reminding us that in Swift's discography, there's always more to discover. This exercise proves valuable whether you're a die-hard Swiftie, casual listener, or someone who loves to analyze pop culture phenomena.
Usability guru Jared Spool has written extensively about the 'scent of information'. This term describes how users are always 'on the hunt' through a site, click by click, to find the content they’re looking for. Tree testing helps you deliver a strong scent by improving organisation (how you group your headings and subheadings) and labelling (what you call each of them).
Anyone who’s seen a spy film knows there are always false scents and red herrings to lead the hero astray. And anyone who’s run a few tree tests has probably seen the same thing — headings and labels that lure participants to the wrong answer. We call these 'evil attractors'.In Part 1 of this article, we’ll look at what evil attractors are, how to spot them at the answer end of your tree, and how to fix them. In Part 2, we’ll look at how to spot them in the higher levels of your tree.
The false scent — what it looks like in practice
One of my favourite examples of an evil attractor comes from a tree test we ran for consumer.org.nz, a New Zealand consumer-review website (similar to Consumer Reports in the USA). Their site listed a wide range of consumer products in a tree several levels deep, and they wanted to try out a few ideas to make things easier to find as the site grew bigger.We ran the tests and got some useful answers, but we also noticed there was one particular subheading (Home > Appliances > Personal) that got clicks from participants looking for very different things — mobile phones, vacuum cleaners, home-theatre systems, and so on:
The website intended the Personal appliance category to be for products like electric shavers and curling irons. But apparently, Personal meant many things to our participants: they also went there for 'personal' items like mobile phones and cordless drills that actually lived somewhere else.This is the false scent — the heading that attracts clicks when it shouldn’t, leading participants astray. Hence this definition: an evil attractor is a heading that draws unwanted traffic across several unrelated tasks.
Evil attractors lead your users astray
Attracting clicks isn’t a bad thing in itself. After all, that’s what a good heading does — it attracts clicks for the content it contains (and discourages clicks for everything else). Evil attractors, on the other hand, attract clicks for things they shouldn’t. These attractors lure users down the wrong path, and when users find themselves in the wrong place they'll either back up and try elsewhere (if they’re patient) or give up (if they’re not). Because these attractor topics are magnets for the user’s attention, they make it less likely that your user will get to the place you intended. The other evil part of these attractors is the way they hide in the shadows. Most of the time, they don’t get the lion’s share of traffic for a given task. Instead, they’ll poach 5–10% of the responses, luring away a fraction of users who might otherwise have found the right answer.
Find evil attractors easily in your data
The easiest attractors to spot are those at the answer end of your tree (where participants ended up for each task). If we can look across tasks for similar wrong answers, then we can see which of these might be evil attractors.In your Treejack results, the Destinations tab lets you do just that. Here’s more of the consumer.org.nz example:
Normally, when you look at this view, you’re looking down a column for big hits and misses for a specific task. To look for evil attractors, however, you’re looking for patterns across rows. In other words, you’re looking horizontally, not vertically. If we do that here, we immediately notice the row for Personal (highlighted yellow). See all those hits along the row? Those hits indicate an attractor — steady traffic across many tasks that seem to have little in common. But remember, traffic alone is not enough. We’re looking for unwanted traffic across unrelated tasks. Do we see that here? Well, it looks like the tasks (about cameras, drills, laptops, vacuums, and so on) are not that closely related. We wouldn’t expect users to go to the same topic for each of these. And the answer they chose, Personal, certainly doesn’t seem to be the destination we intended. While we could rationalise why they chose this answer, it is definitely unwanted from an IA perspective. So yes, in this case, we seem to have caught an evil attractor red-handed. Here’s a heading that’s getting steady traffic where it shouldn’t.
Evil attractors are usually the result of ambiguity
It’s usually quite simple to figure out why an item in your tree is an evil attractor. In almost all cases, it’s because the item is vague or ambiguous — a word or phrase that could mean different things to different people. Look at our example above. In the context of a consumer-review site, Personal is too general to be a good heading. It could mean products you wear, or carry, or use in the bathroom, or a number of things. So, when those participants come along clutching a task, and they see Personal, a few of them think 'That looks like it might be what I’m looking for', and they go that way.Individually, those choices may be defensible, but as an information architect, are you really going to group mobile phones with vacuum cleaners? The 'personal' link between them is tenuous at best.
Destroy evil attractors by being specific
Just as it’s easy to see why most attractors attract, it’s usually easy to fix them. Evil attractors trade in vagueness and ambiguity, so the obvious remedy is to make those headings more concrete and specific. In the consumer-site example, we looked at the actual content under the Personal heading. It turned out to be items like shavers, curling irons, and hair dryers. A quick discussion yielded Personal care as a promising replacement — one that should deter people looking for mobile phones and jewellery and the like.In the second round of tree testing, among the other changes we made to the tree, we replaced Personal with Personal Care. A few days later, the results confirmed our thinking. Our former evil attractor was no longer luring participants away from the correct answers:
Testing once is good, testing twice is magic
This brings up a final point about tree testing (and about any kind of user testing, really): you need to iterate your testing — once is not enough.The first round of testing shows you where your tree is doing well (yay!) and where it needs more work so you can make some thoughtful revisions. Be careful though. Even if the problems you found seem to have obvious solutions, you still need to make sure your revisions actually work for users, and don’t cause further problems. The good news is, it’s dead easy to run a second test, because it’s just a small revision of the first. You already have the tasks and all the other bits worked out, so it’s just a matter of making a copy in Treejack, pasting in your revised tree, and hooking up the correct answers. In an hour or two, you’re ready to pilot it again (to err is human, remember) and send it off to a fresh batch of participants.
Two possible outcomes await.
Your fixes are spot-on, the participants find the correct answers more frequently and easily, and your overall score climbs. You could have skipped this second test, but confirming that your changes worked is both good practice and a good feeling. It’s also something concrete to show your boss.
Some of your fixes didn’t work, or (given the tangled nature of IA work) they worked for the problems you saw in Round 1, but now they’ve caused more problems of their own. Bad news, for sure. But better that you uncover them now in the design phase (when it takes a few days to revise and re-test) instead of further down the track when the IA has been signed off and changes become painful.
Stay tuned for more on evil attractors
In Part 1, we’ve covered what evil attractors are and how to spot them at the answer end of your tree: that is, evil attractors that participants chose as their destination when performing tasks. Hopefully, a future version of Treejack will be able to highlight these attractors to make your analysis that much easier.
In Part 2, we’ll look at how to spot evil attractors in the intermediate levels of your tree, where they lure participants into a section of the site that you didn’t intend. These are harder to spot, but we’ll see if we can ferret them out.Let us know if you've caught any evil attractors red-handed in your projects.
Emotional. Playful. Delightful.These words resonate with user experience (UX) practitioners. We put them in the titles of design books. We build products that move up the design hierarchy of needs, with the goal to go beyond just reliability, usability, and productivity. We want to truly delight the people who use our products.Designing for delight has parallels in the physical world. I see this in restaurants which offer not only delicious food but also an inviting atmosphere; in stores that don’t just sell clothes but also provide superior customer service. Whole industries operate on designing for delight.
The amusement industry has done this for over 500 years. The world’s oldest operating amusement park, Bakken, first opened for guests in 1583 – about 300 years before the first modern roller coaster. Amusement parks experienced a boom in growth in the US in the 1970s. As of November 2014, China had 59 new amusement parks under construction. Today, hundreds of millions of guests each year visit amusement parks throughout the world.I've been fortunate to work in the amusement industry as the owner of a digital UX design company called Thrill & Create. Here is my story of how I got to do this kind of work, and my observations as a UX practitioner in this market.
Making user-centred purveyors of joy
I've been a fan of amusement parks for most of my life. And it’s somewhat hereditary. Much of my family still lives in Central Florida, and several of them have annual passes to Walt Disney World. My mom was a Cast Member at the Magic Kingdom during its opening season.Although I grew up living east of Washington, DC, I spent most of my childhood waiting for our annual trip to an amusement park. I was a different kind of amusement enthusiast: scared to death of heights, loath to ride roller coasters, but so interested in water rides and swimming that my family thought I was a fish. The love for roller coasters would show up much later. But the collection of park maps from our annual trips grew, and in the pre-RollerCoaster Tycoon days, I would sketch designs for amusement parks.
In college, my interest in amusement received a healthy boost from the internet. In the mid-2000s, before fan communities shifted toward Facebook, unofficial websites were quite popular. My home park — a roller coaster enthusiasts’ term for the park that we visit most frequently, not necessarily the closest park to us — had several of these fansites.The fansites would typically last for a year or two and enjoy somewhat of a rivalry with other fansites before their creators would move on to a different hobby and close their sites. The fansites’ forums became an interesting place to share knowledge and learn history about my home park. They also gave us a place to discuss what we would do if we owned the park, to echo rumors we had heard, and start our own rumors. Some quite active forums still exist for this.
Of course, many of us on the forums wanted to be the first to hear a rumor. So we follow the industry blogs, which are typically the first sources of the news. Screamscape has been announcing amusement-industry rumors since the 1990s. And Screamscape and other sites like it announce news not only in the parks but around the industry. Regular Screamscape readers learn about ride manufacturers, trade names for each kind of ride, industry trade shows, and much more. And the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA) keeps an eye on the industry as well.Several years ago, I transitioned from being a software developer to starting a user experience design company. It is now called Thrill & Create. I was faced with a challenge: how to compete against the commoditization of freelance design services. Ultimately, selecting a niche was the answer. And seeing IAAPA’s iconic roller coaster sign outside the Orange County Convention Center during a trip to Central Florida was all I needed to shift my strategy toward the amusement industry.
What UX looks like in the Amusement Industry
Periodically, I see new articles about amusement parks in UX blogs. Here are my observations about how UX looks in the industry, both in the physical world and the digital world.
Parks are focused on interactive rides
The amusement industry is known for introducing rides that are bigger, taller, and faster. But the industry has a more interactive future. Using cleverly-designed shops which produce some of the longest waits in the park, Universal Studios has sold many interactive wands to give guests additional experiences in Hogsmeade and Diagon Alley.
Buzz Lightyear's Astro Blasters at Disneyland
At IAAPA, interactivity and interactive rides are very hot topics. Interactive shooting dark rides came to many parks in the early 2000s. Wonder Mountain’s Guardian, a 2014 addition to Canada’s Wonderland, features the world’s longest interactive screen and a ride program that changes completely for the Halloween season.Also coming in 2015 is the elaborately-themed Justice League: Battle for Metropolis rides at two Six Flags parks. And Wet‘n’Wild Las Vegas will debut 'Slideboarding', which allows riders to participate in a video game by touching targets on their way down the slide, and is marketed as 'the world's first waterslide gaming experience'.
UX design is well-established for the physical space
Terms like 'amusement industry', 'attractions industry', and 'themed entertainment industry' can be interchangeable, but they do have different focuses, and different user experience design needs. The amusement industry encompasses amusement parks, theme parks, zoos, aquaria, museums, and their suppliers; the attractions industry also includes other visitor attractions.Several experience design companies have worked extensively on user-centered themed entertainment.
Jack Rouse Associates, who see themselves as “audience advocates”, have worked with over 35 clients in themed entertainment, including Universal, Ocean Park, and LEGOLAND. Thinkwell Group, which touts a 'guest-centric approach to design', showcases 14 theme park and resort projects and attractions work in 12 countries.Consultants in the industry have been more intentionally user-centered. Sasha Bailyn and her team at Entertainment Designer write regularly about physical-world experience design, including UX, in themed entertainment. Russell Essary, owner of Interactive Magic, applies user-centered design to exhibit design, wayfinding, game design, and much more.
In-house teams, agencies, and freelancers are becoming more common
Several large park chains have in-house or contracted UX design teams. Most mid-sized parks work with in-house marketing staff or with outside design companies. One company I know of specializes in web design and development for the amusement industry. Smaller parks and ride companies tend to work with local web designers, or occasionally free website vendors.
Screenshot of the Memphis Zoo homepage, designed by Speak Creative
Screenshot of the Extreme Engineering homepage, designed by Extreme Engineering
Sometimes, amusement sites with a great user experience are not made by UX practitioners. The website for Extreme Engineering has a very strong, immersive visual design which communicates their brand well. When I contacted them to learn who designed their site, I was surprised to learn that their head of marketing had designed it.
What I think is going well
Several developments have encouraging me in my mission to help the amusement industry become more user-centered.
UX methods are producing clear wins for my clients and their users
My clients in the industry so far have had significant fan followings. Fans have seen my user-centered approach, and they have been eager to help me improve their favorite sites. I told a recent client that it would take a week to get enough responses from his site visitors on an OptimalSort study. Within a few hours, we exceeded our target number of responses.
The Explore the Park feature concept of this Busch Gardens Williamsburg
When I worked on redesign concepts for a network of park fansites, I ran separate OptimalSort studies for all 8 fansites in the network. They used comparable pages from each site as cards. We discovered that some parks’ attractions organized well by themed area, while others organized well by ride type. Based on this, we decided to let users find attractions using either way on every site. User testers received Explore the Park and the two other new features that emerged from our studies (Visit Tips and Fansite Community) very well.
Although not all of the features I designed for The Coaster Crew went live, the redesign of their official website produced solid results. Their Facebook likes increased over 50% within a year, and their site improved significantly in several major KPIs. Several site visitors have said that the Coaster Crew’s website’s design helped them choose to join The Coaster Crew instead of another club. So that's a big win.
In-park guest experiences and accessibility are hot right now
IAAPA offered over 80 education sessions for industry professionals at this past Attractions Expo. At least nine sessions discussed guest experience. Guest experience was also mentioned in several industry publications I picked up at the show, including one which interviewed The Experience Economy author B. Joseph Pine II.
And parks are following through on this commitment, even for non-riders. Parks are increasingly theming attractions in ways that allow non-riders to experience a ride’s theme in the ride’s environment. For example, Manta at SeaWorld Orlando is a flying roller coaster themed to a manta ray. The park realized that not all of its guests will want to ride a thrilling ride with four inversions. So, separate queues allow both riders and non-riders to see aquariums with around 3,000 sea creatures. And Manta becomes, effectively, a walkthrough attraction for guests who do not want to ride the roller coaster.
The industry has also had encouraging innovations recently in accessibility. Attractions Management Magazine recently featured Morgan’s Wonderland, an amusement park geared toward people with physical and cognitive disabilities. Water parks are beginning to set aside times to especially cater to guests with autism. And at IAAPA, ride manufacturer Zamperla donated a fully-accessible ride to Give Kids the World, an amusement-industry charity.
Several successful consultancies are helping amusement parks and attractions deliver both a better guest experience in the park and better results on business metrics. And that's something I'm definitely keen to be a part of.
Amusement business factors with UX implications
While this is not an exhaustive list, here are some factors in the amusement industry which have UX implications.
While ride manufacturers continue to innovate, they are starting to encounter limits on how much physical thrill the human body can handle. A new world’s tallest complete-circuit roller coaster should open in 2017. But that record, only broken one other time since 2003, was broken 5 times between 1994 and 2003. So the industry is shifting toward more immersive attractions and "psychological thriller" rides.
Increased reliance on intellectual property
While some parks still develop their own worlds and characters for attractions, parks today increasingly rely on third-party intellectual property (IP), such as movies, TV shows, and characters. Third-party IP provides guests with a frame of references for interpreting what they see in the park. For example, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter enjoyed a very positive reception from guests due to its faithfulness to the Harry Potter books and films. In the same way, fans will notice if a themed area or attraction is not faithful to the original, and will see it as a broken experience.
Bring your own device
Many guests now carry mobile devices with them in the parks. But so far, guests have not been able to use their mobile devices to trigger changes in a park’s environment. The closest this has come is the interactive wands in The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Most parks ban mobile devices from most rides due to safety hazards. And amusement parks and museums are both beginning to ban selfie sticks.
Multiple target markets at the same time
Because parks look for gaps in their current offerings and customer bases, they very rarely add new attractions for similar audiences several years in a row. My regional parks tend to handle additions on a 5-10 year cycle. They alternate year by year with additions like a major roller coaster, one or more thrilling flat rides, a family ride, and at least one water ride, to appeal to different market segments, as regularly as possible.The same goes for in-park UX improvements. Themed environment upgrades in a kids’ area appeal to few people in haunted attractions’ target audiences, and vice versa.
Empathy
According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), the fact that most people today will never see sharks, elephants, or pandas in the wild is making conservation efforts more difficult. Zoos and aquaria, in particular, have a large opportunity to allow families to empathize with animals and efforts to conserve threatened species. But, according to an International Zoo Educators Association presentation, most zoo and aquarium guests go there primarily just to see the animals or please their kids.
Ideas for improving the user experience of websites and software in the amusement industry
My primary work interest is to design digital experiences in the amusement industry that support the goals of their target users. To understand where the industry currently stands, I have visited several thousand websites for amusement parks, ride companies, suppliers, zoos, aquaria, museums, and dolphinariums. Below, I've documented a few problems I've seen, and suggested ways companies can solve these problems.
Treat mobile as a top priority
Currently, over 500 websites in the industry are on my radar as sites to improve. At least 90 of them are desktop-only websites with no mobile presence. Several of these sites — even for major ride manufacturers — use Flash and cannot be viewed at all on a mobile device.The industry’s business-to-consumer (B2C) organizations, such as parks, realize that a great deal of traffic comes from mobile and that mobile users are more likely to leave a site that is desktop-only.
These organizations recognize the simple fact that going mobile means selling more tickets. IAAPA itself has capitalized on mobile for their trade show attendees for several years by making a quite resourceful mobile app available.However, at IAAPA, I asked people from several business-to-business (B2B) companies why their sites were not mobile yet. Several told me that they didn’t consider mobile a high priority and that they might start working on a mobile site “in about a year or so.” Thus, they don't feel a great deal of urgency — and I think it's time they did.
Bring design styles and technologies up to date
Many professional UX designers and web designers are well aware of 1990s-style web design artefacts like misused fonts (mainly Comic Sans and Papyrus), black text on a red background,obviously-tiled backgrounds, guestbooks, and splash screens. But I've seen more than a few live amusement websites that still use each of these.Sites that prompt users to install Flash (on mobile devices) or QuickTime increase users’ interaction cost with the site, because the flow of their tasks has been interrupted.
And as Jakob Nielsen says, "Unless everything works perfectly, the novice user will have very little chance of recovery."
If a website needs to use technologies such as Flash or features such as animation or video, a more effective solution would be progressive enhancement. Users whose devices lack the capability to work with these technologies would still see a website with its core features intact and no error messages to distract them from converting.
Organize website information to support user goals and knowledge
Creating an effective website involves much more than using up-to-date design styles. It also involves the following.
Understand why users are on the website
Businesses promote products and services that make them money. Many amusement parks now offer front-of-line passes, VIP tours, pay-per-experience rides, locker rentals, and water park cabana rentals, which are each an additional charge for admitted guests. And per-capita spending is very important to not only parks’ operations, but also their investor relations.Users come to websites with the question, “What’s in it for me?”, and their own sets of goals. Businesses need to know when these goals match their own goals and when they conflict.
The importance of each goal should also be apparent in the design. One water park promotes its changing rooms and locker rentals on its homepage. This valuable space dedicated to logistical information for guests already coming could be used for attracting prospective visitors. Analytics tools and the search queries that they show are helpful tools for understanding why users come to a website. Sites should supplement these by conducting usability studies with users outside their organization. These studies, in turn, could include questions allowing users to describe why would visit that website. The site could use this knowledge to make sure that its content speaks to users’ reasons for visiting.
Understand what users know
Non-technical users are bringing familiarity with how to use the internet when they visit a website. They quickly become perpetual intermediates on the internet, and don’t need to be told how buttons and links work. I've noticed amusement websites that currently label calls to action with “Click Here”, and some even do so on more than one link. This explicit instruction to people is no longer needed, and the best interfaces signal clickable elements in their visual design.
Similarly, people expect to find information in categories they understand and in language familiar to them. So it's important to not make assumptions that people who visit our websites think like us. For example, if a website is organized by model name, users will need to already be familiar with these products and the differences between them. Usability testing exercises, such as card sorting, would contribute to a better design and solve this problem.
Design websites that are consistent with users’ expectations
Websites that aim to showcase a company’s creativity and sense of fun sometimes lack features that people are used to when they visit websites (like easy-to-access menus, vertical scrolling, and so on). But it's important to remember that unconventional designs may lead to increased effort for visitors, which in turn may create a negative experience. A desire to come across as fun may conflict with a visitor's need for ease and simplicity.
The site organization needs to reflect users' goals with minimal barriers to entry. People will be frustrated with things like needing to log in to see prices, having to navigate three levels deep to buy tickets, and coming across unfamiliar or contradictory terms.
Design content for reading
Marketers have written about increased engagement and other benefits resulting from automatically playing videos, animated advertising, and rotating sliders or carousels (all of which usability practitioners have argued against). And this obsession with visual media has sometimes taken attention away from a feature people still want: easy-to-read text.There are still websites in the industry that show walls of text, rivers of text, very small text for main content, text embedded within images, and text written in all-capital letters. But telling clients, “Make the text bigger, higher-contrast, and sentence case”, can conflict with the increasing reliance on exciting visual and interactive design elements.
Goal-directed design shows us what that problem is. For example, if people visit a website to learn more about a company, the website’s design should emphasize the content that gets that message across — in the format that users find most convenient.I recently worked with a leading themed entertainment blogger to improve his site’s usability. His site, Theme Park University, provides deep knowledge of the themed entertainment industry that readers cannot get anywhere else. It first came to my attention when he published a series of posts on why Hard Rock Park in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina – one of the most ambitious new theme park projects in the US in the 2000s — failed after only one season.
As a regular reader, I knew that TPU had truly fantastic content and an engaged community on social media. But users commented to us that the site was cluttered, and so didn't spend much time on the website. We needed to give the website a more open look and feel — in other words, designed to be read.The project was not a full redesign. But by fitting small changes into the site’s existing design, we made the site more open and easier to read while retaining its familiar branding for readers. We also made his site’s advertising more effective, even by having fewer ads on each page.As D. Bnonn Tennant says, “Readership = Revenue.… [A website] has to fulfill a revenue goal. So, every element should be designed to achieve that goal. Including the copy. Especially the copy — because the copy is what convinces visitors to do whatever it is you want them to do on the website".
Three final ideas for getting UX a seat at the table
In helping take UX methods to the amusement industry, I have learned several lessons which would help other practitioners pioneer UX in other industries:
1. Explain UX benefits without UX jargon
When I work for clients in the amusement industry, the biggest challenge that I face is unfamiliarity with UX. Most other professionals in the industry do not know about UX design principles or practices. I have had to educate clients on the importance of giving me feedback early and testing with users often. And because most of my clients have not had a technical background, I have had to explain UX and its benefits in non-UX terms.
2. Be willing to do non-UX project work yourself in a team of one
As a business owner, I regularly prospect for new clients. The biggest challenge in landing projects here is trying to convince people that they should hire a bigger team than just me. A bigger team (and higher rates for a UXer versus a web designer) leads to bigger project costs and more reluctant approvals. So I have had to do development – and even some tech support – myself so far.
3. Realize clients have a lot on their plates — so learn patience
The other main challenge in selling UX to the amusement industry is project priority. Marketing departments that handle websites are used to seeing the website as one job duty out of many. Ride companies without dedicated IT staff tend to see the website as an afterthought, partially because they do most of their business at trade shows instead of online. This has led to several prospects telling me that they might pursue a redesign a year from now or later, but not in the near future. That's OK because I can be ready for them when they're ready for me.
We love getting stuck into scary, hairy problems to make things better here at Trade Me. One challenge for us in particular is how best to navigate customer reaction to any change we make to the site, the app, the terms and conditions, and so on. Our customers are passionate both about the service we provide — an online auction and marketplace — and its place in their lives, and are rightly forthcoming when they're displeased or frustrated. We therefore rely on our Customer Service (CS) team to give customers a voice, and to respond with patience and skill to customer problems ranging from incorrectly listed items to reports of abusive behavior.
The CS team uses a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system, Trade Me Admin, to monitor support requests and manage customer accounts. As the spectrum of Trade Me's services and the complexity of the public website have grown rapidly, the CRM system has, to be blunt, been updated in ways which have not always been the prettiest. Links for new tools and reports have simply been added to existing pages, and old tools for services we no longer operate have not always been removed. Thus, our latest focus has been to improve the user experience of the CRM system for our CS team.
And though on the surface it looks like we're working on a product with only 90 internal users, our changes will have flow on effects to tens of thousands of our members at any given time (from a total number of around 3.6 million members).
The challenges of designing customer service systems
We face unique challenges designing customer service systems. Robert Schumacher from GfK summarizes these problems well. I’ve paraphrased him here and added an issue of my own:
1. Customer service centres are high volume environments — Our CS team has thousands of customer interactions every day, and and each team member travels similar paths in the CRM system.
2. Wrong turns are amplified — With so many similar interactions, a system change that adds a minute more to processing customer queries could slow down the whole team and result in delays for customers.
3. Two people relying on the same system — When the CS team takes a phone call from a customer, the CRM system is serving both people: the CS person who is interacting with it, and the caller who directs the interaction. Trouble is, the caller can't see the paths the system is forcing the CS person to take. For example, in a previous job a client’s CS team would always ask callers two or three extra security questions — not to confirm identites, but to cover up the delay between answering the call and the right page loading in the system.
4. Desktop clutter — As a result of the plethora of tools and reports and systems, the desktop of the average CS team member is crowded with open windows and tabs. They have to remember where things are and also how to interact with the different tools and reports, all of which may have been created independently (ie. work differently). This presents quite the cognitive load.
5. CS team members are expert users — They use the system every day, and will all have their own techniques for interacting with it quickly and accurately. They've also probably come up with their own solutions to system problems, which they might be very comfortable with. As Schumacher says, 'A critical mistake is to discount the expert and design for the novice. In contact centers, novices become experts very quickly.'
6. Co-design is risky — Co-design workshops, where the users become the designers, are all the rage, and are usually pretty effective at getting great ideas quickly into systems. But expert users almost always end up regurgitating the system they're familiar with, as they've been trained by repeated use of systems to think in fixed ways.
7. Training is expensive — Complex systems require more training so if your call centre has high churn (ours doesn’t – most staff stick around for years) then you’ll be spending a lot of money. …and the one I’ve added:
8. Powerful does not mean easy to learn — The ‘it must be easy to use and intuitive’ design rationale is often the cause of badly designed CRM systems. Designers mistakenly design something simple when they should be designing something powerful. Powerful is complicated, dense, and often less easy to learn, but once mastered lets staff really motor.
Our project focus
Our improvement of Trade Me Admin is focused on fixing the shattered IA and restructuring the key pages to make them perform even better, bringing them into a new code framework. We're not redesigning the reports, tools, code or even the interaction for most of the reports, as this will be many years of effort. Watching our own staff use Trade Me Admin is like watching someone juggling six or seven things.
The system requires them to visit multiple pages, hold multiple facts in their head, pattern and problem-match across those pages, and follow their professional intuition to get to the heart of a problem. Where the system works well is on some key, densely detailed hub pages. Where it works badly, staff have to navigate click farms with arbitrary link names, have to type across the URL to get to hidden reports, and generally expend more effort on finding the answer than on comprehending the answer.
Groundwork
The first thing that we did was to sit with CS and watch them work and get to know the common actions they perform. The random nature of the IA and the plethora of dead links and superseded reports became apparent. We surveyed teams, providing them with screen printouts and three highlighter pens to colour things as green (use heaps), orange (use sometimes) and red (never use). From this, we were able to immediately remove a lot of noise from the new IA. We also saw that specific teams used certain links but that everyone used a core set. Initially focussing on the core set, we set about understanding the tasks under those links.
The complexity of the job soon became apparent – with a complex system like Trade Me Admin, it is possible to do the same thing in many different ways. Most CRM systems are complex and detailed enough for there to be more than one way to achieve the same end and often, it’s not possible to get a definitive answer, only possible to ‘build a picture’. There’s no one-to-one mapping of task to link. Links were also often arbitrarily named: ‘SQL Lookup’ being an example. The highly-trained user base are dependent on muscle memory in finding these links. This meant that when asked something like: “What and where is the policing enquiry function?”, many couldn’t tell us what or where it was, but when they needed the report it contained they found it straight away.
Sort of difficult
Therefore, it came as little surprise that staff found the subsequent card sort task quite hard. We renamed the links to better describe their associated actions, and of course, they weren't in the same location as in Trade Me Admin. So instead of taking the predicted 20 minutes, the sort was taking upwards of 40 minutes. Not great when staff are supposed to be answering customer enquiries!
We noticed some strong trends in the results, with links clustering around some of the key pages and tasks (like 'member', 'listing', 'review member financials', and so on). The results also confirmed something that we had observed — that there is a strong split between two types of information: emails/tickets/notes and member info/listing info/reports.
We built and tested two IAs
After card sorting, we created two new IAs, and then customized one of the IAs for each of the three CS teams, giving us IAs to test. Each team was then asked to complete two tree tests, with 50% doing one first and 50% doing the other first. At first glance, the results of the tree test were okay — around 61% — but 'Could try harder'. We saw very little overall difference between the success of the two structures, but definitely some differences in task success. And we also came across an interesting quirk in the results.
Closer analysis of the pie charts with an expert in Trade Me Admin showed that some ‘wrong’ answers would give part of the picture required. In some cases so much so that I reclassified answers as ‘correct’ as they were more right than wrong. Typically, in a real world situation, staff might check several reports in order to build a picture. This ambiguous nature is hard to replicate in a tree test which wants definitive yes or no answers. Keeping the tasks both simple to follow and comprehensive proved harder than we expected.
For example, we set a task that asked participants to investigate whether two customers had been bidding on each other's auctions. When we looked at the pietree (see screenshot below), we noticed some participants had clicked on 'Search Members', thinking they needed to locate the customer accounts, when the task had presumed that the customers had already been found. This is a useful insight into writing more comprehensive tasks that we can take with us into our next tests.
What’s clear from analysis is that although it’s possible to provide definitive answers for a typical site’s IAs, for a CRM like Trade Me Admin this is a lot harder. Devising and testing the structure of a CRM has proved a challenge for our highly trained audience, who are used to the current system and naturally find it difficult to see and do things differently. Once we had reclassified some of the answers as ‘correct’ one of the two trees was a clear winner — it had gone from 61% to 69%. The other tree had only improved slightly, from 61% to 63%.
There were still elements with it that were performing sub-optimally in our winning structure, though. Generally, the problems were to do with labelling, where, in some cases, we had attempted to disambiguate those ‘SQL lookup’-type labels but in the process, confused the team. We were left with the dilemma of whether to go with the new labels and make the system initially harder to use for staff but easier to learn for new staff, or stick with the old labels, which are harder to learn. My view is that any new system is going to see an initial performance dip, so we might as well change the labels now and make it better.
The importance of carefully structuring questions in a tree test has been highlighted, particularly in light of the ‘start anywhere/go anywhere’ nature of a CRM. The diffuse but powerful nature of a CRM means that careful consideration of tree test answer options needs to be made, in order to decide ‘how close to 100% correct answer’ you want to get.
Development work has begun so watch this space
It's great to see that our research is influencing the next stage of the CRM system, and we're looking forward to seeing it go live. Of course, our work isn't over— and nor would we want it to be! Alongside the redevelopment of the IA, I've been redesigning the key pages from Trade Me Admin, and continuing to conduct user research, including first click testing using Chalkmark.
This project has been governed by a steadily developing set of design principles, focused on complex CRM systems and the specific needs of their audience. Two of these principles are to reduce navigation and to design for experts, not novices, which means creating dense, detailed pages. It's intense, complex, and rewarding design work, and we'll be exploring this exciting space in more depth in upcoming posts.
