Measuring the impact of UXR: beyond CSAT and NPS

In the realm of financial services, complexity isn't just a challenge, it's the default state. From intricate investment products to multi-layered insurance policies to complex fee structures, financial services are inherently complicated. But your users don't want complexity; they want confidence, clarity, and control over their financial lives.

‍

‍

How to keep things simple with good UX research 

‍

Understanding how users perceive and navigate complexity requires systematic research. Optimal's platform offers specialized tools to identify complexity pain points and validate simplification strategies:

‍

Uncover Navigation Challenges with Tree Testing

‍

Complex financial products often create equally complex navigation structures:

‍

How can you solve this? 

‍

• Test how easily users can find key information within your financial platform
• Identify terminology and organizational structures that confuse users
• Compare different information architectures to find the most intuitive organization

‍

‍

Identify Confusion Points with First-Click Testing

‍

Understanding where users instinctively look for information reveals valuable insights about mental models:

‍

How can you solve this? 

‍

• Test where users click when trying to accomplish common financial tasks
• Compare multiple interface designs for complex financial tools
• Identify misalignments between expected and actual user behavior

‍

‍

Understand User Mental Models with Card Sorting

‍

Financial terminology and categorization often don't align with how customers think:

‍

How can you solve this? 

• Use open card sorts to understand how users naturally group financial concepts
• Test comprehension of financial terminology
• Identify intuitive labels for complex financial products

‍

‍

‍

‍

Practical Strategies for Simplifying Financial UX

‍

1. Progressive Information Disclosure

‍

Rather than bombarding users with all information at once, layer information from essential to detailed:

‍

• Start with core concepts and benefits
• Provide expandable sections for those who want deeper dives
• Use tooltips and contextual help for terminology
• Create information hierarchies that guide users from basic to advanced understanding

‍

‍

2. Visual Representation of Numerical Concepts

‍

Financial services are inherently numerical, but humans don't naturally think in numbers—we think in pictures and comparisons.

‍

What could this look like? 

‍

• Use visual scales and comparisons instead of just presenting raw numbers
• Implement interactive calculators that show real-time impact of choices
• Create visual hierarchies that guide attention to most relevant figures
• Design comparative visualizations that put numbers in context

‍

‍

3. Contextual Decision Support

‍

Users don't just need information; they need guidance relevant to their specific situation.

‍

How do you solve for this? 

‍

• Design contextual recommendations based on user data
• Provide comparison tools that highlight differences relevant to the user
• Offer scenario modeling that shows outcomes of different choices
• Implement guided decision flows for complex choices

‍

‍

4. Language Simplification and Standardization

‍

Financial jargon is perhaps the most visible form of unnecessary complexity. So, what can you do? 

‍

• Develop and enforce a simplified language style guide
• Create a financial glossary integrated contextually into the experience
• Test copy with actual users, measuring comprehension, not just preference
• Replace industry terms with everyday language when possible

‍

‍

‍

‍

Measuring Simplification Success

‍

To determine whether your simplification efforts are working, establish a continuous measurement program:

‍

1. Establish Complexity Baselines

‍

Use Optimal's tools to create baseline measurements:

‍

• Success rates for completing complex tasks
• Time required to find critical information
• Comprehension scores for key financial concepts
• User confidence ratings for financial decisions

‍

‍

2. Implement Iterative Testing

‍

Before launching major simplification initiatives, validate improvements through:

‍

• A/B testing of alternative explanations and designs
• Comparative testing of current vs. simplified interfaces
• Comprehension testing of revised terminology and content

‍

‍

3. Track Simplification Metrics Over Time

‍

Create a dashboard of key simplification indicators:

‍

• Task success rates for complex financial activities
• Support call volume related to confusion
• Feature adoption rates for previously underutilized tools
• User-reported confidence in financial decisions

‍

‍

‍

‍

Where rubber hits the road: Organizational Commitment to Clarity

‍

True simplification goes beyond interface design. It requires organizational commitment at the most foundational level:

‍

• Product development: Are we creating inherently understandable products?
• Legal and compliance: Can we satisfy requirements while maintaining clarity?
• Marketing: Are we setting appropriate expectations about complexity?
• Customer service: Are we gathering intelligence about confusion points?

‍

When there is a deep commitment from the entire organization to simplification, it becomes part of a businesses’ UX DNA. 

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Conclusion: The Future Belongs to the Clear

‍

As financial services become increasingly digital and self-directed, clarity bcomes essential for business success. The financial brands that will thrive in the coming decade won't necessarily be those with the most features or the lowest fees, but those that make the complex world of finance genuinely understandable to everyday users.

‍

By embracing clarity as a core design principle and supporting it with systematic user research, you're not just improving user experience, you're democratizing financial success itself.

‍

“If storymapping could unearth patterns and bring together a cohesive story that engages audiences in the world of entertainment and film, why couldn’t we use a similar approach to engage our audiences?’Donna Lichaw and Lis Hubert

‍

User Experience work makes the most sense to me in the context of storytelling. So when I saw Donna Lichaw and Lis Hubert’s presentation on storymapping at edUi recently, it resonated. A user’s path through a website can be likened to the traditional storytelling structure of crisis or conflict, exposition — and even a climax or two.

‍

The narrative arc and the user experience

‍

So just how can the same structure that suits fairytales help us to design a compelling experience for our customers? Well, storyboarding is an obvious example of how UX design and storytelling mesh. A traditional storyboard for a movie or TV episode lays out sequential images to help visualize what the final production will show. Similarly, we map out users' needs and journeys via wireframes, sketches, and journey maps, all the while picturing how people will actually interact with the product.

‍

But the connection between storytelling and the user experience design process goes even deeper than that. Every time a user interacts with our website or product, we get to tell them a story. And a traditional literary storytelling structure maps fairly well to just how users interact with the digital stories we’re telling.Hence Donna and Lis’ conception of storymapping as ‘a diagram that maps out a story using a traditional narrative structure called a narrative arc.’ They concede that while ‘using stories in UX design...is nothing new’, a ‘narrative-arc diagram could also help us to rapidly assess content strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities.’

‍

Storytelling was a common theme at edUI

‍

The edUi conference in Richmond, Virginia brought together an assembly of people who produce websites or web content for large institutions. I met people from libraries, universities, museums, various levels of government, and many other places. The theme of storytelling was present throughout, both explicitly and implicitly.Keynote speaker Matt Novak from Paleofuture talked about how futurists of the past tried to predict the future, and what we can learn from the stories they told. Matthew Edgar discussed what stories our failed content tell — what story does a 404 page tell? Or a page telling users they have zero search results? Two great presentations that got me thinking about storytelling in a different way.

‍

Ultimately, it all clicked for me when I attended Donna and Lis’ presentation ‘Storymapping: A Macguyver Approach to Content Strategy’ (and yes, it was as compelling as the title suggests). They presented a case study of how they applied a traditional narrative structure to a website redesign process. The basic story structure we all learned in school usually includes a pretty standard list of elements. Donna and Lis had tweaked the definitions a bit, and applied them to the process of how users interact with web content.

‍

Points on the Narrative Arc (from their presentation)

‍

‍

Exposition — provides crucial background information and often ends with ‘inciting incident’ kicking off the rest of the story

‍

Donna and Lis pointed out that in the context of doing content strategy work, the inciting incident could be the problem that kicks off a development process. I think it can also be the need that brings users to a website to begin with.

‍

Rising Action — Building toward the climax, users explore a website using different approaches

‍

Here I think the analogy is a little looser. While a story can sometimes be well-served by a long and winding rising action, it’s best to keep this part of the process a bit more straightforward in web work. If there’s too much opportunity for wandering, users may get lost or never come back.

‍

Crisis / Climax — The turning point in a story, and then when the conflict comes to a peak

‍

The crisis is what leads users to your site in the first place — a problem to solve, an answer to find, a purchase to make. And to me the climax sounds like the aha! moment that we all aspire to provide, when the user answers their question, makes a purchase, or otherwise feels satisfied from using the site. If a user never gets to this point, their story just peters out unresolved. They’re forced to either begin the entire process again on your site (now feeling frustrated, no doubt), or turn to a competitor.

‍

Falling Action — The story or user interaction starts to wind down and loose ends are tied up

‍

A confirmation of purchase is sent, or maybe the user signs up for a newsletter.

‍

Denouement / Resolution — The end of the story, the main conflict is resolved

‍

The user goes away with a hopefully positive experience, having been able to meet their information or product needs. If we’re lucky, they spread the word to others!Check out Part 2 of Donna and Lis' three-part article on storymapping.  I definitely recommend exploring their ideas in more depth, and having a go at mapping your own UX projects to the above structure.

‍

A word about crises. The idea of a ‘crisis’ is at the heart of the narrative arc. As we know from watching films and reading novels, the main character always has a problem to overcome. So crisis and conflict show up a few times through this process.While the word ‘crisis’ carries some negative connotations (and that clearly applies to visiting a terribly designed site!), I think it can be viewed more generally when we apply the term to user experience. Did your user have a crisis that brought them to your site? What are they trying to resolve by visiting it? Their central purpose can be the crisis that gives rise to all the other parts of their story.

‍

Why storymapping to a narrative arc is good for your design

‍

Mapping a user interaction along the narrative arc makes it easy to spot potential points of frustration, and also serves to keep the inciting incident or fundamental user need in the forefront of our thinking. Those points of frustration and interaction are natural fits for testing and further development.

‍

For example, if your site has a low conversion rate, that translates to users never hitting the climactic point of their story. It might be helpful to look at their interactions from the earlier phases of their story before they get to the climax. Maybe your site doesn’t clearly establish its reason for existing (exposition), or it might be too hard for users to search and explore your content (rising action).Guiding the user through each phase of the structure described above makes it more difficult to skip an important part of how our content is found and used.

‍

We can ask questions like:

• How does each user task fit into a narrative structure?
• Are we dumping them into the climax without any context?
• Does the site lack a resolution or falling action?
• How would it feel to be a user in those situations?

‍

These questions bring up great objectives for qualitative testing — sitting down with a user and asking them to show us their story.

‍

What to do before mapping to narrative arc

‍

Many sessions at edUi also touched on analytics or user testing. In crafting a new story, we can’t ignore what’s already in place — especially if some of it is appreciated by users. So before we can start storymapping the user journey, we need to analyze our site analytics, and run quantitative and qualitative user tests. This user research will give us insights into what story we’re already telling (whether it’s on purpose or not).

‍

What’s working about the narrative, and what isn’t? Even if a project is starting from scratch on a new site, your potential visitors will bring stories of their own. It might be useful to check stats to see if users leave early on in the process, during the exposition phase. A high bounce rate might mean a page doesn't supply that expositional content in a way that's clear and engaging to encourage further interaction.Looking at analytics and user testing data can be like a movie's trial advance screening — you can establish how the audience/users actually want to experience the site's content.

‍

How mapping to the narrative arc is playing out in my UX practice

‍

Since I returned from edUi, I've been thinking about the narrative structure constantly. I find it helps me frame user interactions in a new way, and I've already spotted gaps in storytelling that can be easily filled in. My attention instantly went to the many forms on our site. What’s the Rising Action like at that point? Streamlining our forms and using friendly language can help keep the user’s story focused and moving forward toward clicking that submit button as a climax.

‍

I’m also trying to remember that every user is the protagonist of their own story, and that what works for one narrative might not work for another. I’d like to experiment with ways to provide different kinds of exposition to different users. I think it’s possible to balance telling multiple stories on one site, but maybe it’s not the best idea to mix exposition for multiple stories on the same page.And I also wonder if we could provide cues to a user that direct them to exposition for their own inciting incident...a topic for another article perhaps.What stories are you telling your users? Do they follow a clear arc, or are there rough transitions? These are great questions to ask yourself as you design experiences and analyze existing ones. The edUi conference was a great opportunity to investigate these ideas, and I can’t wait to return next year.

Product, design and research teams today are drowning in user data while starving for user understanding. Never before have teams had such access to user information, analytics dashboards, heatmaps, session recordings, survey responses, social media sentiment, support tickets, and endless behavioral data points. Yet despite this volume of data, teams consistently build features users don't want and miss needs hiding in plain sight.

‍

It’s a true paradox for product, design and research teams: more information has made genuine understanding more elusive. 

‍

Because with  all this data, teams feel informed. They can say with confidence: "Users spend 3.2 minutes on this page," "42% abandon at this step," "Power users click here." But what this data doesn't tell you is Why. 

‍

The Difference between Data and Insight

‍

Data tells you what happened. Understanding tells you why it matters.

‍

Here’s a good example of this: Your analytics show that 60% of users abandon a new feature after first use. You know they're leaving. You can see where they click before they go. You have their demographic data and behavioral patterns.

‍

But you don't know:

‍

• Were they confused or simply uninterested?
• Did it solve their problem too slowly or not at all?
• Would they return if one thing changed, or is the entire approach wrong?
• Are they your target users or the wrong segment entirely?

‍

One team sees "60% abandonment" and adds onboarding tooltips. Another talks to users and discovers the feature solves the wrong problem entirely. Same data, completely different understanding.

‍

Modern tools make it dangerously easy to mistake observation for comprehension, but some aspects of user experience exist beyond measurement:

‍

• Emotional context, like the frustration of trying to complete a task while handling a crying baby, or the anxiety of making a financial decision without confidence.
• The unspoken needs of users which can only be demonstrated through real interactions. Users develop workarounds without reporting bugs. They live with friction because they don't know better solutions exist.
• Cultural nuances that numbers don't capture, like how language choice resonates differently across cultures, or how trust signals vary by context.
• Data shows what users do within your current product. It doesn't reveal what they'd do if you solved their problems differently to help you identify new opportunities. 

‍

Why Human Empathy is More Important than Ever 

‍

The teams building truly user-centered products haven't abandoned data but they've learned to combine quantitative and qualitative insights. 

‍

• Combine analytics (what happens), user interviews (why it happens), and observation (context in which it happens).
• Understanding builds over time. A single study provides a snapshot; continuous engagement reveals the movie.
• Use data to form theories, research to validate them, and real-world live testing to confirm understanding.
• Different team members see different aspects. Engineers notice system issues, designers spot usability gaps, PMs identify market fit, researchers uncover needs.

‍

Adding AI into the mix also emphasizes the need for human validation. While AI can help significantly speed up workflows and can augment human expertise, it still requires oversight and review from real people. 

‍

AI can spot trends humans miss, processing millions of data points instantly but it can't understand human emotion, cultural context, or unspoken needs. It can summarize what users say but humans must interpret what they mean.

‍

Understanding users has never been easier from a data perspective. We have tools our predecessors could only dream of.  But understanding users has never been harder from an empathy perspective. The sheer volume of data available to us creates an illusion of knowledge that's more dangerous than ignorance.

‍

The teams succeeding aren't choosing between data and empathy, they're investing equally in both. They use analytics to spot patterns and conversations to understand meaning. They measure behavior and observe context. They quantify outcomes and qualify experiences.

‍

Because at the end of the day, you can track every click, measure every metric, and analyze every behavior, but until you understand why, you're just collecting data, not creating understanding.

‍