By Amanda Snellinger, PhD (opens in new tab)
We’ve all been in the position of setting up a new piece of hardware or software, trying to get familiar with it, and struggling with the process of onboarding. In an ideal world, setup and onboarding should be seamless and intuitive; this is the aim of golden path design.
Yet do users follow our golden paths? Our UX is often evaluated in the lab, with pre-designed prototypes, which are only a proxy for real user experience. We find there is value in pursuing this research from a more organic approach. Because users don’t know what our golden paths are or that they even exist, conducting research in the wild enables us to see how consumers get set up with our software and devices on their own terms and if they make it their own. This allows us to stress test the interactions/user experiences we’ve put in place. We can identify tactical level friction/issues as well as see the larger picture of how they are navigating our product ecosystem itself and how to make that more seamless.
This approach also allows researchers to dig into users’ mental models (opens in new tab) in a more nuanced way. We can understand how their previous digital experience is influencing how they think, act, and feel when interacting with our product. Obtaining both a strategic and tactical view of the users’ experience also provides maximum ‘bang for your buck,’ as opposed to having to conduct separate generative and evaluative studies. Finally, golden path research provides the opportunity to work closely with data science, looking at telemetry and usage data to see if there are deeper issues that merit further study.
What we learned
Our findings fell into two categorial buckets: Points of friction and diversions from the pathway.
Points of friction were apparent to participants and resulted in frustration, and occurred when they were:
-
- Asked to do something they didn’t understand;
- Forced to do something they didn’t want to do;
- Unable to get somewhere or do something they knew existed;
- Redirected and didn’t understand why.
These points of friction manifested in 3 primary categories: blocks, gaps, and reroutes. Blocks occurred when users were asked to do something they didn’t want to or didn’t understand why it was required before they could proceed. Gaps occurred when participants experienced real or perceived errors caused by Microsoft. Reroutes occurred when unclear instructions/messaging led participants spiraling into loops, or as they called it, “going in circles.”
Diversions from pathways were less visible to participants themselves; these occurred when people strayed from the intended paths that we’ve designed to ensure a smooth interaction, i.e. our golden path. Participants familiarize themselves with new devices and technology by “playing around” or through “trial and error.” During the study, they did what felt intuitive to them, often wanting to “get through the process” by choosing the first thing that came to mind in order to accomplish the task. If this did not work, they’d look for ideas from an online search, which often led them to veer further astray from our intended pathway. When given multiple options for things like ‘create an account/sign in,’ the choices funneled them down a specific path without outlining what to expect down the line. If their chosen pathway did not end up working for them, there was no obvious way to get back to their intended path.
The importance of the front door journey
When customers wandered off our paths and arrived at an unintended destination, they were left confused and frustrated not knowing “how I got here,” how to get back on track, or what’s left to do. If they couldn’t even get to the value-added features that are our core value proposition, or had a difficult time getting to them, they concluded the whole system was complex and that they would never master it. Building intuitive pathways within our ecosystem that reflect how our customers think and what they do is the best way to counter the consumer perception that our system is overly complex.
Because of the visibility this process provides, we brought PMs and engineers from the product team along to sit in on these sessions. Watching our customers navigate through the path and seeing them encounter the points of friction and diversions firsthand helped them develop a deeper empathy for the users for whom they’re building product.
Understanding our customers’ mental models, the friction they experience, and how they diverge from our pathways can inform how we design our product terrain in a way that guides users to the intended, ‘golden,’ destination by funneling them back from wherever they are, instead of expecting them to follow a narrow golden path.
‘In the wild’ observational research to stress test golden paths can be of value for researchers wanting to evaluate users’ experience in a wide variety of situations, from web site usage to software or hardware (or a combination thereof). It’s something you may want to consider for your organization’s products and services.
What do you think? Is this methodology something that would be useful to understanding users’ experiences? How could you put “in the wild” observational research in your practice? Tweet us your thoughts @MicrosoftRI (opens in new tab) or follow us on Facebook (opens in new tab) and join the conversation.
Amanda Snellinger, PhD is a UX design researcher and anthropologist with over ten years of mixed-methods field research experience. She has designed and managed both in-lab usability and multi-country ethnographic research projects, producing numerous reports and publications and driving product design and strategy.