If we think of designing experiences like theatre shows or films are designed, then it is clear that nothing must be left to chance. But people aren’t actors, so we can’t give them lines, we can’t determine what they do. Can we?

Well we can, within limits, and an easy way to do this is by restricting choice. If we know what we want to achieve, we can restrict choice so that our desired outcome is much more likely. This isn’t horrible or nasty or even obvious. But it is designed.

A simple example of this came across quite strongly in a very practical and simple way at a conference I attended recently.

I enjoyed the conference, there were good speakers and an attentive audience. But sitting there in the audience, I was aware of a large number of empty chairs dotted around, and lots of people were isolated.

So it didn’t look full, and, maybe, this wasn’t so encouraging for audience and speakers. But I knew the event was sold out and if I were the organisers I would want to make a ‘wow, it’s full’ experience for participants to make a great event feel superlative.

make the conference experience feel sold out, full, exclusive, buzzy

So I got to thinking what you might do to make the conference experience feel sold out, full, exclusive, buzzy.When you think about seating arragements, there are three options:

1. Put loads of chairs out and hope everyone sat at the front
2. Put loads of chairs out and when people didn’t sit at the front, ask them if they would
3. Put exactly the right amount of chairs out – one per ticket sold.

To get the ‘sold out’ feel  you’d obviousy do 3. And by simply restricting choice – of seat in this case -  you can make people feel “Wow, what an event, it was packed out, no room to move, and guess what I was sat next to this really interesting guy…”.

Just by taking away a few chairs … so that the experience is properly staged.

Malcolm Gladwell’s book ‘Blink : The Power of Thinking without Thinking’, is a great book. Gladwell has an easy style and big ideas. Here he talks about the way that we make decisions ‘in the blink of an eye’. This is a pre-cognitive activity, not available for introspection. Or in other words, we get an impression, make an opinion, but we don’t know why.

He calls this magic moment ‘thin-slicing’ and proves through the book with anecdotal and experimental evidence that this effect is real and frequently deployed by individuals, knowingly or unknowingly. It’s an unconscious process, quick and often righter than a slower more conscious and more logical processes.

We do a hell of a lot more with our unconscious than we currently accept

What does this mean? Well, it means that ‘sensible and logical’ ideas might easily fail if they do not stand up to the blink test. It means that we do a hell of a lot more with our unconscious than we currently accept. It means that we judge more quickly than we admit. There has been a recent study from Carleton University in Canada, reported by the BBC that says that we made judgments about whether we ‘like’ or ‘don’t like’ websites in very short times. It seems to me that much web activity is carried out in the blink of an eye.

We did some research on the choice of Google search listings for a major high street bank a little time ago using what we rather grandly called a Blink Usability Protocol based on flashing up different manipulations of SERPS listings and we got some fascinating results, but now I see that that idea has been taken to a logical conclusion – crowdsourcing the research. Fivesecondtest now provides a way to do this just like that, in five seconds. I suggest you take a look. Quickly. See what you think.

Its interesting to think, as I did the other day when putting together a short introduction to usability for the IMRG, how different perspectives on an idea can drive it away from its initial trajectory and lose its richness.

The first concepts of HCI (Human Computer Interaction) from many years ago (yes, pre-internet) was very broad. It encompassed a rich picture of all user experiences and all aspects of people interacting with computers.

Hawdale Associates current concept is again a broad, rich and business focussed Customer Journey view, and inclusive of usability.

But between these, and still very prevalent, exists a concept of usability that I think of as nitpicking, guidelines based, opinionated, fiddly and big brother. We lost the richness of HCI. How did it come to this?

How? Bloody Jakob Nielsen that how.

Lets think back to my formative years and my favourite reads. First out of the bag, the Don himself.

This was a heavyweight principled user view. The stuff that Norman was writing about was based on Participatory Design originally out of Scandinavia in the 70’s. Hard socialist stuff. Users partipate in design, design is good, work is fun. Big user focus, all centred around the user.

Around the same time, Brenda Laurel’s ‘Computers as Theatre’ invented the term ‘User Experience’ and stressed narrative, context and psychological flow. And this is when software was NOT the web! A golden era was being unveiled about how it would be when the user interface was transparent and precisely revealed the system model.

But the book that made a practical difference was Jakob Neilsen’s ‘Usability Engineering’ in 1993 which established the term ‘usability’ and put it in the mainstream. We all read the book, gasped at the risky guerilla tactics and realised that if we did HCI in this way then people would listen to us (as they didn’t before this, however worthy we were!). And, consequently, we all made sites and software on hell of a lot better and easier to use. So whatever we think of him, Nielsen made a big splash, that cannot be denied.

But alongside all of that, the major HCI / Computers as Theatre plot line about communication, flow, narrative, psychology and customer centricity heralded by Norman and Laurel got lost in Nielsen’s gray view of the world, and designers were set against usability engineers rather than working together.

Finally, I got fed up of being tarred by Nielsens 1001 guidelines brush, he’s a ‘distinguished engineer’, I’m a psychologist doing HCI.

Customer Journey gets us back to Norman and Laurel (and Pine and Gilmore, and Godin) to deliver good customer journey for both users and businesses.

Let’s get back and centre on the customer and finally leave Nielsens one-size-fits-all 1001 guidelines behind.

Sometimes it’s good to have some straightforward 5-4-3-2-1 tips to improving conversion through good usability.

5. Make Your Checkout Process Into a Tunnel

I’m still staggered an amazed at how many sites still allow users free navigation when they have started to checkout. It makes more sense to make the ‘funnel’ into a ‘tunnel’ where there are no left and right turns, no distractions, nothing to tempt the user away from making a purchase, which is what they are in the checkout process to do.

Conversion rate increase – Maybe 20% post basket.

4. Keep The Conversation Going

If you have had a visit to your site, then it’s kind of like a conversation starting. And, as a site with something to sell, you should keep that conversation going. So, tempt your prospects with a newsletter with up to date offers or something free. if you have some information about what they have been looking for, even better, then your conversation will be even more relevant.

Conversion rate increase – None immediately, but significant over time as your list increases and your newsletters drive prospects back to the site.

3. Use Words And Pictures Together

I’ve written about increased usability of words and pictures elsewhere. The rational brain (neo-cortex) likes a list of features and benefits, and the emotional brain (limbic system) likes an emotional hit. Use both. Make users both feel good and be able to justify their purchase.

Conversion rate increase – Opportunity for 20% – 30% more Adds to Basket with sufficiently tested materials.

2. Get Analytics, And Examine Footfall

Google Analytics are free and very easy to install, so there is no excuse. What has this to do with usability? Everything. You can see where your users leave – exit pages – if they just turn up and go away again – bounce rate – and how long they stay on each page, and much more. If you know this, then you can better focus your user research on what your issues really are. It removes the guesswork.

Conversion rate increase – The sky is the limit as usability and customer journey issues become visible.

1. Test With Users

When you test with user you get insights into buying process, page flow, products, motivation that you will not get any other way. And testing need not be expensive with new remote usability testing offering engaging video evidence.

Conversion rate increase – For one project, we saw an increase of 97% in turnover, for another an increase in 600% in first time purchases, for another an increase in sales of 60% overnight.

But, in our capacity as experts, we must be careful not to use words that our market doesn’t understand. If we do this we will foster confusion at least, and lose our sale at most.

Your market doesn’t think like you, doesn’t use the same language as you, doesn’t have the same goals as you

And the terms that are not understood by the general public are not be the obvious ones. The vox pop research by Google shown here in the video show that the browser – something we techies all know, love and switch about – is, well, invisible to many people – 92% in fact. I’ve see this in usability labs, I’ve seen this with my family and friends.

The browser is the wood that can’t be seen for the trees of the internet.

The fact is that your market doesn’t think like you, doesn’t use the same language as you, doesn’t have the same goals as you. Sometimes you might think you are like your market, but you are not.

I recently read a very interesting article by Philip Graves on his Consumer Behaviour site called Price is not what it seems and it made me think hard about the notion of price and the assumptions we make.

Philip was noting that Waitrose are selling ‘Essentials’ branded pizzas cheaper than their own label brand. He suggests that emotional priming as ‘less expensive’ might obscure the rational fact that they are more expensive. So Philip’s key point is:

When it comes to understanding consumers it’s always important to consider the issues from a rational perspective, and then completely ignore what you conclude.

But I simply don’t agree. It’s not as simple as that and I think it come down to how we interpret the word ‘rational’.

The economist’s view of ‘rational’ is often taken to be ‘buying it for the least amount of money”, and Philip’s point appears to be consequent to this.

But, our lives are not just about saving money. Other rational strategies are:

• Time saving – important for a lot of people who shop online. For many people time is money.
• Trusting – and trusting an organisation like Waitrose is a perfectly rational decision in my book.

So, what is a decision? Well, assuming no deadly threat that would invoke the reptile brain, the other two brains get involved:

• A rational, neo-cortex.
• An emotional, amygdala or limbic system.

The amygdala scans our experience for ideas on how we proceed with a given situation, and presents it to us as an emotion. It packages a vast amount of information into one stab of fear, or sense of well-being.

So ‘not-rational’ is definitely not ‘irrational’, and to call it so seems to write it off as ‘wrong’ in some way. I don’t think it is. And the neo-cortex can choose to use this emotional response as the best way to proceed.

We need both brains to make a decision. People who have an intact neo-cortex but no access to messages from the amygdala, cannot make decisions about anything, not even what to have for breakfast. I think we ignore half the decision making equipment of the human brain at our peril!

So, back to price …rational decisions are not always simply made on price. When we make our decisions, the feeling of trust is rational too, so is time saving and much else. So you can’t dismiss it and you shouldn’t ignore it.

And, back to Philips piece, the big danger for the retailers playing price games is losing trust. As Richard Branson’s mum said to him, “all you have is your good name”. Getting ‘found out’ will trigger the amygdala to a massive negative emotional reaction, and this will be supported by the neo-cortex with it’s own reasoned rejection. And this combination would be unstoppable, like in the current public reaction to MPs expenses.

Let’s think about what happens just before, and just a few seconds after, someone lands on your site. This is a highly critical few seconds, in which you start a conversation that may (or may not) result in a sale. If you fail here, on the landing page, then whatever marvelousness exists on the rest of your site will be entirely wasted, it may as well not be there.

So, how can we get landing pages right?

Well, users have pitched up on your landing page having selected your listing to click through over all others in a nearly instant judgement. They have mission in mind, and they may be at any part of the customer journey. Cognitively, they are primed with their own mission question, and it is almost as if they had voiced this question out loud, and, seeing the Google listings, they are overwhelmed with a barrage of replies, all shouting loudly for attention – ‘Pick me! Pick me! But they can only pick one of these possible conversations to go with at one time. So they scan and decide in the blink of an eye: “OK, you … … you go ahead … talk to me!”

they scan and decide in a blink … you go ahead … talk to me!

So, you have to be doubly good:

• create a listing that gets picked, in a blink.
• create a landing page that correctly opens the conversation.

OK, here is an example from the real world, just to show this is not all some psychobabble. The prospect’s mission is ‘Find prices and availabilities of flights to Barcelona from Manchester’. So she types ‘flight to barcelona’ in Google, like you might.

So, see what you think. I have taken screengrabs from the top four sites that clickthough from the top three sponsored and the top natural entry. Do they carry on the conversation effectively?

First, all things being equal in this shouting match for attention, the top listing will, in many cases, win. And in this case the BA sponsored listing is adequate. It mentions Barcelona – they all do – and it says low price. It ticks the boxes. But what does the BA Landing Page look like?

I would argue that this is pretty awful. Having attracted interest, the landing page conversation is about something else entirely – the location of the airport, the sights to see. It tells you of ‘sizzling catalan culture’. But the prospects mission is to get price and availability. FAIL! Close it down! In a blink! The bad news for BA is twofold. First, the top position is worth a fortune, and this has been lost, but lost doubly because of Google’s view of relevancy where poor landing page clickthrough rates are penalised by a greater cost per click. BA, very poor.

The prospect having clicked and clicked again, then navigates back and would probably go to number two – bmibaby. I don’t even think I need to describe how poor this page is. At least the BA page mentioned Barcelona, even if it was a travelogue. BMI Baby talks flights, hotels and credit cards! What was the question, bmibaby? It was ‘flights to barcelona’. Wrong answer, by a mile! FAIL! BIGTIME

Luckily there is hope on the horizon for our frustrated prospect. The final sponsored link – Easy Voyage – and the first natural listing – Skyscanner – both do pretty much the right thing, showing the so called big players how to get landing pages right.

This isn’t rocket science. This is relevance. Both sites will succeed by getting clickthroughs.

Both sites prefill a search box with ‘barcelona’ and offer a big ‘search’ button. It answers the question. Whichever listing the prospect picks becomes the issue, once the landing page is relevant. Either could get the business. BA and bmibaby will not, their landing pages are dumb sales assistants, talking about catalan grub and credit cards. If they were human, they’d be sacked!

Easy Voyage, Skyscanner, well done. I am very impressed, you listened and answered, you didn’t ignore my question! You’ll do well!