**Disclaimer: Some details of this project will not appear in this case study because they are intellectual property. You may gain access to the full case study upon request at the discretion of the author. Please contact lkanaventi1020@gmail.com for password.
Manufacturing Company’s Search Engine Results Page (SERP)
After listening to their customer’s, the company had a goal of improving it’s product findability on their public website. Researching and designing a new search engine results page (SERP) was a main focus of the overall goal of improving their product findability. There were three different segments of users we needed to design for: first time users, unauthenticated users, authenticated users. One of the main reasons people visit the manufacturer’s site is to get information about their products. Users had not been successful finding the product, therefore they weren’t successful in finding the information they need about the product either.
problem
customers were not finding or seeing the content they needed to make a decision
customers were not recognizing content or seeing relevance of content that was showing
content was not easily scannable
methods
Priority Canvas- The team captures all their questions about what needs answering on a mural board. From there, we assign them to specialty of who can answer the question, then prioritize questions on what needs to be brought into research and what type of research (moderated vs. unmoderated).
Task Mapping- I use the priority canvas to plan the whole quarter’s research activities. I collect everyone’s planned time off, holidays, or large company events for the quarter to avoid planning any moderated research during those times. Once I determine the best time for the moderated research, I backward plan from there to fill in everything leading up to research day and after, as well as planning the unmoderated studies. I also plan out every Jira ticket for the whole quarter and what sprint they would be in. This is useful to align the team on when we plan on doing each study. When each team member needs to finish their part of the work. It also helps to ensure everybody has enough time to complete the work needed of them. Of course, this is a flexible document if we discover something else is more important to complete during the course of the quarter, but it gives us a foundation to work from.
Primary Past Research- I went through our research teams past research to pull findings out that are applicable to SERP so we weren’t researching what we already knew. I presented the findings to team.
Benchmarking- The designer used Baymard to review competitor’s SERP pages. Baymard has already researched and analyzed these pages to determine what works and doesn’t work for users. The designer presented these findings out to the team as well. This informed the team of what others knew.
Intake Meeting- I lead this for meeting and start every study with an intake meeting. At this meeting we determine the business problems we are solving for, get team agreement on the study goals and recruit requirements, determine our hypothesis and if any design assets needed. Based off the discussion in the meeting, I determine the best type of method to solve for the questions we are answering.
Questions Meeting- I bring the proposed questions or tasks for each study to the team to give them a chance to offer input whether that be to add addition questions, change questions, or delete any questions. At this meeting we get agreement on the final questions going into the study.
Survey- For this specific feature, I completed a survey as the first study of the quarter to answer the question of what content users wanted on the SERP so that the designer had a baseline to design a prototype for the moderated usability study. Click survey to review the results.
Click test- This study was not originally planned, but after reviewing the survey results, the team had a new question that they felt was very important to answer. I knew the question would be better answered in a click test rather than a moderated usability study, so I took the time I had available to get this study in. That way the team had all the information they needed to make the best decisions. This study was used to determine if users were more successful finding content quicker or preferred a 3-column grid layout, 4-column grid layout, or a list view.
Moderated Usability Study- Taking the information from the survey and click test to inform an interactive prototype that the designer designed for the moderated usability study, I wrote the script to focus on how participants refined their search results quickly using methods like the second search bar and navigation tabs on top of the SERP as well as the left hand navigation (LHN).
Findings and Recommendations
Customers were not finding or seeing the content they needed to make a decision
Show content that had 70% of all user segments agreed they wanted on the SERP. The only content type all users agreed upon was products. For the remaining content types that segments differed on, use other sources of information such as data analytics or benchmarking. (survey)
Participants used the second search bar more often, keep the second search bar, but add clarification for how it works. (Moderated Study)
In the filters in the left hand navigation (LHN) make Brands multi-select. (Moderated Study)
Reorder the tabs based on participants feedback to: Products>Applications>Regulatory>News>Video and Media. (Moderated Study)
Customers were not recognizing content or seeing relevance of content that was showing
Of the tabs on top of SERP, participants didn’t understand what types of content would be under Video and Media and Application and News tabs, create new names to increase comprehension. (Moderated Study)
Users used all three pathways to find Safety Data Sheets, keep all three pathways available to users. (Moderated Study)
Content was not easily scannable
Use 3-column grid design. Based on the preference question, 3- and 4-column grid had equal preference amongst participants. Looking deeper into their comments, it looked like the 3-column participants had more of a “why” behind their choice. Also, when looking at the time on task to find the information they needed, the 4-column view took the longest for participants to find the information on average. Previous to the click test, the team had decided they preferred the 3-column as well. With that said, the data isn’t that different and is that enough to undertake a costly change? I think overall, this is a really important discussion the team needs to have. (Click test)
List View over Grid View for authenticated users due to the amount of information listed for each product. (Moderated Study)
Use close filters design due to cognitive overload when all filters are open. (Moderated Study)
Make tabs visually easier to see on SERP. (Moderated Study)