Tests Q&Onboarding V4.1 & V4.2
Introduction
In follow up to the improvement of the onboarding I decided to create two versions. In this way I was able to determine if the ranking did contribute to a better experience. Throughout the interviews, I already received positive reactions about the ranking system, but I wanted to know what users would choose if there was another approach.
Test #1
Ranking
The first participant directly was curious why there was a question about the demographic data. As I told the participant I was not suppose to help them, the participant quickly found out that there was a 'help' functionality. The participant felt guided and reacted positive, because it was now clear why the question were asked.
The second question, about the monthly budget, was also a bit confusing for the participant as it was unclear if it was suppose to be the monthly budget in total (how much money can someone spend per month), or what someone would spend for their car per month. The participant again, checked the help section to check what it was.
The ranking system felt intuitive whenever they had to rank the categories. Also, the follow up question about the fuel and transmission became clear directly. The fact that the transmission was not clickable if there was no option chosen for fuel, got positive reactions.
Whenever the participant got asked in which occasions the car would be used (privately, work, both), the
As the results were displayed in the last screen, the participant was questioning if there were only three models or that it was possible to see more results. On the other hand, the information that was provided (specs/monthly fee/possible colours) were clear. In general, the whole process felt easy and intuitive to follow.
As a tip, the testperson recommended to have a preview of what would happen when the ranking changes. For example, the testperson mentioned that whenever the space is ranked first, a big car icon would be displayed. If the space is ranked last, a small car icon would be displayed.
Car type
During the second test, the participant was clearly faster. The participant also mentioned the simplicity of the questions. Every step required two to three clicks and felt very intuitive. The participant afterwards, said that this approach also could work really well. However, the participant, by itself, mentioned that the ranking system required serious thoughts about what was important.
In the second version, I used different button texts. Instead of using 'next step' I indicated the next step by using the term of the step (e.g. 'motorisation'). The testperson pointed out that this was a good approach, because it now was more clear what to be expected at the next step.
Test #2
Ranking
From the beginning of the test, the participant found its way through. At the moment the participant reached the ranking system, the participant started clicking the categories instead of drag and drop. Right after the participant found out it was not able to click, the participant noticed that it was a drag and drop system and started to proceed by doing that.
Before I knew, the test was over. The participant found its way through within two minutes and directly mentioned how logically every step in the process felt. Of course, I wanted to know more and asked to analyse it more specifically. As an answer the participant mentioned that the question about the travelling distance could be a total value, instead of only travelling on business. As contradiction, I said that would be difficult because everybody uses their car in a different way.
Car type
The second approach felt secure and reasonable as well. The testperson directly mentioned that both ends would contribute to find a car that fit the wants and needs for the target audience. In comparison, the testperson mentioned two things that were more complicated. In the first place the car types. The testperson knew what a city car and SUV were, but did not directly knew what a berlines or a MPV was. The possibility to find out what every model meant helped, but it required to much cognitive load. And as second the testperson mentioned the three levels for car options. Standard was instantly clear, but for the second option Fundamenteel, it was not obvious what to expect. The caption below the levels did explain what it included, but it again took to maony cognitive load.
Test 3
The third test again turned out the be intuitive. The testperson was speaking out loud at every question which I really appreciated. In this way I could hear what the testperson was thinking. At the question for the monthly budget, the testperson clearly spoke out that this budget would be the monthly fee for the car. It became clear that for some participants this way clear and for others it might be more confusing.
When the testperson were asked about the kind of fuel, the testperson specifically stated that there was no electric option (As Peugeot only provides some hybrides and one electric car, I decided to only provide the option hybride). In addition, the testperson mentioned that the question about the travelling distance should provide more information. In this version, the question should be more specific by asking if it is only a single ride or returning.
At the end, the testperson asked if the selection of cars also had different colours. In this version the cars are displayed in the original white colour. I had to show the sentence in the model card that said : available in 8 different colours. This could be more prominent, the user said.
As conclusion, I asked how the whole experience felt. The testperson said that everything felt intuitive and simple. The testperson would have really liked the system to work to see if could really generate the right offer.
Test 4
replied with an option of hybride or electric so the it is not a category its own.
The second approach, directly became confusing because of the terminology of the type of cars. The participant, for example, asked what MPV meant. I had to explain what it meant, where after the participant said I should write out the whole name. As a whole, the participant said it second approach took way too much cognitive load. Firstly, the terminology of the type of cars and second the level of options. The participant specifically mentioned that the required amount of reading and doing research did not contribute to a pleasurable experience. A fun fact, the participant stated, was the face that the system asked for the type of car. Whereas the system actually should tell the user.
Test 5
Ranking
At the fifth test, the participant had some questions about the process as a whole. The participant tried to back to a previous step, but that was not clear how. Also, at the ranking, sustainable and consumption felt similar. The participant stated that a hybride car that is heavy and has big wheels could have a high consumption and thus is not very sustainable. The participant advised to take the two terms into account and change one. This could take away uncertainties.
Type
Also at the fifth test, the participant was confused by the types of car. The icons in combination with the terms did not speak to the participant's mind. The participant, at some point, said that the icon of the MPV (multi purpose vehicle) looked bigger than the compact car. Also at the level of options the participant was confused. The terms were not clear, so the participant suggested to use 'version' over 'options'. In contradiction I said that the version depends on the chosen options. I mentioned that choosing between three levels for options, is the same thing as ranking luxury on place 1 and 2, 3 and 4 or 5. Whereafter the participant preferred to rank instead of choosing abstract levels.
As tip the testperson mentioned to have the ability to skip the first step. Some people do not like to fill in their names and personal data. These days privacy is everything, so asking for such personal data could offend people and cause exits.
.
Last updated
