Everyone has their preferred ways of performing a given task. While circumstances may often inform the way we approach our to-do lists, most of us have our methods that we stick to… most of the time, anyway.

Think about the way we shop at a grocery store. Efficiency drives some of us – those of us interested in running in and out of the store with the sole purpose of purchasing the items on our list and then getting the hell out. Others are more methodical – planning out our routes or stops along the way to ensure we hit all of the areas of the store that matter to us. And of course, there those of us who seem to drift through the aisles, casually browsing and being easily drawn in by glitzy product displays and free sample slingers. 

Each method is just as valid, and in the end, we get our job done, funnelled through to the checkout counter. When a store is designed to perform optimally, each of these types of shoppers can have a fabulous experience even though they approach the same task in very different ways.

Truth be told, most retail stores are designed with little regard to the customers’ preferences. Obviously most of the pathways we follow through departments and down the aisles are carefully calculated and more informed by marketing than customer experience strategy.

When planning and designing our digital properties though, we usually can’t get away with being so self-serving. Unlike a physical store environment, with just one click digital shoppers can instantly abandon their experience on your property in favour of a competitor’s website. How, then do we ensure our digital properties are optimized for every type of user and cater to their preferred ways of interacting with us?

Just like grocery shoppers, web users may choose to interact with us in one (or a combination) of three ways, and it’s up to us to ensure we deliver outstanding experiences across each of them. Here’s how I categorize the three types of users and the appropriate usability techniques to optimize for each. 

‍

"Browsies"
The browsies rely on a site’s architecture and navigation to locate what they need. For these users, content bundles, labels and categorization are paramount.

In the physical world, browsies are those who look for the aisle markers and signage to direct them to where they need to be. Their ideal experience is defined by easily visible, legible and clear signage to guide them through the experience.

To ensure browsies are well taken care of, we recommend traditional card sorting or tree testing. Because both of these techniques emphasize content organization, hierarchy and labels, they’ll help to build out a navigation system that is logical and efficient for browsies.

‍

"Searchers"
As the name implies, searchers typically choose to bypass page content and navigation systems in favour of a robust search feature. Efficiency is the name of the game for searchers, and a poorly functioning search engine is your best bet if you want to lose their business.

In retail, these are the shoppers who immediately seek out a sales associate upon entering the store and ask which aisle the sliced bread can be found. To them, having approachable, readily available and knowledgeable floor staff matters more than anything else.

Pleasing the searchers can be a tall order as it involves two dimensions: search functionality (the back-end engine powering your site search) and the actual search interface. Determining which technology to use for your site search is typically a decision driven by an organization’s current technical infrastructure and available budget. But if we’re serious about catering to searchers, start by reviewing search logs on your existing site and observing actual customers as they interact with your current search. What terms are most common? How are search queries structured? Can enhancements like metadata or type-ahead functionality improve the experience for searchers?

Once back-end functionality is defined, we typically use high-fidelity, interactive prototypes to test the usability of the search front-end. This can be done with auto-generated prototypes using tools like Axure, giving searchers a relatively true-to-life simulation of your proposed search feature.

‍

"Bright and Shinies"
Without sounding too condescending, the bright and shinies (or “shinies” for short) use their senses to guide them through a digital property. They’re the ones who are most likely to respond to content-level calls to action, well-designed content features, and engaging functionality. Whether or not we care to admit it, most of us are shinies to some extent. 

In the physical world, shinies are the shoppers who casually browse the aisles in no particular hurry, easily distracted by the bells and whistles on product displays.

Validating page layouts and visual design for the shinies can be done in a couple of ways. If you subscribe to high-fidelity wireframes, your prototypes make the ideal test bed for testing content features, layout decisions, and front-end functionality. Tools like Axure and Invision allow for the relatively low-effort conversion of your sketches to functional prototypes.

The bottom line here is that user-centricity is only meaningful when we understand the nuances of various audience or personas and structure our validation techniques accordingly.

Yes, virtually tripling your usability testing can feel cumbersome. One thing to keep in mind, though: it’s never too late to begin listening to your customers and to begin making incremental improvements. Usability will always be a moving target, but it’s not a race.

Few organizations can afford to tackle everything I’ve listed here before launch. Instead, try to carve out periods throughout the year to focus on each user type. Any research and actions you take to remedy usability issues put you leaps ahead of where you were before.