2013 ux research - ux benchmark study: telco industries

UX BENCHMARK STUDY TelCo Industries July 2013

INDEX 2

1.  SCENARIO

2.  WEB ANALYTICS METRICS

3.  BENCHMARK

4.  CONCLUSIONS

1. SCENARIO

•   The following selection has been drafted by considering the scenario of leading references for

TELCO industries.

•   The analysis is based on the best practices in use and it relates to the 8 companies listed below:

1.  Comcast (USA) - http://www.comcast.com

2.  Mobinil (Egypt) - https://www.mobinil.com/en

3.  Movistar (Spain) - http://www.movistar.es

4.  Telenor (Sweden) - http://www.telenor.se/privat/index.html

5.  T-mobile (UK) - http://www.t-mobile.com

6.  Verizon Wirless (USA) - http://www.verizonwireless.com

7.  Virgin Mobile (USA) - http://www.virginmobileusa.com

8.  Vodafone (UK) - http://www.vodafone.co.uk

3

INDEX 4

1.  SCENARIO


3.  BENCHMARK

4.  CONCLUSIONS

2. WEB ANALYTICS METRICS

•   The most important purpose for a website is to MEET THE NEED OF USERS, providing a clear and

relevant information environment that allows users to easily find what they are seeking for.

•   To achieve that, a website should comply with the following key metrics:

1.  Cross-Device

2.  Information Architecture

3.  Information and Services

4.  Labelling and Wording

5.  Look and Feel

5

2.1 WEB ANALYTICS METRICS: Cross-Device

•   Apart from the desktop-based traffic, it is of

paramount importance to take into account all

the other devices, both tablets and

smartphones.

•   A good design has to build optimized contents

to deliver the best navigation experience

possible even for mobile-based traffic.

•   RWD, Responsive Web Design, is an approach aimed at crafting sites to provide an optimal viewing

experience: easy reading and navigation with a minimum of resizing, panning, and scrolling, across a

wide range of devices (from desktop computer monitors to mobile phones).

6

•   Provide feedback, such as the use of breadcrumbs to indicate how to navigate back

2.2 WEB ANALYTICS METRICS: Information Architecture

•   A website navigation scheme should make desired information or

functionality EASY TO BE FOUND.

•   Ensure users can quickly find what their looking for

by creating an easily understandable website structure.

•   Information architecture should:

•   Be easy to learn

•   Be hierarchical

•   Group navigation into logical units

•   Be consistent throughout the website

•   Use the minimum number of clicks to arrive at the next destination

7

2.3 WEB ANALYTICS METRICS: Informations and Services

•   Both users and search engines love content-rich

websites, but having a lot of content isn’t enough.

•   Page contents must be relevant, clear, accurate

and directly related to the website’s main purpose.

•   There are two main reasons for content relevancy:

•   Users who have to search through multiple pages to

find informations won't be visitors much longer

•   The more relevant the web site's content is for a

specific topic, the more likely the site is to show up

near the top of search results for that topic (Search

Engine Optimization – organic results)

8

2.4 WEB ANALYTICS METRICS: Labelling and Wording

•   Using talking labels for links that lead to a

related page or menu is crucial to guide

user’s navigation process.

•   Even the disposition of both items and

sections has to be clear and immediate.

•   It is recommended to use labels that are

easy-to-get, and creative wording is

forbidden.

•   Information has to be presented, structured and sorted in such a way that machines can read and

understand it as much as humans can, with NO AMBIGUITY.

9

2.5 WEB ANALYTICS METRICS: Look and Feel

•   The interface should bring together information architecture with the brand’s values.

10

•   Type, colors, images, graphics are a logical extension of the brand’s visual identity.

•   Reference parameters:

•   Layout – items and spaces: disposition of objects in-page

•   Cognitive noise: graphic consistency (correspondence between form

and function)

•   Visual noise: unnecessary and distracting elements

•   Typography: choice and usage of typefaces

INDEX 11

1.  SCENARIO


3.  BENCHMARK

4.  CONCLUSIONS

3.1 BENCHMARK: Comcast (USA) 12

http://comcast.com

1.  Cross–Device: not responsive, (light) mobile version instead

2.  Information Architecture: apparently well structured, an in-depht navigation reveals problems (duplicated

menus; many external links to others company’s websites, that do not show any visual/structural connection

with the reference website)

3.  Information and Services: the main offer is represented by a single macro plan, taylored for various services/

products + service details pages are well designed, both visually and structurally

4.  Labelling and Wording: ambiguous and confusing (ex: PRODUCTS is about services)

5.  Look and Feel: brand's visual identity is difficult to perceive (too many colors in page) + looking at the top-

header, Comcast’s logo is too close to the Xfinity logo, and it could be confusing to users

Cross-Device Information Architecture

Information and Services

Labelling and Wording

Look and Feel

1.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.5

13

3.1 BENCHMARK: Comcast (USA)

3.2 BENCHMARK: Mobinil (Egypt) 14

http://.mobinil.com/home.aspx ‎




Look and Feel

0 3.5 4.0 3.5 2.0

1.  Cross–Device: not responsive, any mobile version

2.  Information Architecture: well performing navigation structure with no ambiguous paths, even if some menus

are duplicated/incomplete

3.  Information and Services: content is relevant, well-presented and meets the real offer (services + devices)

4.  Labelling and Wording: (almost) always clear and efficient – ex: under ENTERTAINMENT there are links to

8000 and 1111 for football options, which are too unclear to be mentioned in such a way in a second level menu

5.  Look and Feel: flat graphic, feeble impact, too much text

15

3.2 BENCHMARK: Mobinil (Egypt)

3.3 BENCHMARK: Movistar (Spain) 16

http://movistar.es




Look and Feel

3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0

1.  Cross–Device : not responsive, mobile version instead

2.  Information Architecture: different sections for different needs (personal, self-employed, business) + sections

refer to each other as part of the same project (both visually and structurally) + not always easy to

understand how to go back to the previously visited page

3.  Information and Services: well detailed informations and focus on the customer (the main menu has a

dedicated option “Atenciòn al cliente”, with a support live chat) + core offers about landline and mobile

based services, internet and tv services

4.  Labelling and Wording: work together with information architecture, emphasizing its structure

5.  Look and Feel: the usage of both colours and typography enhance the brand’s identity

17

3.3 BENCHMARK: Movistar (Spain)

3.4 BENCHMARK: Telenor (Sweden) 18

http://telenor.se




Look and Feel

5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0

1.  Cross–Device: responsive

2.  Information Architecture: very well structured + possibility to switch from Private to Companies versions +

breadcrumbs under the main menu, to support wayfinding decisions

3.  Information and Services: compared with the offer of the leading companies, contents seems to be relevant

and consistent (services + products + customer assistance)

4.  Labelling and Wording: the main drop-down menus use, when possible, the same labels (ex: Deals, Good to

know, Get started, Get more), and this feauture helps in making the web-site usage easy-to-learn

5.  Look and Feel: texts used to be coupled with graphics and icons, friendly approach, strong impact

19

3.4 BENCHMARK: Telenor (Sweden)

3.5 BENCHMARK: T-Mobile (UK) 20

http://t-mobile.com




Look and Feel

1.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0

1.  Cross–Device: not responsive, (light) mobile version instead

2.  Information Architecture: hierarchical structure is clear, appropriate and never redundant (in terms of

duplicated menus/items) + from the top-header it is possibile to switch from Personal (default) to the

Business duplicated site

3.  Information and Services: contents are relevant and consistent + the offer is as vary as complete, from

products and services to customer care

4.  Labelling and Wording: effective and well coupled with contents

5.  Look and Feel: close attention to details, exept from typography usage (font size is often too small)

21

3.5 BENCHMARK: T-Mobile (UK)

3.6 BENCHMARK: Verizon Wireless (USA) 22

http://verizonwireless.com




Look and Feel

3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0

1.  Cross–Device: not responsive, mobile version instead

2.  Information Architecture: as the website is wide so the structure is solid and well-defined, starting from a

clear separation based on different user’s target (Wireless, Residential and Business – Small business,

Medium and enterprise, Government, Industries) + navigation rarely supported by breadcrumbs

3.  Information and Services: broad offer, everything is tailored to make the best proposals depending on the

user’s location and needs – a Select Location form is required to access some important sections of the site

4.  Labelling and Wording: clear, well-explained and recurring (same wording for different sections)

5.  Look and Feel: graphics and text well-combined to communicate the brand identity + text could be used

better (there are long and small-written paragraphs on main pages, with provisions and legal terms)

23

3.6 BENCHMARK: Verizon Wireless (USA)

3.7 BENCHMARK: Virgin Mobile (USA) 24

http://virginmobileusa.com




Look and Feel

3.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.5


2.  Information Architecture: the structure of the website is not perceivable at a first sight but displayed step by

step, with breadcrumbs

3.  Information and Services: the offer is not as rich as the benchmark suggest it could be (both in terms of

products/ services and customer care) but well detailed and supported by a Why choose us option in the

main menu – easiness to go

4.  Labelling and Wording: not always self-explaining and sometimes contradictory

5.  Look and Feel: user friendly + consistent throughout the website and with the brand identity

25

3.7 BENCHMARK: Virgin Mobile (USA)

3.8 BENCHMARK: Vodafone (UK) 26

http://vodafone.co.uk




Look and Feel

3.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0


2.  Information Architecture: clear and well structured in all its parts + the absence of breadcrumbs is partially

recovered by the secondary menu on the left

3.  Information and Services: contents are as rich as clearly exposed

4.  Labelling and Wording: coincise and precise, never ambiguous neither redundant

5.  Look and Feel: user friendly + layout, colours, text, graphics work well and communicate accurately the idea

of the brand

27

3.8 BENCHMARK: Vodafone (UK)

INDEX 28

1.  SCENARIO


3.  BENCHMARK

4.  CONCLUSIONS

4. CONCLUSIONS 29

Brand Cross-Device Information Architecture



Look and Feel Average

COMCAST 1.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.5 2.3

MOBINIL 0 3.5 4.0 3.5 2.0 2.6

MOVISTAR 3.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.1

TELENOR 5.0* 5.0* 4.5 4.5 5.0* 4.8

T-MOBILE 1.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 3.8

VERIZON 3.0 4.0 5.0* 5.0* 4.0 4.2

VIRGIN 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 4.5 3.6

VODAFONE 3.0 4.5 5.0* 5.0* 5.0* 4.5

* Best practice in use

Summary of the collected data, rated on a 0 – 5 scale

0/1 = poor; 2 = fair; 3 = good; 4 = very good; 5 = excellent

THANKS!