eBay redesign

19 Jun 2007 - 5:13am
7 years ago
15 replies
869 reads
itst
2007

Hi folks,

sorry for crossposting, but I guess this is interesting for both IA and ID
people.

EBay Moves to Recharge Its Auctions:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/technology/18ecom.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

* How good will eBays change management be - i. e. will they despise their
users or make them frantic about the new site?

* Which steps will be taken to better the experience of the homepage and the
search results?

* Might there be ribbons?

What do you think? What would you change first thing in the morning - if
eBay let you, that is ;)

--
Sascha
http://itst.net/

Comments

19 Jun 2007 - 8:30am
jrrogan
2005

Possibly it's just me, but I always thought EBay's UI was atrocious, and
their taxonomy is really "B" at best.

And the times I put an item on auction, who the heck designed that process,
unbelievably bad! I think the only thing Ebay could have had going for them
is Critical Mass and a track record of who the good payers are VS the
schmucks.

Ebay could do little to make the user experience worse, they only have "UP"
to go from here.

19 Jun 2007 - 8:37am
tdellaringa
2006

On 6/19/07, Rich Rogan <jrrogan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ebay could do little to make the user experience worse, they only have
> "UP"
> to go from here.

Tell us how you really feel! ;) Actually, I believe Luke Wrobleski has done
a lot of work with eBay, and he's a pretty sharp guy (not sure how much work
or what he has done). I used to think that about eBay too, until I talked to
some people and realized they are doing a lot of things right (although the
time for change is definitely ripe now).

The whole mid 90's look has been kept for a reason - it made users
comfortable with the site. A lot of things they do are very much based on
user feedback and study. And we can't really argue with the success of that
web site, can we?

I've been a user since eBay began, and there are some frustrating issues.
They have made lots of changes in the last couple years. I'll be interested
to see what the new ones are. And I do agree the whole organization of the
site is awful - and yet it has seemed to work. Maybe it has worked in
*spite* of it's bad design, just because people got used to it... maybe
that's another discussion.

But you have to think if ebay makes even a small improvement with such a
large user base, it would pay heavy dividends.

Cheers

Tom

21 Jun 2007 - 3:43pm
LukeW
2004

not to layer too much bravado on it but...

* eBay is the 30th largest economy in the world
* eBay has over 170 million users
* eBay's community includes over 750,000 people in the us who make
their full time living by selling on ebay
* eBay has been around for over 10 years
* eBay represents one of the only examples of democratized commerce

yet the criticism i hear about ebay is: it's ugly or there's too much
stuff on the home page. Are these issues? yes. are they issues
tangled with an entrenched and fiercely devoted user base, and layers
of commercial (read revenue generation) necessity? yes.

here's how i have come to understand it. I was recently asked by a
potential client when we were discussing a previous site I designed:
"what are you most proud of in this site design? maybe a specific
flow or a layout?". My response was "i'm not proud of any of the
widgets or wizards or forms. I'm proud that this site is a living
breathing community. that thousands of people come to it each day to
share information, meet other people, and learn." The point is I was
designing an ecosystem. and as a result, that's how i evaluated my
success. beaming about a page layout or widget would have been
wondrously naive. the same holds true for ebay -you move a button,
you are like alan greenspan- you're playing with the levers of a
global marketplace. you need to think about it that way, and
sometimes that's not in the best tenants of UCD.

ask most people what makes ebay tick. and they'll say...... think
about it a second....... bet you said feedback right? having the
ability to review transactions etc. well, that's important but the
real glue is the default sort of the results page. huh? because all
search results are sorted by time left -every seller big or small.
walmart or joe's shop has equal shelf space. equal air time. that's
what makes ebay a level playing field for commerce. now who would
have thought the world's 30th largest economy hinges on a default
sort order?

now if you want ebay with all kinds of visual design and usability
bells and whistles, we did that: http://express.ebay.com/
guess which one more people use?

On Jun 19, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Tom Dell'Aringa wrote:

> Tell us how you really feel! ;) Actually, I believe Luke Wrobleski
> has done
> a lot of work with eBay, and he's a pretty sharp guy (not sure how
> much work
> or what he has done). I used to think that about eBay too, until I
> talked to
> some people and realized they are doing a lot of things right
> (although the
> time for change is definitely ripe now).

::
:: Luke Wroblewski -[ www.lukew.com ]
:: Principal/Founder, LukeW Interface Designs
:: luke at lukew.com | 408.513.7207
::
:: Blog: http://www.lukew.com/ff/
:: Book: http://www.lukew.com/resources/site_seeing.html
::

22 Jun 2007 - 6:59am
Mark Schraad
2006

Luke,

1 While each of these are statistics to be very proud of, I don't
think any of them speak specifically to the design. They speak to the
core offering and its match to a need in the marketplace. I am
struggling to see how market successes would be used as (the only)
metrics for evaluating design. I can't imagine a client putting these
in front of me as design goals - and how I might design for them.
There are plenty of examples of ubiquitous offerings that are poorly
designed (ATM's, electrical power lines, bank statements,
prescription labels - except at target, etc)... btw - I am not saying
ebay is poorly designed,just making a point regarding these rankings
as design evidence.

2 While I have used Ebay for years, today was the first time I ever
knew an Ebay express existed. Much nicer design, but not at all the
same product.

On Jun 21, 2007, at 4:43 PM, LukeW wrote:

> * eBay is the 30th largest economy in the world
> * eBay has over 170 million users
> * eBay's community includes over 750,000 people in the us who make
> their full time living by selling on ebay
> * eBay has been around for over 10 years
> * eBay represents one of the only examples of democratized commerce

22 Jun 2007 - 9:58am
jrrogan
2005

Regarding Luke's feedback:

I have read many articles by Luke and believe him to be a ground breaking
thinker in the IxDA community, but I wonder if a conservative business has
caused creativity in design to freeze like a "deer caught in the
headlights", VS some other explanation of why EBay is the way it is.

An established business who's brand is entwined with an interface has too be
careful when making UI changes, but does this mean changes can only be done
at a "glacial incremental" pace?

Amazon has innovated and modified its interface in a more radical manner
with success, for example replacing 20 + tabs to just a few. Amazon UI
changes have lead to a better user experience, and greater success.

As far as EBay's success, it seems the UI is stuck in a "Do Almost Nothing"
mentality.

Regarding Luke's comment "Asked what makes EBay tick", my first thought
would not be "user feedback", I would think:

1. EBay has a lot of stuff,
2. EBay has a lot of bidders
3. EBay has a robust buyer/seller rating system, (is this what Luke
means by user feedback?)

EBay's success seems to be based on gaining critical mass early on, which
became a virtuous circle. EBay's design mentality of "Do Almost Nothing" has
aided growth by not good design, but rather by not messing with a "known"
experience.

Has EBay milked the "Do almost nothing" UI paradigm? "EBay Express" really
does not seem like an inspired auction site, rather more like a standard
ecommerce site. Maybe this is the "Design Mean" best that eBay can do given
the demographic nature of it's business.

22 Jun 2007 - 5:57pm
Dave Cortright
2005

I just went there and clicked on the big graphic and was redirected to a
Valentine's Promo page?!?
http://pages.ebay.com/express/themes/valentinesday.html

I wonder if this is a system or cause of the lack of use…

On 6/21/07, LukeW <luke at lukew.com> wrote:
>
> now if you want ebay with all kinds of visual design and usability
> bells and whistles, we did that: http://express.ebay.com/
> guess which one more people use?
>

25 Jun 2007 - 9:06am
Christopher Fahey
2005

Mark Schraad in response to LukeW wrote:
> While each of these are statistics to be very proud of, I
> don't think any of them speak specifically to the design.
> ...
> There are plenty of examples of ubiquitous offerings that are
> poorly designed (ATM's, electrical power lines, bank
> statements, prescription labels - except at target, etc)...
> btw - I am not saying ebay is poorly designed,just making a
> point regarding these rankings as design evidence.

I won't say that eBay is poorly designed, either, but I will say that
it's probably the most difficult user experience I've ever used. My
experience trying to set up an account as an eBay seller was one of the
only times I've had to give up in frustration and confusion over a UI
process I didn't understand. It's a wonder that half a million people
have succeeded where I (a pro!) have failed.

My theory is that eBay is so enormously complex, has so many features
and tools, and (most importantly) still enjoys unstoppable
first-mover/market-leader momentum, that flaws and roadbumps in the user
experience design don't ultimately matter very much. Users who are
committed to succeeding, in the words of Steve Krug, will just "muddle
through" or "satisfice" the difficult parts of the eBay user experience,
screwing up repeatedly but persevering, and, over time, eventually will
become accustomed to the processes -- just as they grow accustomed to
every other pain-in-the-ass computer experience they have every day.

Luke's point, to look at eBay's big picture success, is an interesting
macro perspective on user experience design strategy. Just as the users
of the site "satisfice" with the UI, the design team at eBay perpetually
faces enormous challenges and perhaps they have decided, as a business
decision, to "satisfice" with incremental conservative design updates
that can barely keep up with the increasing demands of the customers --
rather than rolling out a holistic end-to-end "perfect" design that
risks the collateral damage of inadvertently "fixing what ain't broke".

Okay, I blogged it:
<http://graphpaper.com/2007/06-24_muddling-through-ebay>

-Cf

Christopher Fahey
____________________________
Behavior
http://www.behaviordesign.com
me: http://www.graphpaper.com

25 Jun 2007 - 9:32am
Mark Schraad
2006

I think this is a fascinating place in the UI business. That place being where process and tasks are routinized at a pervasive level. When a business reaches a plateau of growth and where a majority of users have learned the process and interface... is is worth the time and resources to improve it?

At some point the hurdle - or level of effort to change behavior, even if it is a vastly improved experience, may decrease use and thus revenue. If the struggle to change to the new behavior is more significant than choosing the 'next best' offering - say Craig'slist (I realize they are not the same thing but accomplish a similar goal) the redesign will fail the long term goals of the company.

It has been argued here that the designers job is to change behavior, and I am still not convinced. I think it is often the designers job to facilitate change - making it as painless or simple as possible.

The hard part of this is that there are likely many cases where a better user interface is not worth the risk - or the effort.

Mark

On Monday, June 25, 2007, at 10:09AM, "Christopher Fahey" <chris.fahey at behaviordesign.com> wrote:
Just as the users
>of the site "satisfice" with the UI, the design team at eBay perpetually
>faces enormous challenges and perhaps they have decided, as a business
>decision, to "satisfice" with incremental conservative design updates
>that can barely keep up with the increasing demands of the customers --
>rather than rolling out a holistic end-to-end "perfect" design that
>risks the collateral damage of inadvertently "fixing what ain't broke".

25 Jun 2007 - 12:38pm
LukeW
2004

> 1 While each of these are statistics to be very proud of, I don't
> think any of them speak specifically to the design. They speak to the
> core offering and its match to a need in the marketplace.

I guess that's my point. why should the design goals be separate from
the core offering and how it fits into the marketplace? that's the
essence of the service.

> I am struggling to see how market successes would be used as (the
> only)
> metrics for evaluating design.

i don't think market success is the only applicable metric but if you
are designing something for use and no one uses it -have you achieved
your "design goals"?

> I can't imagine a client putting these
> in front of me as design goals - and how I might design for them.

i guess i am unclear on what you mean by "design goals". how are they
different from product goals, business goals, or user needs? again
this is what I was trying to illustrate with my comments about
pointing to a great registration flow on a product that one one uses
as an example of success.

> 2 While I have used Ebay for years, today was the first time I ever
> knew an Ebay express existed. Much nicer design, but not at all the
> same product.

the underlying inventory and community actually is the same product.
eBay express is a slice through the eBay economy that focuses on a
specific shopping experience: no auctions, best offers, etc. -just a
simple shopping cart.

::
:: Luke Wroblewski -[ www.lukew.com ]
:: Principal/Founder, LukeW Interface Designs
:: luke at lukew.com | 408.513.7207
::
:: Blog: http://www.lukew.com/ff/
:: Book: http://www.lukew.com/resources/site_seeing.html
::

25 Jun 2007 - 12:58pm
LukeW
2004

I can't speak to what eBay is doing now but when I worked with them
(almost 2 years ago), the company shipped new user facing features
all the time. In fact, of all the large Web companies i worked with,
ebay shipped product the most consistently and the most frequently.
Including many big features like ratings, reviews, marketplace
research, best offer, classifieds, etc.

Two parting thoughts about eBay and I'll shut up:

1) If you have a car filled with 170 M people traveling quickly down
the highway... do you stop the car and transfer every last person
into a new better car? do you pull up a newer, better car and try to
transfer everyone while still moving down the road? Or perhaps keep
the same car moving down the highway and while its in motion swap out
the engine or add power steering? for better or worse, eBay is opting
for option 3. its keeps them moving forward and causes the least
amount of disruption.

2) like any old city eBay has an "old part of town". the streets are
uneven and the buildings run on old, less efficient infrastructure
but lots of people hang out downtown, they've been there for years
and don't want it to change. Around old town lots of new modern
buildings are being built that appeal to people new to town and those
looking for efficiency vs. tradition. that's the state of the ebay
site: old town updates move slow, as the heart of the city it needs
conversation and gradual updates. new town grows faster, tries new
things and gradually influences the older way of doing things. If
fact, i think ebay recently launched an entire new selling &
registration flow. i think this is an example of old town getting
updated.

thanks~

> An established business who's brand is entwined with an interface
> has too be
> careful when making UI changes, but does this mean changes can only
> be done
> at a "glacial incremental" pace?

::
:: Luke Wroblewski -[ www.lukew.com ]
:: Principal/Founder, LukeW Interface Designs
:: luke at lukew.com | 408.513.7207
::
:: Blog: http://www.lukew.com/ff/
:: Book: http://www.lukew.com/resources/site_seeing.html
::

25 Jun 2007 - 1:16pm
Mark Schraad
2006

On Monday, June 25, 2007, at 01:39PM, "LukeW" <luke at lukew.com> wrote:
>> 1 While each of these are statistics to be very proud of, I don't
>> think any of them speak specifically to the design. They speak to the
>> core offering and its match to a need in the marketplace.
>
>I guess that's my point. why should the design goals be separate from
>the core offering and how it fits into the marketplace? that's the
>essence of the service.

My point is simply that the success of a product or offering owes to many things... not just design. So using market acceptance or profitability as evidence of good design is causality possibly without even corallation. Many products achieve market success with poor design, and many fail with good design. As much as we would like to believe the two are absolutely intertwined.

>> I am struggling to see how market successes would be used as (the
>> only)
>> metrics for evaluating design.
>
>i don't think market success is the only applicable metric but if you
>are designing something for use and no one uses it -have you achieved
>your "design goals"?

Of course not. But the design may or may not be the problem. Is it of course, always nice to be standing next to a winner.

>> I can't imagine a client putting these
>> in front of me as design goals - and how I might design for them.
>
>i guess i am unclear on what you mean by "design goals". how are they
>different from product goals, business goals, or user needs? again
>this is what I was trying to illustrate with my comments about
>pointing to a great registration flow on a product that one one uses
>as an example of success.

Should probably have written design "objectives." Ideally, yes, they should be one in the same. More often than not, they overlap. In my experience there is usually some difference between the designer's objectives, and those of the business lead (or the tech lead for that matter).

>> 2 While I have used Ebay for years, today was the first time I ever
>> knew an Ebay express existed. Much nicer design, but not at all the
>> same product.
>
>the underlying inventory and community actually is the same product.
>eBay express is a slice through the eBay economy that focuses on a
>specific shopping experience: no auctions, best offers, etc. -just a
>simple shopping cart.
>

Yeas, I noticed that. Oddly, it is not the core portion of eBay's business - at least from my understanding. I found myself wondering if the use of more polished and clean design was an attempt to bolster a lagging part of the business. It is very clean, but is no the lion's share of noteriaty and business volume the auction model that is missing here? Again, I would be surprised if the design contributed anything to express' lack of success.

>:: Luke Wroblewski -[ www.lukew.com ]
>:: Principal/Founder, LukeW Interface Designs
>:: luke at lukew.com | 408.513.7207
>::
>:: Blog: http://www.lukew.com/ff/
>:: Book: http://www.lukew.com/resources/site_seeing.html
>::
>
>
>

25 Jun 2007 - 2:02pm
Christopher Fahey
2005

LukeW wrote
> i guess i am unclear on what you mean by "design goals". how
> are they different from product goals, business goals, or
> user needs?

The answer has to do with level of detail. A "business goal" is
sometimes very general, e.g. to "increase revenue, or it can be more
specific but not quite design-granular, e.g. "make it easier for users
to set up seller accounts".

A "design goal" might be inspired by or based on a business goal, but is
a little more granular. It's a child of a business goal.

For example, "making the BUY button easier to find" is a design goal for
the "increase revenue" business goal. Or "simplify the merchant sign-up
process into a single page" might be a design goal to help "make it
easier for users to set up seller accounts".

Design goals, I suppose, implicitly assume that design can be part of
the solution, whereas business goals don't necessarily require design as
a solution. The business goal to "increase revenue" can be achieved by
"firing people" or "increase markup", neither of which involves design.
Or "make it easier for users to set up seller accounts" can be achieved
by, say, "reducing the number of options/services offered to sellers" or
"partner with other e-commerce service providers to import seller
accounts", both of which are non-design business strategies.

It's very difficult for designers to operate on the "business goal"
level without some degree of design strategy leadership to decide on how
those business goals can be translated into design goals. A design
leader does not tell their team to "increase revenue", s/he gives them
slightly more specific design goals.

-Cf

Christopher Fahey
____________________________
Behavior
http://www.behaviordesign.com
me: http://www.graphpaper.com

25 Jun 2007 - 7:23pm
Jared M. Spool
2003

On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:

> The answer has to do with level of detail. A "business goal" is
> sometimes very general, e.g. to "increase revenue, or it can be more
> specific but not quite design-granular, e.g. "make it easier for users
> to set up seller accounts".
>
> A "design goal" might be inspired by or based on a business goal,
> but is
> a little more granular. It's a child of a business goal.
>
> For example, "making the BUY button easier to find" is a design
> goal for
> the "increase revenue" business goal. Or "simplify the merchant
> sign-up
> process into a single page" might be a design goal to help "make it
> easier for users to set up seller accounts".

Really??

With all due respect, your statements are only true if you have
evidence to tell you that making the BUY button easier to find will
actually increase revenues, or that simplifying the process into one
page will make it easier to set up.

> Design goals, I suppose, implicitly assume that design can be part of
> the solution, whereas business goals don't necessarily require
> design as
> a solution. The business goal to "increase revenue" can be achieved by
> "firing people" or "increase markup", neither of which involves
> design.

(Actually, it would be hard to increase revenue by firing people. You
might increase profits, but revenue is a function of sales.)

It's interesting you separate the markup from the design process. Is
the price not something designed? Why do companies choose "$14.95"
instead of "$15" for a price? Isn't that a design decision?
Certainly, it affects the shopping experience, no?

> Or "make it easier for users to set up seller accounts" can be
> achieved
> by, say, "reducing the number of options/services offered to
> sellers" or
> "partner with other e-commerce service providers to import seller
> accounts", both of which are non-design business strategies.

Simplifying product offerings isn't a design activity?

Enhancing functionality to use third-party partners to simplify the
process isn't a design activity?

You have a much narrower perspective of what design is than I do. In
my mind, if it affects the experience of the user, it's design.

> It's very difficult for designers to operate on the "business goal"
> level without some degree of design strategy leadership to decide
> on how
> those business goals can be translated into design goals. A design
> leader does not tell their team to "increase revenue", s/he gives them
> slightly more specific design goals.

Well, now you're getting silly. A business leader does not tell their
team to "increase revenue" without more specific direction either.
That's what leadership is about. Certainly you don't think design
leaders have different leadership skills than other types of leaders?

Every time we try to draw the line between "business" and "design" we
get ourselves into trouble.

Jared

Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks

26 Jun 2007 - 8:41pm
James Reffell
2007

Another former eBay designer reporting in.

I'll just echo Luke's thoughts here, and point y'all to some very recent
changes which might spark additional discussion:

http://playground.ebay.com/

http://motors.ebay.com/ (not sure if everyone will see this one)

Changing the 500-pound gorilla is hard. But it can be done.

-- james

On 6/25/07, Jared M. Spool <jspool at uie.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:
>
> > The answer has to do with level of detail. A "business goal" is
> > sometimes very general, e.g. to "increase revenue, or it can be more
> > specific but not quite design-granular, e.g. "make it easier for users
> > to set up seller accounts".
> >
> > A "design goal" might be inspired by or based on a business goal,
> > but is
> > a little more granular. It's a child of a business goal.
> >
> > For example, "making the BUY button easier to find" is a design
> > goal for
> > the "increase revenue" business goal. Or "simplify the merchant
> > sign-up
> > process into a single page" might be a design goal to help "make it
> > easier for users to set up seller accounts".
>
> Really??
>
> With all due respect, your statements are only true if you have
> evidence to tell you that making the BUY button easier to find will
> actually increase revenues, or that simplifying the process into one
> page will make it easier to set up.
>
> > Design goals, I suppose, implicitly assume that design can be part of
> > the solution, whereas business goals don't necessarily require
> > design as
> > a solution. The business goal to "increase revenue" can be achieved by
> > "firing people" or "increase markup", neither of which involves
> > design.
>
> (Actually, it would be hard to increase revenue by firing people. You
> might increase profits, but revenue is a function of sales.)
>
> It's interesting you separate the markup from the design process. Is
> the price not something designed? Why do companies choose "$14.95"
> instead of "$15" for a price? Isn't that a design decision?
> Certainly, it affects the shopping experience, no?
>
>
> > Or "make it easier for users to set up seller accounts" can be
> > achieved
> > by, say, "reducing the number of options/services offered to
> > sellers" or
> > "partner with other e-commerce service providers to import seller
> > accounts", both of which are non-design business strategies.
>
> Simplifying product offerings isn't a design activity?
>
> Enhancing functionality to use third-party partners to simplify the
> process isn't a design activity?
>
> You have a much narrower perspective of what design is than I do. In
> my mind, if it affects the experience of the user, it's design.
>
> > It's very difficult for designers to operate on the "business goal"
> > level without some degree of design strategy leadership to decide
> > on how
> > those business goals can be translated into design goals. A design
> > leader does not tell their team to "increase revenue", s/he gives them
> > slightly more specific design goals.
>
> Well, now you're getting silly. A business leader does not tell their
> team to "increase revenue" without more specific direction either.
> That's what leadership is about. Certainly you don't think design
> leaders have different leadership skills than other types of leaders?
>
> Every time we try to draw the line between "business" and "design" we
> get ourselves into trouble.
>
> Jared
>
> Jared M. Spool
> User Interface Engineering
> 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
> e: jspool at uie.com p: +1 978 327 5561
> http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

--
----- http://designcult.typepad.com/ -----

29 Jun 2007 - 1:23am
frank gruger
2007

Catching up, back from vaction, but wanted to add another voice from eBay:

Regarding:
>
> On 6/19/07, Hernan Teano < hteano at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > eBay project team members visit users (buyers, sellers) in their natural
> > surroundings
> > (home, office, etc.) and perform observation studies to witness how
> > they go about performing eBay-related tasks, in order to better
> > understand potential pain points in processes, which helps inform
> > solutions for improvement.
>
> Question for Hernan:
>
> After the field research was completed findings compiled and you
> understood
> the users pain, how was the design executed? Was design done in a
> democratic
> way involving all participants, or was it more of an autocratic affair
> where
> designers took control?
>
> How did user testing on the new design play into design iterations?

As a former eBayer and colleague of Hernan (Hi Hernan!) I feel the need to
jump in here. From my recollection of the projects I worked on, I would
describe the design process as collaborative with all participants, but
ultimately driven and owned by the designer. Democratic? Never. If there
was a strong business case to support a not so great interaction you had to
know when to compromise (or be vetoed). Conversely, you could pick your
battles and pursue aspects of the design you felt passionately about as
well.

As to user testing, you always feel like you could do more, but at eBay
designers could schedule testing early on in the scoping process. When new
concepts informed by the Visits program Hernan mentioned became active
projects user testing was available in 1 or 2 rounds in the project life
cycle to inform and iterate the design.

In addition to Visits and regular usability testing eBay designers also have
access to Voices. Voices was a regular weekly meeting with a group of random
Sellers you could bring your designs to. It tended to be very "focus group"
oriented but I was grateful to have access to it, especially when there was
no scope for "real" usability.

-frank gruger

Syndicate content Get the feed