check-out and trust (was...Google Checkout'scredit card widget)

23 Jan 2007 - 2:14pm
7 years ago
3 replies
556 reads
jbellis
2005

Jay,
It would really educate me if you would fill in the blanks on several of
your "givens." I'm guessing that your intensive experience with checkout
makes some of these things foregone conclusions to you:
1) What specific items are vestiges (having to choose a credit card type,
multi-page wizards, not using biometrics or RFID)???
2) What momentum does Paypal have, other than being the first in years to
eat Visa/MC/Amex's lunch? This is honestly not a condemnation. I'm asking
if/how they've improved checkout. Seems like countless eBay-ers exclude
Paypal presumably because the hate the skim.
3) Similarly, what's Google done? (I really have to get out, or is it stay
in, more often.)

As for trust, no amount of technology will improve trust, or at least
quickly enough for someone who paper-reconciles their online buys. I don't
even know what Hackersafe is; you think that Ms. Paperlist will see the
Hackersafe seal-of-approval and say, "I guess I don't need this stupid paper
trail anymore."

My answer to that part of your question is:
-Do what popular sites do, even if it's vestigal.
-Do what Neilsen says to do: "Communicating trustworthiness in web design"
(March 7, 1999) http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990307.html
-Provide perfect usability.
-Communicate perfectly and honestly. Make it clear when the order is truly
committed. Show shipping costs, in advance. Send email confirmation and
status. Don't spam. Provide voice service. Answer the damn phone if you can
afford to.
-Provide a money-back gaurantee.

Do all this whether you use whole-page server round trips or Ajax every
keystroke into validation wonderland.

-Jack

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Morgan" <jayamorgan at gmail.com>
> I work in ecommerce and get motion sickness everytime we work on checkout.
> It's such a dinosaur to me. So many parts of it are vestigial.
>
> Generic checkout web app:
> I figure it is only a matter of years before a generic checkout method
> replaces the proprietary checkouts that each ecommerce site builds.
PayPal
> has some momentum going.

Now Google enters. Yes, I know neither of these
> are perfect. I'm talking about a few years from now when there's been a
> substantial shift in the practice of ecommerce based on generic checkouts.
>
> Issues with trust:
> We're conducting contextual inquiries with some of our online shoppers and
> we're all surprised at their buying habits and related trust issues. For
> instance, one woman who represents a class of security-conscious folks
> writes down all of her online transactions. When her credit card bill
> arrives, she then checks each line item to detect any fraudulent
purchases.
>
> Is Google or java or an RIA trustworthy?
> I see from this research and inertia that perceived trust generates an
> unfortunate resistance to change. I'm sure we here can make an objective
> case for trust, but we are ultimately bound to the customer's level of
> perceived trust. I don't know if HackerSafe and the like accomplish that
> for our customers.
>
> What do you all find that works to establish trust in checkouts? Or, in
> RIA-based ecommerce experience?
>
>>

Comments

23 Jan 2007 - 9:26pm
Jay Morgan
2006

Jack,

I appreciate your points of guidance. It's good to have a reminder that
just those basic things are part of the foundations of good design. I take
those principles and a few others with me to work. This is where it gets to
a larger issue of winning trust over time - trust from people you work with
or for, and trust from customers.

Checkout is special case for a few reasons:
1. Checkout is a web application. Ecommerce companies have to provide
checkout to support online purchasing, so they set out to build this web
app. Now the tough part is that most of these companies struggle when
designing pages that present their product assortments in a coherent
fashion. When they have to build a web app, the game gets ugly.
2. Checkout bundles security, trust, privacy, navigation, rigorous task
sequences, login, verification, transaction, and a few other really sticky
issues. These issues make most people quite uncomfortable. When business
teams have them all rolled into one project, their reflexes urge them to
shirk as much change as possible. It takes a special master and commander
to get them to take on the challenges. Having Jakob's and Jared's work on
your side is effective for about half a meeting or as long as it takes for
insecurity to set in.
3. Most business people will not trust design teams to tell them how to
handle sales, money, or transactions. When it comes to checkout, "design"
suggestions sound out of place. When you mix in insecurity (#2), design
suggestions are likely to aggravate.
4. Testing checkout is not as approachable/easy/palatable as testing other
parts of a site. If you want to do a competitive search test, you can do it
quite easily. If you want to test checkout, you've got to do a few
purchases and get rigorous about data collection and screenshots for
alternate paths. Those aren't especially hard to do. However, when you're
looking for buy-in, support, and funding, it becomes much harder. (this is
the most complainy reason. i'm just citing it because i think inspecting
checkout is undervalued.)

That's a lot of problems there. I want to talk about solutions. I'm
interested to hear how other designers win trust - both internally and
externally. How do you get business teams to listen to design suggestions
about business topics? How do you get customers to trust the application?

The reference to HackerSafe was a generic reference to the certifications
that some sites show in an effort to seem legitimate and safe. HackerSafe,
https://www.scanalert.com/, is just one of them that came to mind. I have
no experience with it. TrustGuard, www.trustguard.co.uk, is another. You
can see that Zappos.com also has some "BBB Online" emblems at the bottom
right of its homepage.

Thanks for the ideas,
Jay

On 1/23/07, jackbellis.com <jackbellis at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jay,
> It would really educate me if you would fill in the blanks on several of
> your "givens." I'm guessing that your intensive experience with checkout
> makes some of these things foregone conclusions to you:
>

--
Jay Morgan
Applied cognitive scientist practicing information architecture, interaction
design, and corporate culture manipulation

24 Jan 2007 - 10:03am
jbellis
2005

Jay,
Looks like I may have missed that your concern for trust was significantly focused internally. Sorry 'bout that. Then the options for corporate culture manipulation are:
1.. Neilsen: numb them with numbers. The beancounters will submit to your every whim, like hyenas cowering around the alpha male.
2.. Eric Schaffer(HFI): embark on an authentic, but years-long program to insinuate usability values. (Brilliant, but how old are you?)
3.. Cynic: current American business culture is such that it is the rare environment where you can stay long enough to engender trust by earning it. It's probably quicker to seek out people who trust you than to make converts. Not sure which pundocrat came up with this one.
But anyone with "corporate culture manipulation" in their byline already knows all this. You were just looking for validation, right?
www.jackbellis.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Morgan
To: jackbellis.com
Cc: discuss
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:26 PM
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] check-out and trust (was...Google Checkout'scredit card widget)

Jack,

3. Most business people will not trust design teams to tell them how to handle sales, money, or transactions.

24 Jan 2007 - 11:14am
Jay Morgan
2006

I pick #2. I'm young. With respect to and recognition of #3, it has to be
something I choose to commit to. That has to be independent of employer.
You have to be able to walk away from the table and say that you're still
committed to doing more than they offer. And, then, balance that with still
feeding your family.
On #1: I didn't realize it was just the numbers from Nielsen that were
numbing.

I feel validated and I still have a lot to learn.
- Jay

On 1/24/07, jackbellis.com <jackbellis at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jay,
> Looks like I may have missed that your concern for trust was significantly
> focused internally. Sorry 'bout that. Then the options for corporate culture
> manipulation are:
> 1.. Neilsen: numb them with numbers. The beancounters will submit to
> your every whim, like hyenas cowering around the alpha male.
> 2.. Eric Schaffer(HFI): embark on an authentic, but years-long program
> to insinuate usability values. (Brilliant, but how old are you?)
> 3.. Cynic: current American business culture is such that it is the rare
> environment where you can stay long enough to engender trust by earning it.
> It's probably quicker to seek out people who trust you than to make
> converts. Not sure which pundocrat came up with this one.
> But anyone with "corporate culture manipulation" in their byline already
> knows all this. You were just looking for validation, right?
> www.jackbellis.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jay Morgan
> To: jackbellis.com
> Cc: discuss
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 9:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] check-out and trust (was...Google
> Checkout'scredit card widget)
>
>
> Jack,
>
> 3. Most business people will not trust design teams to tell them how to
> handle sales, money, or transactions.
>

--
Jay Morgan
Applied cognitive scientist practicing information architecture, interaction
design, and corporate culture manipulation

Syndicate content Get the feed