Overall, I genuinely think that usability in websites and web applications is improving. But every now and then I stumble across a site that completely bucks the trend and manages to provide a truly shocking user experience. One that ensures that I, and many others, will never use their service. Today was one of those days.
I heard a radio advert for a new service called webuyanycar.com. The theory is that they will buy your car from you direct, to save you going through the hassle of advertising and sorting out a private sale. So, being curious as to how a service like this would actually work, I checked them out. Now I wished I hadn’t. Quite simply, it’s one of the least usable sites I’ve ever come across. Poor layout, badly worded copy, buggy forms, unclear graphics, this site has it all!
So taking it step by step, let’s see where they go wrong. Firstly, you have to enter the registration number of your car. Once you’ve done this you get presented with a drop-down box where you select the year. The button next to this field is labelled “VALUE MY CAR”. This is misleading as there are a number of steps required before you actually get the value of your car (which, by the way, was at least 30% lower than current realistic market value). When creating a multi-page or multi-step process, it’s key to keep users informed as to how far they are through the process. Suggesting it’s near to the end, and then not fulfilling that expectation results is a high number of abortions mid-process.
The next step in the process is identifying any damage on the car. This is done through a flash object (as pointed out in the comments, this isn’t a Flash object, it’s actually Javascript mixed with image maps). I defy anyone to look at the Damage Assessment Tool’s interface they have chosen and tell me which end is the front of the car. In fact, I believed that the right hand side was the front because of the shape of the headlights. This isn’t the case. There are tool tips when you hover over the section but these are badly formatted and buggy. All in all, if you have to record any damage, it’s an absolute chore and very hit and miss.
Once you’ve added any damage, you then get to the screen which requires your personal details. I’ve added a screenshot of this screen to the right, just so you can see what it looks like in FireFox 3. Note that FireFox 3 is currently in the “Release Candidate” stage, meaning that it’s not entirely ready for mass consumption (although once a software project reaches release candidate stage, typically only defect fixes are included and features are not changed). FireFox is the world’s second most popular browser, used by about 25% of Brits. As you can see, it’s horribly broken. To make matter worse, even if you can figure out what fields require what information, you get random validation failure messages (for no apparent reason) that don’t seem to be attributed to a specific field (because the layout is too broken to figure out where they are supposed to be positioned). And as the icing on top of the cake, the submit button doesn’t appear to work in FireFox. So even after battling through badly designed and horrendously implemented forms, you can’t get a valuation in the end anyway.
One other oddity you’ll find regards the privacy policy. As with most websites that require personal information, they will try and sell it unless you tell them not to. Yet look at the wording for the option. This was obviously written by someone who either doesn’t understand the fundamentals of web form design, and what the different input types do, or doesn’t understand basic English. But most likely both. The first thing you’ll notice is that it says “Click Here”. “Click Here” is appalling when used as the text for a link, it’s an abomination when used as part of a form. You’ll also notice the ambiguity is introduces. If I click there, I’ll deselect the check box. Usually these are opt-meaning I would want the check box checked. And what if I click there, forget, and then click there again? No doubt my details would be winging their way to all and sundry before I know it. Quite why they can’t just clearly state whether that element of the form needs to be selected or unselected in order to achieve the desired result is beyond me.
This truly is one of the trend bucking sites I touched on in the introduction. Considering this is primarily a web based business, launching with such a clearly under-designed, incompetent, not-fit-for-purpose website could be a huge mistake. if they can’t handle something as simple as a web form, how on earth am I supposed to trust them to buy a car off me? Not a chance. One of the worst user experiences I’ve had in a long time.
Popularity: 51% [?]
If you’ve previously logged in to the eBay site, but are not currently logged in, you are greeted by name. merely by greeting you by name, eBay is implying that you have entered their site in a state that allows them to identify you. This, typically, means you are logged in. There are very few sites that greet you by name unless you are signed in.
These two factors, combined, give the overall impression that you are signed in. However, clicking on any of the links that require you to be signed in (e.g. Buy, Sell, My eBay) you are taken to the Sign In page. You clearly aren’t logged in, and the eBay home page has got your state wrong. You are not in a “Logged In” state.
This approach by eBay ultimately results in a surprise to the user, something you generally want to avoid at all costs. The expectation is that if you are logged in, and all indications point to the fact that you are, you do not need to log in again. In general, users understand that you have to sign in for certain services. But, given the current ability of web sites to keep you logged in for a number of days or weeks (a facility that eBay themselves offer), it’s extremely important that users know where they stand. What state they’re in. In this regard, eBay fails. It creates confusion, breaks standard conventions and surprised uses.
