Ecommerce UX 05 Search 3rd Edition PDF

E-Commerce User Experience
Vol. 5: Search (Including Faceted Search)

Based on eyetracking, user testing, and diary studies
3rd Edition
By Amy Schade and Jakob Nielsen
WWW.NNGROUP.COM 48105 WARM SPRINGS BLVD., FREMONT CA 94539–7498 USA
Copyright © Nielsen Norman Group, All Rights Reserved.

To buy a copy, download from:
http://www.nngroup.com/reports/ecommerce-user-experience/
Copyright Notice
Please do not post this document to the internet or to publicly

available file-sharing services.
This report required hundreds of hours of planning, recruiting, testing, analyzing,

writing and production. We sell these reports to fund independent, unbiased usability
research; we do not have investors, government funding or research grants that pay
for this work.
We kindly request that you not post this document to the Internet or to publicly
available file-sharing services. Even when people post documents with a private URL
to share only with a few colleagues or clients, search engines often index the copy
anyway. Indexing means that thousands of people will find the secret copy through
searches.
If someone gave you a copy of this report, you can easily remedy the situation by
going to http://www.nngroup.com/reports and paying for a license.
We charge lower fees for our research reports than most other analyst firms do,
because we want usability research to be widely available and used.
Thank you!
Report Authors: Amy Schade, Jakob Nielsen
2 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Copyright Notice

Table of Contents
Summary of Research Studies and the E-Commerce Report Series ...............4

E-Commerce Report Series .......................................................................................................... 4
Research Studies ........................................................................................................................ 4
Study One.............................................................................................................................. 5
Study Two .............................................................................................................................. 5
About the Third Edition ............................................................................................................... 6
Search Behavior ............................................................................................ 7

Why Users Search ...................................................................................................................... 7
What Users Search For .............................................................................................................. 10
Query Length ........................................................................................................................... 13
Search Success ........................................................................................................................ 18
Elements of Successful Search .................................................................... 20

Supporting Search .................................................................................................................... 20
Knowing How to Search............................................................................................................. 20
Presenting Search Results ......................................................................................................... 21
Narrowing the Choices .............................................................................................................. 22
Guidelines List............................................................................................. 24
Search Visibility .......................................................................................... 26
Supporting Users’ Searches ........................................................................ 38
Advanced and Scoped Searches .................................................................. 60
Presentation of Search Results ................................................................... 65
Sorting Results .......................................................................................... 102
Narrowing Product Choices: Guided Navigation or Faceted Search ........... 105
About the Authors ..................................................................................... 147
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................... 148
© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 3

Summary of Research Studies and the E-Commerce
Report Series
E-COMMERCE REPORT SERIES
This report is one of 13 reports about the E-Commerce user experience. Ten of the
reports in the series were generated from the findings of two rounds of e-commerce
research studies. The first editions of these reports were published as a book, with
each chapter also available as a downloadable report. The second and third editions
include an additional report, based on the same series of studies, about customer
service.
This series also includes three volumes which are a result of additional research
studies, separate from the main e-commerce research. These reports are included in
the series due to their direct relationship to the e-commerce user experience and
cover the topics of wishlists and gift certificates, store locators, and confirmation and
transactional email messages. Each of these reports includes a section about
methodology, covering the details of each research project.
The entire E-Commerce User Experience series is available for download at
http://www.nngroup.com/reports/ecommerce-user-experience/ and includes the
following titles:
1. General User Behavior & Executive Summary
2. Homepages and Category Pages (including Product Listing Pages and
Product Comparisons)
3. Product Pages (including Reviews)
4. Shopping Cart, Checkout & Registration
5. Search (including Faceted Search) [this report]
6. Customer Service
7. Selling Strategies
8. Wishlists, Gift Certificates and Gift Giving
9. Trust and Credibility
10. International Users
11. Store Finders and Locators
12. Transactional Email and Confirmation Messages
13. Methodology
RESEARCH STUDIES
The information in these reports is a result of two separate rounds of e-commerce
studies conducted by Nielsen Norman Group as well as a round of design reviews of
a set of e-commerce websites. The studies took place in the United States, United
Kingdom, Denmark and China (Hong Kong), and involved user testing, a diary-based
longitudinal study and an eye tracking component.
The Methodology report in the E-Commerce Report Series includes the full details of
each study, the list of sites tested, and information about participants.
The Wishlists and Gift Certificates, Transactional Email and Confirmation Messages
and Locator Usability reports are based on additional research studies. Each of these
three reports includes its own methodology section.
4 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Summary of Research Studies and the E-Commerce Report

Series
Study One
The first research study was conducted by a team of five usability experts. They
conducted usability tests of 20 business-to-consumer e-commerce websites. A total
of 64 people participated: 39 from the United States and 25 from Denmark. Nineteen
of the twenty sites tested were American websites, which were tested by users in
both countries.
Users ranged in age from twenty to sixty. All users had previously shopped online
and most had made purchases; however, we screened out people who had extensive
technical knowledge of the Web.
Usability testing sessions lasted two hours, and users typically tested three of the 20
selected sites in that time. Each site was tested by a minimum of nine users: six
from the U.S. and three from Denmark. Sites were selected in seven different
industries, such as clothing and toys, so that within each industry we had two or
three sites for comparison.
Tasks were modeled on common goals of online shoppers. Most tasks asked users to
find a specific item or were open-ended, allowing freedom to shop according to their
own preferences. In most cases, we stopped users before they entered a credit card
number, so they did not complete the purchase. We also included tasks involving
customer service information.
For each test session, a facilitator sat next to the user, providing instructions to the
user and taking notes. Users were asked to think aloud as they worked, describing
their decision processes and any positive or negative reactions to the sites.
Study Two
The second study included a diary-based longitudinal study and user testing,
including an eyetracking component.
Research began with the diary-based study. Ten participants from around the United
States were asked to record information in a notebook about their online shopping
experiences for a period of six weeks during the winter holiday shopping season. The
goal was to understand how users shopped online.
Users answered questions including the goal of visiting the site, why they visited that
particular site, and if they achieved their goal. Users were also asked about what
they liked and disliked about the site. Information from this round of research was
used in part to develop tasks for the user testing portions of the study.
The study also included user testing with participants in London, United Kingdom;
Hong Kong, China; Munster, Indiana; Kennesaw, Georgia; and New York, New York.
The New York City component, which was the largest, included eyetracking.
Eyetracking allowed the facilitator to observe and record where the user was looking
on the screen.
Ninety-eight users participated in user testing. Participants included an almost even
split between men and women who ranged in age from 18 to 64. All participants had
purchased online previously, with varied amounts of online shopping experience. The
least experienced user had purchased online once in the past year and 10
participants had made more than 30 online purchases in the past year. Users were
recruited across a range of household income levels and general online experience.

More than 100 sites were included in the user testing component of the study. Sites
selected for testing included sites big and small, from various industries with varied
product offerings and different design approaches. In addition, users completed tasks
on sites they had previously visited. Participants provided a list of sites during the
recruiting process and were asked to visit one of them during the study. This
expanded the number as well as the types of sites tested.
Tasks were modeled after those in the first study, including directed tasks asking
users to find specific items, open-ended tasks allowing for site exploration, and
customer service related tasks. Users proceeded as far as possible through the
purchase process with fake user information.
Users completed three additional types of tasks in the second study. Users visited
sites they had visited before, which allowed us to observe users returning to a site as
a repeat visitor. Users also completed open-ended tasks where they were given a
goal of something to purchase, but were not directed to any particular website to
make the purchase.
The New York component of the study also included a task where users completed a
purchase. Users selected one of five sites on which to shop and were given a budget.
They could purchase any item or items they wanted from the site within their
budget, send the purchase to themselves, and be reimbursed for the purchase price.
The same facilitator ran all sessions in the second study, except for the Georgia
tests. In all sessions, the facilitator sat next to the user, providing instructions,
observing and taking notes. Users thought aloud as they worked.
ABOUT THE THIRD EDITION

The third edition includes guidelines derived from both research studies as well as
revisions, clarifications and further examples of guidelines from the previous editions
of this report. For the third edition of this report, we used the existing guidelines
from our research studies to complete heuristic reviews on additional e-commerce
sites and updated examples as appropriate.
Some screenshots remain from earlier rounds of research. Older screenshots are
retained when necessary to reflect the appearance of the site at the time it was
tested. Some sites’ designs may have changed since the sites were tested.
For instructional purposes, all examples are valuable. They reflect actual designs and
real user behaviors, which in turn create best practices that stand the test of time.
Lessons learned from these designs are valid, even when designs have changed.
Including examples helps illustrate good and bad usability examples, which can help
designers learn from previous mistakes and successes.
Participants' personal information has been blurred on screenshots.
6 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Summary of Research Studies and the E-Commerce Report

Series
Search Behavior
WHY USERS SEARCH

In our first study, 81% (52 people) of users searched on one or more sites. In our
second study, we tracked search behavior in the eyetracking portion of the study,
and 83% of users (54 of 67 people) searched on one or more site.
Users had many different reasons to search on sites. The ten main reasons for
searching were:
• To get a feeling for the breadth or depth of the site’s product
selection
Some users searched to get a feel for the product selection on a site –
typically on a site they had not visited before. For instance, a user searched
for “shoes” on Boden’s site to see if the site offered any. Another searched on
CDBaby for a particular artist to try to determine what type of music the site
offered.
• To quickly locate a product category, instead of using site navigation
Search was sometimes an alternative for navigation, with users immediately
searching for a product category rather than using site navigation. A user on
CompUSA searched for “printers,” one on Links of London searched for
“cufflinks,” and another on Park N Shop searched for “detergent.” The Park N
Shop user said, “The word ‘detergent’ just gave me the choices I needed. No
other useless information.”
Search can be particularly helpful on sites with large or diverse inventory. A
user on Walmart.com said, “With Walmart, you know there’s so much of
everything that I can’t just look at the homepage. I just automatically type
something in and be as specific as possible with what I want to purchase.”

Search helped a user navigate the large product selection on Walmart.com.
• After unsuccessfully using the site navigation

While sometimes searching for a product category was simply a shortcut to
avoid using navigation, in other cases, product category searches stemmed
from users being unable to find products via the site navigation. Search
became a replacement for failed navigation. For instance, a user on Sasa.com
could not determine which category would include suncare products, so
searched for “sunbathing” after pursuing several different navigational paths
to such products with no luck.
When searches resulted from failed attempts at navigation, users often
searched for specific phrases, including products and criteria, rather than
broad product categories. A user who could not navigate to frozen spinach
under the Sainsbury’s category of Green Vegetables turned to search to look
for “leaf spinach, frozen.” A user searched for “cowboy pyjamas” when she
couldn’t determine how to find sleepwear on Boden’s site.
8 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Search Behavior

A user didn’t know where to look for shortbread on Harrods’ site, so turned to
search.
• To locate a specific product

If users knew the name of the product they were looking for, search was
(hopefully) an easy solution. Users armed with the title of a book or name of
a movie could easily enter the information directly in search. A user on
Amazon searched for “Harry Potter” to find the latest book in the series. A
user on FYE.com searched for the movie Heartburn, which she had previously
had trouble locating elsewhere.
• To locate products with a specific attribute
When users had particular needs, searches became more detailed. Users
searched on product criteria rather than categories. On NFL Shop, a user
searched for “Peyton Manning” to locate a football jersey for that player. A
user on Links of London searched for “onyx” when looking for cufflinks made
of that material.
• When product descriptions did not answer shoppers’ questions
Users also turned to search when product descriptions did not answer their
questions. On Comet’s site, a user could not determine if the products he was
viewing met his criteria, so tried to narrow down his choices by searching for
“combination microwave.”
• When faceted search or guided navigation did not return the desired
product results
Users attempted search when faceted search did not return an expected
products. On Nike.com, a user couldn’t find her desired hat using the site’s
offered facets, so instead searched for “grey hat.”

• To narrow product options
Some users navigated to categories and then entered product characteristics,
trying to narrow results. A user looking for specific earrings navigated to
earrings, then entered "pink gold" when faced with too many options.
• To return to an item previously located
If a user wanted to view an item they'd previously located, he sometimes
searched for the name or brand of the item to relocate it quickly. For
instance, a user searched for "carmelo anthony" when looking at athletic
jerseys, then switched to "michael jordan" and then searched again for
"carmelo anthony" when he decided that's the item he wanted to buy.
• When looking for a piece of information, rather than a product, on the
site
The final reason users searched on sites was to look for non-product
information. Users tried the search box to find information about return
policies, shipping timeframes, assembly instructions and price matching. A
user on the Metropolitan Opera’s site searched for “subtitles” to see if
translations were offered at performances, and a user on Cinema.co.hk
searched for “ticket” to find out if refunds were offered.
WHAT USERS SEARCH FOR

Our users searched for:
• Product categories (shredders, earrings, digital cameras)
• Product numbers (Sharp LC-32D40U, TC320X60, Canon BCI-6M)
• Product names (Richest Man in Babylon, The Family Stone, A Heartbreaking
Work of Staggering Genius, Gio Café Table)
• Product characteristics (pink gold, peanut, smartwool)
• Product categories and criteria (espresso dresser drawer, air conditioner
energy efficient, women ski pant, least expensive mouse)
• Brands (Yellowtail, Steve Madden, Eukanuba)
• Customer service terms (price guarantee, return policy, delivery)
To serve its users, a site must accommodate all types of searches. Ensure that the
site search adequately returns results for categories, product names, and product
criteria. Regularly check search logs to learn about the language shoppers’ use when
searching for products or content on the site. Review successful and failed searches
to determine how to tweak the search engine to return better results.
We looked at web queries based on if users were searching within a particular site or
if they were conducting a web-wide search to locate a site offering a product.

When users searched within a site, the most common type of query at 34% was a
combination of category and at least one product criterion. The second most popular
search type, accounting for 22% of the queries, was a criterion alone, with 20% of
queries for a category alone.
Of 332 queries conducted within a site, 4 submitted the search box filler text, 10
included specific product numbers, 23 were related to customer service requests,
43 included a specific product name, 66 were for a product category with no
particular criteria, and 116 included both a category and at least one qualifying
criterion.
In web-wide searches, more than half of the queries (57%) combined a product
category as well as a criterion. This makes sense, as users searching the entirety of
the web want to be more specific in their search criteria. 14% of queries were
intended to find a specific website or the site for a specific company, and another
14% of queries were for product criteria alone.

Of the 79 web-wide queries, 1 was for a product name, 1 was for customer service
information, 4 were categories, 6 were product names, 11 were for product criteria,
11 were to find a company’s website, and 45 included both a product category and
at least one qualifying criterion.
The phrasing of our tasks influenced users’ exact search queries, as users often
picked words directly from the task to use in the search box. However, users didn’t
consistently pick out the same combinations of words for their searches. Though all
were working from the same written task, some users naturally searched for a
product name, others for a criterion or characteristic, and others for a combination of
criteria and category. For example, in a task asking users to find a box that can
organize medication, users searched for “medication organizer,” “medicine,” and
“medication box.”
Recognizing the type of search a user is conducting can help direct him to the right
area of the site. For instance, on CompUSA.com, a search for “printers” nicely took
users to a page specifically designed for printer searches, allowing users to select a
category of printer or brand.

A search for “printers” on CompUSA brought users to this page. The site explains,
“We’ve brought you to our ‘Printers’ page based on your search.”
QUERY LENGTH
Users conducted 411 searches in the eyetracking portion of the second study. Of
those, 332 searches were conducted on e-commerce sites, and 79 searches were
web-wide searches on search engines such as Google or Yahoo.
In four instances, users ran searches on the filler text that appeared in the search
box on The Container Store’s site. We removed these search queries from the
analysis of query length, leaving us with 407 overall searches.

The average number of characters per query across all searches was 15.5. Within
site searches were almost the same at 14.5 characters. Web-wide searches were
longer, at an average of 20.5 characters.
The average number of words per query was 2.5 for all searches, 2.3 for within site
searches, and 3.4 for web-wide searches.
Since 57% of web-wide searches included a combination of a product category and
at least one product criterion, the longer length of users' queries and number of
words in those queries makes sense.
Search Type: Study 2 Average number of Average number of

characters words
All searches (407) 15.5 2.5

Within site searches (328) 14.5 2.3
Web-wide searches (79) 20.5 3.4
Across all searches, the average query length was 15.5 characters. Within a site,
the average length was 14.5 characters. Web-wide queries averaged 20.5
characters in length.

Across all searches, the average number of words per query was 2.5. Within a site,
the average number was 2.3. Web-wide queries averaged 3.4 words.
Two word queries were most common for within site searches, with single word
queries the second most popular. In Web-wide searches, however, two- and three-
word queries were most common. Again, this makes sense considering many web-
wide queries were more specific and often included a combination of product
category and product criteria.
Within a website, two word queries were most common, accounting for 135
searches (41%). One word queries accounted for 95 searches (29%), three words
for 51 (16%), four for 17 (5%) and 30 searches used five or more words (9%).

In Web-wide searches, three word queries were most popular, accounting for 32%
(25) of searches. Two-word queries followed closely at 28% (22 searches). Single-
word queries accounted for 6% (5 searches), four-word for 15% (12 searches) and
five or more words for 19% (15 searches).
In our first study, 54% of search queries consisted of more than one word. In our
second study, 75% of all searches included more than one word. Search queries
have gotten longer: users are more specific in their searches.
In our first study, only 54% of queries included more than one word. In our second
study, 75% of all queries included more than one word.
The biggest difference between within site searches and Web-wide searches in our
second study was the number with more than one word. Ninety-four percent of Web-
wide searches included more than one word, versus 71% of within site searches.
Again, this indicates that users are more specific on the Web as a whole than they
are on a specific website.

Seventy one percent of users' queries on a specific site included more than one
word in the second study.
Ninety-four percent of users' queries in web-wide search engines included more

than one word.
Users in our study did not use advanced search methods, though all had varying
amounts of technical experience. Across all 407 searches, only 7 searches (2%) used
quotation marks, and 8 (2%) used plus signs. All 8 searches which included plus
signs were run by the same user.

SEARCH SUCCESS
In our first study, users' searches were successful 64% of the time. In our second
study, within site searches were successful 74% of the time.
Search success did not necessarily dictate success or failure in completing a task.
Some successful searches led to failed tasks, and for some failed searches, users
found other ways to successfully complete tasks.
The bar chart shows, by percentage, how many queries our users had to enter
before they got meaningful search results. It also shows, by percentage, how many
queries users entered before they gave up.

The probability for success declined as one needed more queries in the second study.
• First query: 64% success rate
• Second query: 38% success rate
The 38% success rate is the success rate for users who failed in the first query, but
continued to do a second (and perhaps third or fourth) query. It is a result of 8% out
of the 21% who continued after the first query (8%/21%). The 21% is the result of
the 10% who had success in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th query or later plus 11% who gave
up after 2, 3 or 4 queries.
The following list shows which query led to success when a user was successful.
• First query 86%
• Second query 11%
• Third query 0%
• Fourth or following query 3%
When users entered multiple queries, they were usually a variation of the same
word(s). For example, users searched for “coffee pot” and “coffee maker” or
“returns” and “exchanges.” We think this lack of variation partly explains the drop in
success rates with subsequent queries.

Elements of Successful Search
SUPPORTING SEARCH
There are many elements that need to work well to provide a successful search
experience for the user.
• Locating the search: A clearly visible search box appears on each page
• Entering the search: The search box must accommodate enough characters to
support users’ searches and should default to the broadest search scope
• Interpreting the query: Searches need to support queries for products,
information, and product characteristics and need to support the language
and terminology shoppers use to describe products or services
• Returning results: Users need to know if the search was successful or if no
results were found. They must understand the results, know why they were
returned, and be able to quickly assess if they need to refine the search or if
they’ve found the right items.
• Narrowing options: More and more sites offer users options to narrow their
search results to meet their specific needs. Such options need to work
perfectly to gain the user's trust and support the sale.
Users were frustrated when they searched for items they knew the site carried, but
the search results did not include the item. This made users doubt the site was
working properly.
KNOWING HOW TO SEARCH

Search should be simple. Users shouldn't have to figure out where to locate your
search box, or how to submit a query. Present an open text box at the top of the
page, followed by a clear Search button. Default to the most lenient search scope.
Users have an expectation that they can simply enter a term, any term, and get
relevant and meaningful results from your site. Don't overcomplicate the search box
with filler text, extensive options, instructions, or confusing buttons. Keep it simple.
Keeping search simple also means making the scope of the search apparent. Users
are most successful when search is automatically scoped to the broadest category,
such as All Products. When sites scope searches to the currently selected section,
users often miss that information. If search boxes and search results don't make the
scope immediately clear, users can be left thinking a site does not carry the products
they want.
A user on Circuit City searched for a movie within the TV category. The site returned
no results, but worse, there was minimal indication on the page that she had run a
scoped search. She assumed the site did not carry the product and moved on to a
competing site.
20 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Elements of Successful Search

A search scoped to the wrong category led a shopper to believe Circuit City did not
carry the item she was looking for, when it did.
PRESENTING SEARCH RESULTS

Search results need to clearly display products (or site content) that relates to the
user’s query. Some searches in our studies failed to deliver successful results for the
following reasons:
• Contained insufficient information for the user to select the right product
• Presented a list that appeared to be in random order to the user
• Contained too many items or had too many results on the first page
• Contained only one item
• Misled users into thinking fewer items were available by poor presentation
of “featured” results
• Had incomprehensible or inadequate page-to-page navigation within the
results
• Presented irrelevant, poorly placed, or hard to use faceted search options
• Included items that appeared to be — or actually were — unrelated to the
user’s search criteria
Successful search results are a matter of the quality of the results returned as well
as how those results are presented.

NARROWING THE CHOICES
More and more sites offer both sorting and filtering options to users to narrow their
selection based on their own shopping criteria. In fact, these tools are so common
across e-commerce sites that many users expect such options to be available.
Price is the sorting option most commonly offered by sites, with some also offering
brand, popularity, customer ratings, or time on the site (newest first). Such options
give users a quick and easy way to see all offerings, sorted by whatever is most
important to them.
Users found sorting by price particularly helpful when trying to qualify for offers
which required minimum purchase totals. Several sites offered free shipping with a
specified minimum purchase. Users found sorting by price helpful when trying to add
a low priced item in order to qualify them for the offer.
Faceted search, a type of filtering also known as guided navigation, helps users only
view those products that meet their needs or specifications. Users can easily find a
small black cardigan sweater on a site with hundreds of sweaters, for instance, by
specifying size, color and style. Rather than navigating through page after page of
options, hoping to find a product in the right style, size, or color, users can move
directly to what they need and see those items listed side by side. Faceted search,
when done well, allows users to see and focus on only those items that meet their
specific needs.
Such tools are a huge help for shoppers who come to a site with a specific goal in
mind. They also help users who don’t yet know what they want by identifying
important characteristics to consider about the product.
A user on Yoox.com looked at sneakers and was put off by the more than 20 pages
of results. He then saw he could select his size, and ended up with 6 pages of
results. He said, “And this is good because I won’t be disappointed later if they didn’t
have my size. I know they have it in my size if it’s here.”
22 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Elements of Successful Search

Faceted search allowed users to see only those items that met their needs.
However, such tools are often not well-executed. Some sites try to use the same
product categories across different product types, resulting in poor choices for all
products. Others don’t categorize products appropriately, showing users incorrect
inventory. Others make it difficult to see what options have already been selected, or
to remove those options. Such mistakes can make a user lose trust in a site and go
elsewhere.

Guidelines List
Search Visibility .......................................................................................... 26

1. Use an open text field instead of a link to a search page..................................................... 26
2. Make the search box easily identifiable, with an open text field followed by a Search button. .. 27
3. Do not put filler text in the search field. ........................................................................... 28
4. Put the search box on every page. ................................................................................... 33
5. Ensure search fields are at least 30 characters long, allowing enough space in search boxes
for users to enter and see their queries. ........................................................................... 34
6. Let users submit a search using the Enter key. .................................................................. 35
7. Present only one search box for users. ............................................................................. 35
8. Make sure navigational menus do not cover the search box. ............................................... 36
Supporting Users’ Searches ........................................................................ 38

9. Regularly review search logs for search trends and users’ terminology. ................................ 38
10. Adjust the search engine based on search logs. ................................................................. 38
11. Adjust content or offerings based on search logs. .............................................................. 38
12. Consider special treatment for frequent queries, such as categories or brands. ..................... 39
13. Support many types of searches, including non-product searches. ....................................... 41
14. Indicate what users can search for, when appropriate. ....................................................... 43
15. Consider displaying suggested search terms as the user types his query. (Ensure suggested
terms return relevant results.) ........................................................................................ 47
16. Carefully categorize products to ensure solid search results. ............................................... 49
17. Accept synonyms commonly used by customers. ............................................................... 52
18. Accommodate misspellings and variant forms (spaces, plurals, etc). .................................... 53
19. Accommodate searches with multiple words, including characteristics such as color, size and
brand. .......................................................................................................................... 55
20. Recognize search operators. ........................................................................................... 59
Advanced and Scoped Searches .................................................................. 60

21. Consider the need for advanced search. ........................................................................... 60
22. Provide a clear link to advanced search – and back. ........................................................... 60
23. Explain the scope of the search. ...................................................................................... 60
24. Default searches to the most lenient category. .................................................................. 61
25. Simplify options in scoped search. ................................................................................... 62
26. Consider the use of facets rather than scoped search. ........................................................ 63
Presentation of Search Results ................................................................... 65

27. Don’t put any steps between the user’s search and the search results. ................................. 65
28. List the number of results found. ..................................................................................... 66
29. Be cautious if promoting specific products in the search results. .......................................... 66
30. Repeat the user’s search query at the top of the page. ....................................................... 67
31. Allow users to View All or view more results per page. ....................................................... 69
24 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Guidelines List

32. Provide a descriptive product name, small product image, and price in search results. ........... 70
33. Include relevant product details or a brief product description in search results. .................... 73
34. Include inventory information on search results pages. ...................................................... 77
35. List all results and let users filter them as needed, rather than listing results separately by
type. ............................................................................................................................ 79
36. Design search results pages to maximize the number of results a user can see and
compare, without cluttering the screen. ........................................................................... 83
37. Clearly list content matches as well as product matches. .................................................... 86
38. Indicate if only one result is found. .................................................................................. 89
39. State when no results are found. ..................................................................................... 90
40. Write constructive and comprehensible messages when no results are found. ....................... 94
41. Allow users to search again from the No Results page. ....................................................... 95
42. Clarify if there are no exact matches but the site is making a suggestion or best guess. Be
cautious in doing so. ...................................................................................................... 96
43. Indicate in search results if additional products may be available in stores............................ 99
Sorting Results .......................................................................................... 102

44. List results in by relevance. .......................................................................................... 102
45. Offer appropriate sorting options, such as by price, customer rating, or popularity. .............. 103
46. For sorting by price, present an option both to sort from high to low prices and from low to
high. .......................................................................................................................... 103
Narrowing Product Choices: Guided Navigation or Faceted Search ........... 105

47. Use facets to help users narrow product choices if search results page or category pages
frequently offer more than 20 options. ........................................................................... 108
48. Offer both sorting and filtering options, as appropriate. .................................................... 114
49. Pick attributes your customers understand. .................................................................... 115
50. Provide the most useful differentiating attributes specific to product type. .......................... 118
51. Ensure products are listed in all appropriate categories. (Filtering must work perfectly.) ....... 123
52. Clearly present filtering options. Do not scatter them around the page. .............................. 125
53. Display the most commonly used product attributes first. ................................................. 128
54. If there are a large number of options in a category, such as brand, consider making only
the most common visible by default and hiding the rest behind a link. ............................... 131
55. Offer further refinement of categories as needed. ............................................................ 132
56. List the number of products available with each attribute. ................................................ 132
57. Let users select more than one attribute in a category as appropriate. ............................... 134
58. Allow users to select criteria in more than one category.................................................... 135
59. Show users what attributes they’ve already selected. ....................................................... 137
60. Let users clear previous selections. ................................................................................ 141
61. Don’t show filtering options when only one item is listed. ................................................. 144
62. When displaying products that meet users’ criteria, use images that reflect the users’
selections. .................................................................................................................. 146

Search Visibility
1. Use an open text field instead of a link to a search page.

Users look for open text fields when they want to search. They do not look for a link.
If search is hidden behind a link, some users assume the search is bad and the
company is trying to hide it.
In the first study, Nordstrom’s site did not have an open text field for search, but
instead had a link at the top of the page. On Nordstrom, several users looked in vain
for the search function. Expecting a text box, they did not notice the link at the top
of the page.
One user, who eventually did find the search link on Nordstrom, complained, “Why
would you have to work so hard to get to where you’d want to buy something? I’m
looking for a watch, and it took me 10 minutes to find the search box. And it was in
the smallest of print.”
Search buttons were harder for users to find and understand than search boxes.
NASCAR's shopping site had an easy-to-locate search box in the upper right-hand
corner of the page, accompanied by a clear Search button. This was well done.
26 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Search Visibility

NASCAR's shopping site offered a clear open text field followed by a nicely labeled
Search button.
2. Make the search box easily identifiable, with an open text

field followed by a Search button.
The search box needs no label. A clear Search button next to the field will identify
the search for the user. The search button both identifies the search as well as telling
users how to execute the search.

The search box was easy to locate on Greenhome.com.
3. Do not put filler text in the search field.

Some sites place filler text in the search field. This can be problematic for a few
reasons. First, it makes it more difficult to locate the search. Users look for an open
text field, so filler text can make the box less noticeable.
Second, it can cause problems when users enter a search term. Any filler text needs
to immediately disappear when the user clicks in the box. Otherwise, users may
accidentally type the search query next to, rather than in place of, the filler text.
Resulting search queries may have “enter product name” or other filler text in the
middle of them.
Third, if text is there to help users know what they can enter in the search box, it is
a bad idea to place that text in the search box itself. Once users click, that text will
be gone.
Users had a difficult time understanding the search box on The Container Store’s site
because of its filler text. The search box had the filler text, “enter product or item
#.” The text itself confused one user, because it made her think she needed to know
a product number: "But I don't have a product number."
However, the more significant problem with the filler text was that it made two users
think the Search button was a link to get to the search. They did not recognize the
search field as a place to enter a query. The filler text completely filled the box and
was the same color as the box outline. These users both clicked Search without
entering a search term.

To make matters worse, the site ran a search on the filler text and returned 100
results. The users who were already confused because search wasn't acting in the
way they expected, now received results even when they did not truly run a search.
The filler text made the search field on The Container Store’s site unrecognizable to
two users. They clicked the Search button without entering a search term, thinking
they would see a Search page.

The Container Store’s search engine returned 100 results for the filler text in the
search box, “enter product or item #.”
The users who clicked Search without entering a query had no idea what happened.
One returned to navigation because she didn’t understand the results.
The other user tried to use the site search again, but again did not enter a search
term. When she saw the results, she scrolled down and saw a New Search button at
the bottom of the page. However, this search box had filler text as well. She clicked
the button, thinking this would start a new search, but again ran the same search for
the same filler text, bringing back the same results.

The New Search at the bottom of the search results page used the same filler text,
and caused a user to run into the same problem again.
After the task, she said, “I thought I would be able to put in a keyword and it would
take me to products, but it didn’t.” She didn’t understand that she had not run a
search and so didn’t understand the results that were returned.
If you use filler text, ensure it disappears when the user clicks in the search box. If
not, make sure to return a helpful message if a user accidentally searches without
entering a query. When a user clicked Go on Staples.com without entering a query,
the site returned zero results for “type search here.” Instead, the site could have
recognized the error and included more specific text, such as, “Enter a search term
in the box below.”

A user clicked Go on Staples.com without entering a search query and received a
page stating there were no results found for “type search here.”
Oriental Trading Company used the filler text “search item# or keyword.” If a user
hit the Go button without changing the text, the site returned an error which said,
“Sorry, you must enter an item number or keyword to search.” The page provided
another search box and some search tips, including information about how to search
for an item number from a catalog. This was helpful.

If a user tried to run a search on an empty search field, Oriental Trading’s error
message told the user to enter an item number or keyword and provided some
search tips.
Some sites simply did not submit the search if the search box was empty, leaving
the user on the same page. This feedback is inadequate, as users can think the
site is broken or not functioning correctly. Costco presented an error message on
the page, below the search box. However, this message only appeared for a few
seconds, making it easy for users to miss. It would have been better to keep the
message on the page.
Costco's error message appeared too briefly to be helpful.
4. Put the search box on every page.

People want easy access to search. Placing the search box in a consistent place on
each page allows users to start a search regardless of their location on the site.

On The Scholastic Store’s site, each page offered a consistently placed search box.
5. Ensure search fields are at least 30 characters long,

allowing enough space in search boxes for users to enter
and see their queries.
We recommend search boxes 30 characters in length. This will accommodate most
users' queries. In our second study, the average search query on an e-commerce
site was 14.5 characters, with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 50 characters. The
median query length was 13 characters.
Look at your search logs to see how long users’ queries are. It is easier for users to
enter a query when the box accommodates their full entry.
The ideal length may vary depending on the site and its inventory. For instance, a
site selling books or movies may need to accommodate longer titles. A site with
specialized equipment may need to accommodate searches for very specific or
lengthy sets of product criteria.

The search field on Urban Outfitter’s site only accommodated 14 characters.
6. Let users submit a search using the Enter key.

When users enter a search term in the search box, they expect to be able to use the
keyboard to submit the query. On Lake Champlain Chocolate’s site, users had to click
on Go to invoke the search. Using the Enter key on the keyboard did not work. This
repeatedly frustrated one user and slowed several others down.
In our first study, it was common that hitting the Enter key simply reloaded the
page, rather than submitting the search. This gave users the impression that the
search had returned no results.
7. Present only one search box for users.

Some sites offered multiple search boxes for different types of searches. Users don’t
want to have to decide between search boxes, they simply want their searches to
work. Don’t make users do extra work. Do the work on the backend so the single
open search field can accommodate any type of search the site supports.
Walmart’s site had boxes such as Search our Site and Find…in Baby Shop on some
pages. Several users did not understand the difference between the boxes. (For
more on scoped searches, see page 60.)

8. Make sure navigational menus do not cover the search box.
On some sites, dropdown navigational menus were so sensitive to mouse movement
that users repeatedly triggered them accidentally as they were trying to click
elsewhere on the page. In many cases, this resulted in the search box being covered
by navigation, making it difficult for users to enter a search term.
This happened to a user on BestBuy.com. When he tried to move his mouse to the
search box, he accidentally triggered the navigational menus by moving his mouse
slightly into the navigational target areas in the main horizontal navigation. He had
to try to move his mouse to the open text field multiple times before he did so
without triggering the sensitive menus.
If such menus appear above the search box, ensure they are not easily triggered by
users attempting to search. Delay the response slightly or increase the space
between the menus and the open search field.
A user had trouble entering a search term on BestBuy.com when the navigational
menus repeatedly covered the open search field. The second half of the search box
can be seen to the right of the navigational menu in the screenshot above.

A later redesign moved the search box above the site navigation.

Supporting Users’ Searches
9. Regularly review search logs for search trends and users’
terminology.
The search box is the way users can “talk” to the site. Search logs can reveal a lot
about how users think about your merchandise, shopping trends, problematic
navigational areas, and offerings that are missing from your site.
Review search logs to see what terminology users have for your products and for
their needs. Make sure that your search engine accommodates the searches users
are conducting.
Look for patterns in how users search. A sudden spike in searches around a
particular item or term may indicate an article, blog, or TV mention of an item that
has suddenly raised its popularity.
Repeated searches for certain types of merchandise can indicate that users don’t
know how to otherwise locate those items. While some users prefer to search, others
turn to search as a last resort when navigation fails them. A high number of searches
may indicate users cannot otherwise locate the items. A high number of searches for
“picture frames” may indicate the Housewares category label isn’t clear, for instance.
Also, consider the search engine as informal market research. If users repeatedly
search for “tablecloth” but your site only offers napkins, consider if it makes sense to
offer those related items.
Search logs can also clue you in to common misspellings. If users regularly misspell
brand or product names, ensure those misspellings take them to appropriate results.
10. Adjust the search engine based on search logs.

After analyzing search logs, make any necessary adjustments to the search engine
to accommodate users. For instance:
• Decide whether there are any frequent queries that need special treatment
• Configure the search engine to recognize common synonyms
• Accommodate misspellings
Determine if the search engine is returning appropriate results to users. Seeing
repeated searches for similar terms, such as “sock” followed by “socks” and
“stockings” may be an indication that no results are being returned. Make sure your
top search queries are returning relevant results to users, and those results are
being presented at the top of the search results list.
11. Adjust content or offerings based on search logs.

Consider what the search engine can tell you about the site and its content.
Keywords and topics that appear in search logs may make for good FAQs or Help
content. Products searched for, but not offered, on the site might make good
inventory additions.
38 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Supporting Users’ Searches

12. Consider special treatment for frequent queries, such as
categories or brands.
In our first study, eToys delivered custom results pages for its most popular toys,
but SmarterKids returned standard results for all toy queries.
When our users typed the name of a popular toy, such as Thomas the Tank Engine,
Barney or Hot Wheels into the eToys search box, the results were specially designed
category pages rather than a list of links. This worked well for most of our users and
they thought it was helpful. However, some users were confused because the page
layout differed from the search results page they expected.
Like eToys, Office Depot sometimes took users to a category page instead of a
search results page. For instance, if users searched for “shredders” they received a
shredder-focused page with links to types of shredders and options for narrowing
results. This was helpful, in that the page looked similar enough to search results
that our users were not confused, and the page offered helpful links. However, users
were confused by the jumbled layout on the page, not knowing if they were
supposed to select from the Heavy- to Light-Duty links at the top, look at featured
items, or narrow their options by criteria on the side of the page.
While it was helpful that Office Depot took users who searched for “shredders” to a
product-focused page, users weren’t sure what to do next on the page because
there were so many options.

If frequent search queries take users to a specific page, ensure that page clearly
lists product options. Costco.com did a nice job taking users who searched for
“televisions” to a category page with promoted items at the top, and category and
brand options below. The page also had categories listed on the side of the page.
This was more successful than the Office Depot example because the categories
were clear.
Costco’s site took users to a category page for Televisions when they searched for
“television” or “TV.”

13. Support many types of searches, including non-product
searches.
Users searched for all of the following:
• Product number (BC3104, s770)
• Customer service terms (returns, delivery)
• Product names (iPod shuffle, Richest Man in Babylon)
• Category names (air conditioner, digital camera)
• Criteria, including brand names (ballet, Uniden)
• Categories and criteria (Canon printer, peanut candy bar)
For instance, a user on Boden’s UK site was trying to get a sense of what the site
sold, so searched for “shoes.” A user on Nike.com wanted a hat with specific colors
on it, so searched for “grey white purple hat.” (See page 11 for a breakdown of
searches by type.)
Users also searched for other site content, like a company address. They also
misspelled search terms.
A robust search will accommodate each of these types of searches. Some sites
simply accommodate searches for specific, properly spelled product names. Many
sites neglect to support searches for site content, including crucial customer service
information.
When considering what terms the search needs to support, review search logs as
mentioned in the guideline above, but also think of other sources. Talk to anyone in
the company who regularly has contact with customers, such as a call center for
catalog orders or a support desk for the website, or even store clerks. Find out what
customers ask for and how they phrase their questions.
Knowing customers’ terminology is essential. One user on FineStationery.com
wanted to buy, “You know, those stickers you put on your mail going out, in the
corner? That’s what I want.” He looked in the navigation under Corporate and
Stationery, but then turned to search, entering the query “sticker.”
The search didn’t return any results for return address labels, which is what he was
looking for.
On Bluefly.com, a user saw the option to navigate to Lightweight & Rainwear options
within coats. When she later tried to search for “rainwear” she received no matches,
though it was a category name on the site. She later searched for “lightweight” and
saw products with the term in their description or name, but no way to navigate to
the category.
Product criteria should be searchable as well as product names. A user on
Flight001.com was looking for a guide book for England. When he searched for
“England,” he only received one result: a travel adapter. The site offered a travel
guide for London, but it did not show up. He said, “They have an adapter. No books
or guides for England? But there’s a London city guide right there. Why didn’t the
search for England bring that up?”

When a user searched for "England" on Flight001, no guide books displayed, even
though the user had previously seen a city guide to London.
It is also essential to support searches for customer service information. Many users
turned to search when trying to locate policy or return information. For instance, a
user on Anthropologie's site was buying a gift for a friend and wanted to make sure
before buying it that his friend could return it. He searched the site for "return
policy" and received product results, but no information about the site's return
policy.

A search for "return policy" on Anthropologie.com returned only product results.
By contrast, a search for “returns” on Build.com took users to the full return policy.
14. Indicate what users can search for, when appropriate.

Searches should accommodate any term users enter. If the search accommodates
something that a user may not expect, or if the search works in conjunction with
product numbers in a mailed catalog, for instance, it can be worth telling users they
can enter such queries.

For example, the Boden site offered a Product Code search field, followed by a
Quickshop button. This allowed users to enter product codes from the print catalog
to find desired items quickly. The field was separate from the main search, with its
own label and button, and will filler text in it.
There may be good reason to explicitly support such searches, if users commonly
use product codes to search for items on the site. However, consider if a separate
search box is required. A single search box could be used, with text beneath
indicating the types of queries the box supported, including product codes.
When one user saw the Product Code search box before she saw the regular site
search, she said, “You have to type in a product code. Oh, no you don’t.” Users
looking for a standard search may be confused by seeing multiple options, while
users looking to enter a product code should know to put it in the only search field,
particularly if the field is accompanied by sample searches listed underneath the
field.
Multiple search boxes at the top of the page caused one user to think she needed a
product code to conduct a search.
A single search box with explanatory text can be enough to indicate what types of
searches user can conduct. Oriental Trading used filler text to indicate users could
search by item number or keyword. We advise against using filler text (see guideline
on page 28), and recommend that the information be placed below the field instead.
The site also had a link to Catalog Quick Order, knowing many of their sales came
from recipients of their catalogs, which also led to a specialized search allowing users
to enter an item number and quantity. This added items directly into the shopping
cart.

Oriental Trading allowed users to enter an item number in the main search box and
also provided a separate Catalog Quick Order option, which allowed users to enter
an item number and quantity and add items directly to the shopping cart.
A user on 1000bulbs.com appreciated the option to search by image, since she had a
light bulb that she wanted to replace. She quickly identified her bulb as a halogen
mini and saw the options the site had to offer. This was much simpler than her
experience on other sites, where she tried to read tiny numbers and letters on the
bulb to enter in site search engines.
In this case, it made good sense to offer a visual search. This shows that the site
realized users often don’t know the details of a light bulb they’re trying to replace,
but that they shop by sight, looking for one that matches the burned out bulb.
The placement of the link to Search by Image was problematic, though. The user
who relied on this search successfully stumbled upon it the first time she searched,
but when she tried to do the same search again, she accidentally clicked Search
rather than Search by Image. It was helpful to place the button next to the standard
search, as that’s how the user originally stumbled upon it. However, it was presented
in the same way as the standard search with little space between the buttons,
making it easy for users to confuse the buttons or accidentally click the wrong one.

1000bulbs.com offered an image search, allowing users to navigate to the right
product type based on what the light bulb looked like. This showed awareness of
how shoppers look for replacement light bulbs.
Navigating to a category showed the various types of bulbs available, along with
detailed images to help the user select the appropriate bulb.

15. Consider displaying suggested search terms as the user
types his query. (Ensure suggested terms return relevant
results.)
It can be helpful to show users suggested search terms as they are entering a query.
This can help users pick an appropriate term which will show them results, rather
than making up a query which might not be successful. Such results typically appear
beneath the search box and change as users type each letter of their query.
This can be particularly helpful on travel-related sites, where the site relies on
accurate location names to return results. One user on Orbitz, however, was
confused when he was searching for a hotel in Chicago. Search options appeared as
he entered “Chicago” and he wasn’t sure which to click. He said, “When I wrote
Chicago, a few different places came up. I’m not sure which one, but I’ll just go for
Chicago, Illinois.” He was British and unfamiliar with U.S. states, so wasn’t sure he
picked the correct option.
A user in London used the suggested search terms presented by Orbitz to select his
destination.
If suggested queries are used, they must return relevant results. Suggesting that a
user might be searching for “candy bars” is not helpful unless selecting that term
returns all available candy bars on the site. Suggested terms that return zero results
or one result aren’t helpful.

Foot Locker provided suggested searches based on the user’s entry in the search
box.
Some sites provided search results as users typed. This can be a good shortcut for
users who know what they were looking for or se an item of interest. Other shoppers
who are looking for all items that match their search query prefer to see the full list
of results so they can browse and compare. Allow users to see a full list of results
either by clicking the Search button, using the Enter key, or clicking to View All
Results.
Some sites, such as Urban Outfitters, automatically listed search results as users
typed. This was a handy shortcut for users looking for specific items, but still
allowed users who wanted to browse results to use the search box in the standard
way. Urban Outfitter’s design would have been better if the search results were
more clearly differentiated from the background, with a strong border around the
results.

16. Carefully categorize products to ensure solid search results.
Users were frustrated when site searches returned items that clearly did not match
their inquiries or when products the site offered did not appear in results.
On 1-800-Flowers, a user searched for “yellow” in order to find yellow roses. The
search returned 21 yellow items – flowers, candles and such – but no yellow roses,
even though they were available on the site. Unable to find yellow roses, he said, “If
I were doing this at home, at this point, I’d say screw it. I’d have gone to my florist.”

When users search for a color or finish, they expect search results to reflect their
query. These results on Build.com for “red” include items available in that color, but
the default product image is shown, which is not always red.

In Urban Outfitters’ search results, (mostly) yellow products are returned for a
search for that color (there is one lavender shoe returned in the first row of results.)
Rather than showing the default image, the search results return images of the
yellow version of each matching item.
A user on Disney’s site carefully narrowed the scope of her search to entertainment
for a youth boy. When the search results came back, she immediately noticed that
the website had not adhered to her search criteria. “I searched for something for a
boy. This shows a girl with a Dalmatians pajama set,” she complained.

17. Accept synonyms commonly used by customers.
Customers may not use the same language to describe the same product. For
instance, users looking for a car seat searched for “child seat,” “children’s seat” and
“child restraints.” A user looking for bunk beds searched for “children’s bed.” Make
sure the search engine accommodates synonyms, even if those words do not appear
on the website.
A user on Pottery Barn’s site searched for “drawers” when looking for a dresser, and
received results that included no dressers. He never successfully located the dressers
section of the site, so wasn’t sure there were any available. He searched twice for
“drawers” and meticulously went through the results trying to find something to
meet his needs, but no dressers were listed. Poor search results made him doubt the
site carried the item he was looking for.
A Pottery Barn search for “drawers” returned no dressers, but plenty of other items
with drawers, such as file cabinets and bookcases. The site offered dressers, but
none appeared in the search results.
A user looking for printer ink on a variety of websites was stymied because he kept
searching for “red ink,” when the ink was actually magenta. Consider how your users
describe your products or their characteristics. While ink may come in cyan and
magenta, for instance, users think of those same ink cartridges as blue and red.

18. Accommodate misspellings and variant forms (spaces,
plurals, etc).
Users appreciated when search engines accommodated typographical errors or
misspellings. When searches failed due to users’ typing errors, they assumed the site
did not offer the products they were looking for. For instance, a user was looking for
the song Guantanamera on the Sony Connect site. He did not know how to spell it,
so searched for “juan tanamera,” which returned no relevant results. He searched
again for the misspelling as one word, “juantanamera,” and received results.
He said, “I think that either way, I should have received results. Sony Connect
should improve their search engine. It would be nice if they had a contact button
where consumers could tell them about problems encountered when searching for
specific songs.”
Users appreciated when searches simply worked, regardless of misspellings. A user
said of Home Depot’s site: “I mistyped dehumidifiers as ‘dehumidifer’ with no third
‘i', but they still came up with results.” He made the same spelling error at Lowes,
Sears and Walmart. Only Walmart failed to return results for his misspelling: “I’m
really surprised that Walmart’s site is not programmed to search for similar products
or look for misspellings.”
Costco.com corrects misspellings and indicated that the site was “showing results
for ‘dehumidifier’” and provided a link to “search instead for ‘dehumidifer.’”

Users are so accustomed to search engines correcting their spelling that they
sometimes assumed the site had no matching items, even if they knew they
misspelled their search query. One user mistyped a search for “James Bond ultimate
edition dved set” on Amazon.com and received no results. She said, “I bet they don’t
have it, because it didn’t come up even with my typo.” She ran the search again,
removing the extra e in dved and saw the item she wanted as the first result. She
simply expected the site to fix her mistake and return her desired item.
Some users had work-arounds when they were unsure of the spelling of a word. A
user searched for “Arnold” rather than “Schwarzenegger” when searching for the
actor’s movies. Another abandoned a search when he wasn’t sure how to spell Jack
Nicholson’s last name.
On FYE.com, a user thought the site did not carry the artist he was looking for due to
a spelling error. He searched for the artist “littlefeat,” though the artist’s name has a
space between the two words, which he did not include. He received no results. He
said, “They don’t have it. It’s not on here, see?” The site didn’t offer any
suggestions, either for the spelling or for similar products he might enjoy.
A user’s search for “littlefeat” rather than “little feat,” returned no results on
FYE.com. The site did carry items by that artist.
A user on YesAsia.com searched for “dianna krall,” misspelling artist Diana Krall’s
name. He saw no results, corrected the spelling, and searched again. He said, “When
I did the search it said no matches. For some others, like the Yahoo search machine,
if you make a typo it tells you ‘are you looking for Diana Krall.’ If yes, you just click it
and it takes you to that product.”

Ensure that the search engine accommodates singular and plural terms as well. On
Living.com, several users searched for “bunk beds” and received no results. “Bunk
bed,” however, returned results. One user said after a facilitator helped with the
unexpected problem, “I really disliked having to take away the ‘s’ on bunk beds. I
thought it was almost an insurmountable problem. I would have never guessed.”
19. Accommodate searches with multiple words, including

characteristics such as color, size and brand.
Users sometimes did not understand the search results they received for multiple-
word queries. Some sites looked only for exact matches, and some returned results
for each keyword, but did not prioritize results that matched all terms.
In our first study, 54% of queries consisted of more than one word. In our second
study, 71% of all in-site queries consisted of more than one word, with queries
averaging 2.3 words. Of all sitewide searches, only 4 queries used enclosing quotes.
A user on Sears.com searched for “10v cordless power drill” and received no results.
Sears had 33 cordless drills at the time, but none were exactly 10 volts. However,
the site could have returned “Nothing found for 10v cordless drills, but here are
matches for cordless drills.”
Similarly, a user searched on Pottery Barn’s site for “espresso dresser drawers,” and
received no results. She searched again for “espresso dresser” and received results.
While it was good the second search returned results, there was no clear reason the
first did not. Dressers on the site were available in espresso stain and had drawers.
After the first search, she said, “They probably don’t have it,” and went back to
browsing the dressers page of the site. Unsatisfied, she returned to search. However,
if she were not in a study situation, she likely would have left the site.

A search for “espresso dresser drawers” returned no results on Pottery Barn’s site.
A search for “espresso dresser” returned products which weren’t returned for the
similar search “espresso dresser drawers.”

Another user searched for “drawers espresso stain” and again for “espresso stain,
drawers.” While this search returned results, it returned no dressers. Instead, she
saw a mirror and two file cabinets.
A search for “drawers espresso stain” returned no dressers, but only a mirror and
two file cabinets.
When results were listed for multiple-word queries, users expected items matching
every word in the query would be listed first. Users on The Container Store’s site
were frustrated by the site search, which they did not think prioritized results
properly.
Several users on the site searched for the term “wooden box.” The site returned 100
results for the search, and apparently first listed items with the word “wooden” in the
product name, followed by items with the word “box” in the name. This meant the
box users were looking for was returned as result 96 out of 100, though it was a
wooden box. Several users gave up scanning the results page before they reached
the result when they did not see the box immediately.
One user said after the task, “There were very broad results for search. I had to find
the closest things that were coming up. So many results weren’t relevant to what I
searched.” Another said, “I’m searching for wooden boxes, but I’m getting boxes and
not wooden boxes. I shouldn’t be getting white gift boxes.” She later complained, “I
had over 100 hits, with everything from bamboo to plastic to cardboard, and I
searched for ‘wooden.’”

Users searching for this box on The Container Store’s site tried a query for “wooden
box.”
The top results for the term “wooden box” included wooden items followed by
boxes, but wooden boxes were not prioritized. The box users were looking for was
item 96 out of 100 returned results.
Users were frustrated when they searched and saw items that seemed irrelevant to
the query they had entered. Another user on The Container Store searched for a
variety of different terms describing a set of stainless steel canisters with clear tops.
She said, “No matter what I type in, I get the same 100 results.” While that wasn’t
the case, it was true that every search did seem to return 100 results, many of
which seemed irrelevant at first glance. For instance, she searched for “steel and
glass canister” and received results that were “ridiculous – toilet brushes, cracker
jars.” The items returned were either stainless steel or glass, but to her they were
completely unrelated to what she was looking for.
She searched for “kitchen canisters” and said, “A third of the way down the page,
I’m not even getting canisters anymore. This has nothing to do with what I typed.”

20. Recognize search operators.
Some people will try to use search techniques they’ve learned from other search
tools on your site. While most user will stick to basic search queries, some may
employ more advanced search methods. Here are some examples of special
characters your search engine should respond to intelligently:
• software AND space
• (lincoln county)
• +mr. john smith
• *price*
• “winnie the pooh”

Advanced and Scoped Searches
21. Consider the need for advanced search.
Most users prefer to use simple search. If advanced search is offered, use a distinct
link that is less prominent than the simple search’s button.
Rather than offering advanced search, consider expanding the types of searches your
search tool can accommodate or using facets to help users narrow results (see page
105 for more on facets.)
22. Provide a clear link to advanced search – and back.

If your customers require advanced search functionality, offer it; but keep simple
search as the default and allow an easy return.
Advanced search offers manual control over many parameters that refine the search
process. The main problem with advanced search, however, is that people may
interpret the additional parameters to mean that they can adjust the search
differently than the designer intended. Here are some examples from Reel:
• A Danish user thought that if he selected “Country = Denmark,” he could then
search for the Danish title (“Gøgereden”) of the movie “One Flew over the
Cuckoo’s Nest.”
• A user thought that if he wanted to search for an English actor, he had to set
“Country = England.”
23. Explain the scope of the search.

A site search may cover the full site or part of the site or site inventory. It may cover
a particular attribute, such as Artist or Author. Most users assume that a search will
cover the entire site and all its inventory. It must be clear when and if this is not the
case. A dropdown menu can indicate the options for scope and search results should
also restate the scope of the search.
It is difficult for sites to predict what type of search users want to conduct on any
given page. Within a section, they may want to search that section or they may be
finished shopping there and want to look for an entirely different type of product.
For instance, some of the users on the Sears site started looking for a microwave
oven when they were in the Tool Territory area of the site. On this site, that meant
the Tools department was the implicit scope of the search. Several users searched
for “microwave” and received no results.
One user said, “I know a microwave is not a tool, but I thought maybe it would bring
me to the appliance section.” Another user remarked, “This reminds me of looking
under the Yellow Pages. You’re looking under lawyers, and it’s attorneys. I think I’m
in the tool thing. I have to get out of the tool thing.”
60 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Advanced and Scoped Searches

24. Default searches to the most lenient category.
Search boxes should default to the most lenient search option, allowing users to
refine if needed. Every selection list should include an option for All or Entire Site.
Many users simply ignore options to limit the scope of a search. This is not a
problem, so long as the option defaults to All. This means that if the user does not
take any special action, the whole database or website will be searched.
One user searched for “Ipanema” on CustomDisc and received no results. He didn’t
notice or know that the default scope on the search was Artist, not All. In fact, All
wasn’t even an option. The search failed not because of the user’s search query or
because the site did not carry the song, but because the scope was not clear.
A user on Overstock accidentally scoped his search for “luggage” to the music
section. However, the results page did not clearly indicate this. The only sign of the
scope of his search was above the results, next to the number of results found. He
knew the site offered luggage, so couldn’t figure out why he was receiving music
results. He tried to run the search again on the side of the page, but received the
same results because he could not determine he was searching within Music. It
would have been better to default to a site search and allow users to scope the
results to their desired section.
A user accidentally scoped his search for “luggage” to the Music section of
Overstock.com.
HancockFabrics.com allowed users to select the search scope. However, the site
nicely defaulted to the broadest category for search: Entire Site.

The HancockFabrics.com search allowed users to set a scope, but defaulted to
searching the entire site.
25. Simplify options in scoped search.

On FYE.com, the site defaulted to searching only the user’s currently selected
section. While this worked for some users, others were confused by limited search
results. As discussed above, it is better to default search scope to the broadest
category. The site did offer an option to search the Entire Site, but the option was
listed last in the list, rather than first.
The site also changed the options for scope depending on the user’s location on the
site. For instance, a user looking for a CD by a specific artist successfully used the
search to select By Artist. However, other options weren’t as clear. For instance,
users could be confused between Genre and Style on the FYE.com site. Also, the
category Popular Music is confusing unless the contrasting option for Classical is
seen.

Options in FYE.com's scoped search weren't clear.
26. Consider the use of facets rather than scoped search.

Rather than asking users to explicitly select a scope for a search, consider returning
results and allowing users to narrow options via facets (see page 105 for more on
facets.) Most sites don’t have the breadth and depth of inventory necessary to make
scoped search crucial to the success of the search tool. Adding facets so users can
select the type of results they are looking for after the fact can be just as effective
when done well. Give users suggestions for limiting results after the search is run.
This can help avoid the problems which arise when users select the wrong scope for
their search. For instance, a user on Sears.com was looking for free weights and
searched the Fitness & Sports section for “ankle weights.” All the results were for
weight systems or weight benches, with no free weights shown. This was because
free weights were categorized under Health & Wellness, rather than Fitness & Sports.
Because the user scoped his search to the wrong section of the site, he assumed no
items were available.

A user could not find ankle weights on Sears.com because he scoped his search to
the wrong product category. They were available elsewhere on the site.
Faceted search, like on Oriental Trading’s site, allows users to narrow searches after
entering a query, rather than forcing them to pick a scope for their search initially.

Presentation of Search Results
The search results page is, in essence, a category page. The page lists multiple
products which it needs to name and show to the user, allowing the user to make an
appropriate product selection. Like a category page, the page must clearly show
users how many products meet their needs and highlight differences between them
as much as possible. (See our report Homepages and Category Pages in the E-
Commerce report series for related information about designing such pages
successfully.)
27. Don’t put any steps between the user’s search and the
search results.
A user on Staples.com searched for a brand as soon as he reached the site’s
homepage. This took him to a page asking him for his zip code, rather than returning
search results. When he saw this page, he said, “Oh, I don’t see anything coming
up,” and assumed his search had failed. He switched strategies for finding the
product and started to use the site navigation instead.
The site required users to enter a zip code before seeing any products. However, this
was not clear. When the user entered a search term and saw a page asking for a zip
code, he assumed he couldn’t search for the product. If this step was necessary, it
should have been explained and the page should have acknowledged he was in the
middle of searching for a product. He later tried another search and this time said, “I
guess I have to put in my zip code. It would have been nice if it would have just
come up.”
A user saw this page after he submitted his search on Staples.com.

28. List the number of results found.
Users wanted to see the number of results found to determine if they needed to
further narrow their search or not. When a high number of results were found, users
sometimes looked for faceted search options or refined their search queries.
Vitacost.com listed the number of results above the results themselves, here
stating, “Showing Products 1-20 of 442.”
29. Be cautious if promoting specific products in the search

results.
A user on Cooking.com was looking for a blender, and searched for the term "mix
drinks." This returned a results page which featured a Bestseller, followed by the
standard search results. The user thought the site only had one blender. Though the
item was labeled as a Bestseller and another search result was listed below, she
thought the first item listed was the only option on the site. The dark rule lines and
yellow headers made her think only the highlighted option was a search result. She
said, "It was the only one that came up for the site, so I don't know if it's the only
one that they sell."
66 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Presentation of Search Results

Highlighting a bestselling item in the search results on Cooking.com made one user
think the site only had one blender for sale.
30. Repeat the user’s search query at the top of the page.
It is important that users know what they searched for. This can help them refine the
search if too many or too few results are returned.
This is particularly helpful if no results are found. On BroadwayOffers.com, if no
tickets were found that matched the user’s desired criteria, the page did not tell
users what they had previously searched for. The site didn’t clearly indicate if the
date, type of seat, or number of seats was not available or suggest any solution.
Without knowing what he had searched for previously, one user conducted the same
search three times.

BroadwayOffers.com did not tell the user what exact search query had returned no
results. This caused one user to conduct the same search three times in a row.
Foot Locker repeated the user’s query at the top of the list of results.

31. Allow users to View All or view more results per page.
Allow users to change the view of search results, viewing more on a page at a time if
they’d like. View All may not be a reasonable option, depending on the number of
results likely on your site. If View All isn’t possible for technical reasons or doesn’t
make sense because users would see thousands of products, consider an option to
view more results per page, such as 20, 50 or 100. Some users liked to see all their
options on one page.
The Container Store site had clearly designed search results, though the quality of
the results was not great. It was easy to quickly skim down the page and see if any
of the items met the user’s interest, and the layout of the page allowed users to see
many results at once. Many users selected View All on the search results pages.
Users easily scanned the list of product results on The Container Store’s site and
many selected the option to View All (presented next to the page numbers at the
top and bottom of the results listing).

Consider site performance and inventory when presenting the option to View All.
Wayfair, a site selling thousands of products, allowed users to view 24, 28 or 96
items per page. This option appeared at both the top and bottom of search results.
32. Provide a descriptive product name, small product image,

and price in search results.
In most cases, users expected to see the product name, price and a picture of the
product in search results. The product name needed to be descriptive enough for
users to be able to understand and identify the product and its purpose. If product
names are not descriptive, consider a one-line product description.
The product image should be large enough for users to identify the product and to
convey some information about the product. For instance, on the Pottery Barn site,
some images were large enough that users could determine the number of drawers a
piece of furniture had without having to click into the product description.

A user determined which search results he wanted to pursue on Pottery Barn’s site
by looking at the number of drawers in the product images.
A lack of product images on Stonewall Kitchen’s search results pages made it difficult
to understand the search results. This was even more problematic because the site
listed product results and recipe results. A product image would have been a quick
and visual way to help users understand which results were relevant to their search.

A lack of product images in the search results on Stonewall Kitchen’s site made it
difficult to locate products of interest.
One user searched for “dog leash” on PetSmart.com and was pleased with the
presentation of search results. She said, “Excellent! There are all the leashes that are
available. I can see the prices, the colors. It’s very nice. I can see if it’s a muzzle, if
it’s retractable. I can see all that without having to click into product information.”

A user appreciated the amount of information on search results pages on
PetSmart.com.
33. Include relevant product details or a brief product

description in search results.
Users need to see enough information to decipher which product meets his or her
needs. Information such as brand, release date, or distinguishing characteristics help
users narrow their prospects.
On Tower Records, a user searched for Disney’s Fantasia video and received several
results. “It’s Fantasia alright, but is it Disney’s Fantasia? How can I see who made
it?” The short product description did not provide the brand name, so the user had to
click to discover if the right video had been found.
Two users on Amazon searched for an author's most recent book by conducting a
site search for the author’s name. The results included the date of publication, which
allowed each to select the proper book without having to view and compare multiple
product descriptions.

Publication date and format information on Amazon.com's search results page
helped users locate the book they were looking for.
Users need to be able to distinguish one product from another. A user on Manchester
United’s shopping site searched for the player “Alan Smith,” saw the results, and
understood, “We’ve got away shirts and home shirts. I’d want a home shirt if it were
me.”

A user understood she could choose between home and away shirts on Manchester
United's shopping site from the information displayed with the search results.
Successful search results pages gave users the information they needed to discern
between similar products. A user on FYE.com searched for a book called Cheese
Monkeys and received two results in books. She was able to compare the hardcover
and paperback editions and their prices.

Product information in FYE.com’s search results allowed a user to decide between
the hardcover and paperback edition of a book. The heatmap above shows where
the user looked to determine which version of the book she was interested in. Red
indicates areas of more interest, blue areas the users spent less time reviewing.
She reviewed the title, format and price information for each version before
selecting the hardcover version.
When sites did not adequately describe the product, users were forced to jump from
search results page to product page and back in order to understand their options.
Users had a hard time on FineStationery.com because search results did not even
include a product name. Results had an image and designer’s name or brand, but no
text describing the type of product.

Search results on FineStationery.com showed the product price and brand or
designer name, but no product name or description. Users weren't sure what type
of product was being displayed.
34. Include inventory information on search results pages.

If the site includes items not currently available, indicate this information on search
results pages.

Search results on FYE.com included availability information.
A user on YesAsia.com used advanced search to locate a movie. The search results
listed two version of the movie – a special edition and the regular version. The
special edition was out of stock, but the standard version was not. This was clear in
the search results, allowing the user to navigate directly to the version that was
available.

YesAsia.com indicated typical shipping time in search results.
35. List all results and let users filter them as needed, rather
than listing results separately by type.
Some search results listed items by type, showing, for instance, books separate from
movies. This typically confused users. While it is helpful to be able to look for a
particular type of result, it is better to show users all results and then let them select
the type of result they are looking for.
It is difficult to design a page with categories of results in such a way that users
instantly understand what they are looking at. Users expect to see a list of results,
not a page divided by categories. Sites often show only a few results in each
category, as well, which can make users jump to the often incorrect conclusion that
selection on the site is limited.
For example, a user on FYE.com did a search for “graphic design” on the site and
thought there were only three results. Only after she’d been on the site for 10
minutes and had conducted additional searches did she realize she could click to
view more results in each category.

A user did not realize she could click to see “all 77 matches in Books” on FYE.com.
She thought the site offered only three books related to graphic design.
Other users ran into the same difficulty. This was particularly true if users weren’t
sure which category the product they wanted would be listed under. On
BestBuy.com, a user repeatedly said he was looking for software for video editing.
When looking for the software on the site, he searched for “DVD transfer.”
While the site did offer some software results, he never saw them. He selected the
Computers category from the first categorized page of results, but then only looked
at the top category of results on that page, which was Graphics Cards and
Components. He never noticed the Software category.

Best Buy sorted search results by category, which forced the user to know what
type of result he was looking for. A user who said he was looking for software never
found software in the results. He navigated correctly to Computers, but then didn’t
notice the categories on the Computers page and never saw the Software category.

On LLBean.com, users had difficulty understanding the number of results found due
to presentation. A user searched for “long underwear” and then clicked the option for
Women’s on the side of the page to narrow her results. This resulted in a page which
first listed four matches for Sleepwear & Underwear, with a link to View all 20, and
another row showing the 1 result found within Outerwear. When she looked at the
page, she assumed all options were shown and said, “That’s not a good selection.”
She left the page having no idea that there were 16 additional options available if
she clicked View all 20.
The display of results on LLBean.com lead a user to believe that this page showed
the site’s full collection of women’s long underwear, when it instead showed only a
sampling.

The site later changed to let users select a category of result on the left-hand side,
rather than separating results by category.
36. Design search results pages to maximize the number of

results a user can see and compare, without cluttering the
screen.
There is no magic number of search results to display on a page. Maximize the
screen real estate to allow users to see as many options as possible, while creating a
design that makes it easy for users to compare items without feeling overwhelmed.
Some users complained about sites that wasted space that could be used to provide
product information. A user on YesAsia.com said “They are using this vertical layout.
That’s wasting a lot of space on the screen. Most of the time on this screen you can
only see four products at a time. If they listed them side by side, they could save
space and it would be easier to pick the right product.”

A user thought too much space on the YesAsia.com search results page was
wasted. He wanted to see more results per screen.
Adagio.com did a poor job displaying search results. Each was listed with an
accompanying image, but the image did not help users identify the product or
information. For instance, a large white box with the text Tea Information was placed
next to any results from the tea info section of the site. A large graphic showing each
product’s tea leaves was listed for each type of tea, but they all looked quite similar.
Further, the images were large, which limited the number of items which could be
displayed on a screen. Product descriptions or page content was shown as well, but
the large graphic meant that one sentence descriptions were followed by an inch or
more of white space.

Adagio.com’s search results did not optimize the page to display many results in a
clear and easy-to-compare way. Large images wasted space without adding much
value to a user’s understanding of the results.

The Scholastic Store listed products in a grid, with a product image, age range, and
price information. Users could also select how many items they wanted to see on a
page (12, 24, 60 or 100). By removing the right-hand column on the page,
however, more results could have been viewed at a time.
37. Clearly list content matches as well as product matches.

A user on Ikea’s site wanted to see if he could pay to have someone assemble his
furniture. He searched for “paid assembly” on the site, and saw at the top of the
page of results that 5 matches were found. However, nothing was displayed on the
page except a Search feedback box.
Results were listed, but they were listed on the side of the page, where users could
filter results by type. Four matches were found in About IKEA and one in Customer
Service, but no information about these matches was listed in the body of the page.
He said, “It says 5 matches, but it’s hard to see what they are. Where are the
matches? I did a search, but I don’t see where the matches are.”

Ikea's site returned matches for "paid assembly", but failed to display summaries or
links to the results.

Users often overlooked divisions of types of results. On Edible Arrangements’ site,
products and information results were divided into two tabs. It is easy for users to
overlook such tabs.
For common customer service related searches, take users directly to the associated
policy page. For instance, take users to shipping information if they search for
shipping, or a return policy page for returns.

A search for Shipping on Vitacost took the user directly to the Shipping & Delivery
section of the Help area of the site.
38. Indicate if only one result is found.

Several sites took users directly to the product page if only one search result was
returned. This is helpful in that it does not waste a page by listing only one item.
However, it can be confusing to users to see a product page when they expect to see
a page of search results.
Help users understand the results by clearly stating at the top of the page that only
one result was found and that this is the only result, with a link to refine the search.

When only one result was found on Artful Home’s site, users saw a product page,
with no indication that it was as a result of their search.
39. State when no results are found.

Clearly indicate that the search was run, but that no matches were found. When
appropriate, offer suggestions such as broadening the search term or checking
spelling.

Office Depot clearly stated if a search “returned 0 results” and presented the search
box again.
Don’t show users results if no matches are found. A user searched for “candy bar” (in
quotes) on Lake Champlain Chocolates’ site and received no results. There were no
exact matches for the full term. The site included a message at the top of the page
stating no results were found and suggesting that the user broaden the search query
with “more words.” However, the site also listed recommended products, which
looked like search results.
Since the user saw results, he paid no attention to the information about the failed
search and instead focused on the products. He was confused by the products listed,
which were recommended products on the site as a whole, and not particular in any
way to his search. He said, “Why is the first hit truffles? That has nothing to do with
candy bars.”

Lake Champlain Chocolates’ site showed product results when a site search failed.
The user looked at the results, not the message, and didn’t understand why the site
gave him truffles when he looked for candy bars.
A user on Sainsbury’s site was confused when he searched for “leaf spinach, frozen”
and received no results. He skimmed right past the area where it said no results
were found and instead focused on the promotions on the page. He said, “I looked
for ‘leaf spinach, frozen’ and got champagne and Malteasers.”

A user didn't notice the message that no results were found, instead seeing the
large Your Results heading and the products listed on the page. Sainsbury's site
was listing promotions, not product results.
Although one user was frustrated that half.com did not have the comic book he was
searching for, he immediately realized that it wasn't available on their site, but that
related products were available on eBay. The site clearly stated that no products
were found, and offered suggestions for refining the search query.

When no products are found in a search on half.com, related products available on
eBay were displayed. The top half of the page focused on telling the user that no
results had been found.
40. Write constructive and comprehensible messages when no

results are found.
Error messages should tell people how to proceed rather than tell them what they
did wrong. They should be as polite as if the customer were standing in front of you
and should place blame on the site, not the user. They must be written in clear
language, with no technical slang or jargon.
When a user enters a query for which the search engine can find no matches, display
a No Results page. The No Results page should provide constructive and
comprehensible advice about how the user can solve the problem.
On 1-800-Flowers, we saw many users search in vain for “yellow roses.” The no
results page suggested that users “broaden” their search, but many users didn’t
understand the suggestion. In response, we saw users search for “roses, yellow” (no
results), “yellow” (21 results, but no yellow roses) and “roses” (success).
Error messages must be short and simple. Even after an error, users won’t read
much text. The message should restate the user’s query, clearly state no results
were found, and make it clear what options the user has. Suggest that the user
check his spelling or typing or asking users to use a more general term in their
search.

The site can also offer alternate ways to find information, such as offering a link to
the site map or customer service, or providing a phone number.
41. Allow users to search again from the No Results page.

Give the user another chance to succeed by allowing him to search again from the no
results page. Provide a search box in the content area of the page.

OrientalTrading.com provided a search box on pages when no results were found.
42. Clarify if there are no exact matches but the site is making a
suggestion or best guess. Be cautious in doing so.
It can be helpful to direct users to similar products if their specific search fails due to
the site’s inventory or selection. However, this needs to be done carefully so users
understand the results they are seeing. Users assume if they run a search and see
results that those items are directly related to their query.
Several users who attempted tasks on the site CDBaby received confusing search
results. The site offered music from independent artists. However, the site did not
clearly convey this information, so many of our users searched for popular artists on
major labels.
The site had a feature that returned independent artists similar to popular artists.
The site even offered this as a tool called Sounds Like. However, users didn’t
understand that when they searched for popular artists on the site, the site was
returning the Sounds Like results, directing them toward similar artists. (Further, the
one user who noticed the Sounds Like search option thought it was a phonetic search
tool.)
One user conducted three searches for familiar artists before realizing the site might
not sell the music he was looking for. He said, “I just typed in Scissor Sisters and it
hasn’t come up with anything that’s related at all. I don’t know if this site doesn’t
have them or if the search isn’t working.” He then searched for The Beatles, received
no results, and said, “This might be quite an alternative site.”

CDBaby's search returned 188 album results for an artist's name - but none were
for the artist the user was looking for.
Another user searched on Home Depot’s site for “air conditioners,” but thought there
were too many results. He searched again for “air conditioner energy-efficient.” The
site nicely stated at the top of the results page that there were no exact matches,
but that the page listed partial matches.
However, the user assumed that he had a list of all the site’s energy efficient air
conditioners and that only energy-efficient units were listed. This was not the case.
He said, “It looks like they brought me to air conditioners that are energy-efficient.
They don’t say they’re energy efficient, but I assume they are. This one says Energy
Star, but the others don’t say it. I have to think they are.”

A user assumed all the air conditioners listed were energy-efficient, since that’s
what he searched for. This was not the case. That wasn’t clear from Home Depot’s
explanation that these were “partial matches.”
A user searched for a particular vineyard on Wine.com, but the site did not offer the
label he was looking for. It instead suggested similar wines. However, the site did
not clarify why they were “similar.” The user decided that the site had returned other
Australian, reasonably priced wines.

Wine.com included a clear statement directly above the search results indicating
similar, but not exact, matches to the user’s query were shown.
To avoid the potential for irritating or misleading users, consider if it is worthwhile to

broaden users’ criteria. Users often miss messaging explaining why search results
are not what they expected to see. When users see results on a page, they assume
they are relevant to the query they just entered. Rather than automatically
returning related results, consider offering a link to a suggested search. For instance,
Wine.com could have said, “No matches found for Yellowtail. Search again for similar
wines: Australian wines, $20-$50.”
43. Indicate in search results if additional products may be

available in stores.
Several users mentioned using a store’s site to get a sense of their offerings when
deciding whether or not to visit the store. For instance, a user looked to three
different home improvement store websites to see which offered the most options for
dehumidifiers, with the intention of driving to the store with the best selection.
Another mentioned looking at Walmart’s site to plan her weekend shopping, and a
third checked out the styles on BananaRepublic.com before deciding whether to go to
the store.
Because users may be looking to the site to get an idea about in-store inventory, it is
helpful to indicate in search results if the site offers all products available at the
store, or if additional items may be available.

The Container Store’s search results page included this information. A message at
the bottom of the results page said, “Our Web site contains only a collection of what
is available in our stores, so if you do not find the exact solution you are looking for,
please call us at 1-888-CONTAIN (266-8246) or Contact Us via email.” This was
helpful placement for such a message, as a user who had just scanned the results
with no luck might see this information and decide to call or visit a store.
A message at the bottom of The Container Store’s search results page told users
that the site did not carry the full inventory available in stores.
Similarly, Costco also informed users that inventory was different online and in
stores.

A message at the bottom of the search results page informed users “Costco carries
items in our warehouses which may not be available online. Visit your local Costco
warehouse for current product inventory and to see if we stock what you are
looking for.” The site then provided a link to “find your nearest warehouse.”

Sorting Results
44. List results in by relevance.
Users were confused when search results did not list their desired product at the top
of the list. Search results should be listed by relevance and the search engine should
be carefully managed to make sure the best results are returned reliably.
For instance, a user on YesAsia.com expected recent releases from artists to be
listed among the top results. He searched for a film by the name of the lead actress.
He was surprised by the results, saying, “When searching for Isabella Leong, most
would be looking for the most recent movie she’s played in. However, this is on the
bottom part of the page. This movie should be in the top of the page.”
He ran into the problem again when looking for a CD by Joey Yung. He said, “She’s a
very famous local artist. But the latest release is on the 2nd page of results. When
you’re using the search function to find the CD, the most popular one is not on the
page. The first page was a release from several years ago and it’s not quite what the
customer is looking for. They are looking for the latest product. After a certain time,
no one is going to buy it.”
A user was disappointed that the most recent album by an artist wasn't the first
result on YesAsia.com.
Avoid showing scores to indicate how relevant search results may be. Relevancy
scores are just noise for most users, who aren’t aware of or interested in the factors
that influence ranking. Use the scores only to order the list from highest to lowest.
102 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Sorting Results

45. Offer appropriate sorting options, such as by price,
customer rating, or popularity.
Appropriate options vary from site to site. Depending on the products being sold,
customers might care about brand, dimensions, customer reviews, popularity, or
most recent additions to the site, among other options. All sites should present the
option to sort by price. Users frequently wanted to restrict their searches to
particular budgets.
Sorting options should be presented at the top of the results with a clear and
descriptive name for each option.
A user complained on the Container Store site because there were no options to sort
search results. She said, “I would like to be able to sort this by price or something.
It’s not easy because you can’t organize it by the most popular or by low to high or
high to low.”
Users appreciated options to sort products by relevant criteria. Build.com allowed

users to sort by price, model number and bestselling items.
46. For sorting by price, present an option both to sort from

high to low prices and from low to high.
Providing both options allows users to see either low-price or high-price items easily.
If the site only sorts from low to high, users have to sort and then navigate to a
page of results which has higher priced options.

The Children's Place gave users the option of sorting products from high to low
price, or low to high.
(For more about sorting product listings, see the Homepages and Category Pages
report in the E-Commerce report series.)
104 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Sorting Results

Narrowing Product Choices: Guided Navigation or
Faceted Search
Search results pages and category pages are similar in many ways, including the
frequent use of guided navigation or faceted search to help users narrow product
options.
The main difference between category pages and search results pages is category
pages have items which are all considered to be within one over-arching category,
and which were located via navigating the website. Search results pages list items
from throughout the site, potentially crossing product categories, and are shown in
response to a user’s query. However, the functions of sorting results or narrowing
options using facets remain essentially the same.
This section combines examples of narrowing results from searches and from
category pages on sites. (For more about category pages, see our Homepages and
Category Pages report in the E-Commerce User Experience series.)
When users are faced with too many product options, whether on a category page or
in search results, they have a difficult time determining which of the many options
best fit their needs. In our first study, 27% of task failures were a result of not being
able to locate a suitable item on the site, though all of our tasks were designed so
there was always at least one suitable item available. When users see too many
options, with no way to narrow choices, they can easily miss those products that
best fit their needs.
When users can’t easily manage the number of options, they may abandon the
purchase or buy a product that is not the best option for them, which may result in a
return.
Filtering is a way of narrowing user’s product options so they can find the items that
best meet their specific needs. We define filtering as any method of interaction that
lets the user refine a set of products, reducing the number of items in the set
according to criteria chosen by the user. This is also sometimes called faceted
navigation, guided navigation, faceted search or structured search.
The main idea is presenting users with a number of characteristics by which they can
narrow their view of products on a site. For instance, a user can see only black
sweaters in size medium, or only 6 Megapixel digital cameras under $500.
The ability to narrow product choices by filtering became increasingly popular in the
years between our studies. When it works well, it is an excellent way to direct users
to the products that best meet their needs. When it works poorly, it is a way to
irritate users or hide product choices from shoppers.
The need for filtering increases as product choices increase. The need for such
options was particularly apparent on SmarterKids, where search or navigational
clicks often resulted in hundreds of products spread over dozens of pages. While
users had many good things to say about the site, it was frustrating for users to find
products that met the goals of the task, such as “software related to science for a 6-
year-old” or “something to help a 10-year-old who’s having trouble in math.” Once
users got to the right part of the site, there was no way to narrow the selection.

Many users commented on how helpful narrowing options were on a variety of
websites. A user said of Office Depot, “I typed in shredders and it just came up.
There were further search criteria on the side. It was very user friendly. It was right
there, the range of prices.”
Office Depot let users narrow shredder options by cut style, height, speed, and
number of sheets per pass.
One user said after using tools to quickly narrow his choice of air conditioners on
Home Depot’s site to only two models, “That’s always helpful, the information on the
side, the filters. It’s easy to select things and filter the results. I appreciate that
when I shop, especially when I know what I’m looking for.”
Even when filtering tools narrowed users’ selections drastically, they appreciated that
it saved them from having to review many products to determine if they met their
purchase criteria or not. A user on Sports Authority’s site was looking for athletic
shoes and sorted by size. He said, “They don’t have big sizes for me, but I like that
they tell me right away they don’t have the size.” Though it was disappointing, it was
preferable to looking through pages and pages of shoes only to realize his size was
not available.
106 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Narrowing Product Choices: Guided Navigation or Faceted

Search
A user appreciated being able to narrow his options for sneakers based on shoe size
on SportsAuthority.com.
Such options are so common that users complained when sites did not offer them. A
user on Pottery Barn said, “It would be nice if you could find by your own criteria.
Just plug in what you’re looking for, rather than having to click on each set of
drawers.” She wanted to know the width of the dressers and the finish, and had to
click on each product that looked like it might fit her criteria.
Another user said, “There are quite a few websites out there that let you specify
what you’re looking for. I guess I’m going to have to look at each drawer and each
drawer’s product information because there’s no option to specify what I’m looking
for. Target.com does it and Walmart, too — they allow deeper search. The options
are just not there.”
A further benefit of faceted search or guided navigation is that it highlights important
product characteristics for users. Someone shopping for a camcorder might not
realize that they can record to a variety of formats until they see those criteria listed
on the page. A user shopping for a digital camera might not consider the megapixels
and zoom level on the camera until confronted with options. Simply listing relevant
characteristics can help educate users who are unfamiliar with the product.

47. Use facets to help users narrow product choices if search
results page or category pages frequently offer more than
20 options.
To help users find items that meet their specific needs, allow them to narrow product
options by selecting from preset criteria or product characteristics. This can be done
on category landing pages, product listing pages, or in search results.
A user on Joann.com was looking for a new sewing machine. She navigated to the
area of the site and said, “Now it’s broken down into different companies [brands].
That’s a good thing.” Later in the same task, she looked for scissors and again
looked by brand: “I want a brand I recognize.”
One user was overwhelmed by her choices on Magazines.com. She navigated to the
Entertainment section and was faced with six pages of results, with no indication of
the total number of magazines. Many of the magazines offered were unfamiliar to
her, making her doubt the site offered publications she might be interested in. She
said, “It was hard to scan. If I wanted a particular magazine, I would have
appreciated more help.”
There were no options to sort or narrow product selections. The magazines could
have been further categorized to help narrow the selection from 6 pages of results.
Magazines.com did not offer users any way to sort the titles on product listing
pages or narrow the choices. The Entertainment section, shown above, included 6
pages of magazine titles.

Search
A later redesign of Magazines.com allowed users to both sort and filter titles.
The point of offering filtering options is to narrow users’ choices. It is not necessary
if pages offer only a few options. If most pages offer fewer than 20 options to users,
filtering is not necessary. Sorting is still helpful, however. (See page 102 for more on
sorting.)
If the site offers more than about 20 products on a number of category pages, it is
worth offering filtering choices to users. Otherwise, users are easily overwhelmed. A
user on DavidYurman.NeimanMarcus.com complained, “There were a lot of pages of
gemstone rings, with no way to refine the search.”

There was no way to refine the selection of gemstone rings on the David Yurman
area of the Neiman Marcus site, which offered 10 pages of products.
A user on Guild.com went to Paintings and clicked on the link to view all paintings.
This returned fifty pages of results.
She said, “I don’t want to scroll through 50 pages even if this is something I’m going
to have in my home.” The page offered no options for sorting or filtering, though
users could click the Refine Search link at the top to return to another page which
offered a search tool.
She started to page through the results and said, “I’m only on page 13 and I have to
go through 50 to see them all.” She later added, “I wish I could have categorized the
paintings that were under $1000. That would have made it easier. There were 50
pages of paintings, with prices ranging from $300 through $9000.”
Another user also tired of looking page to page, and said, “In my usual day, I can’t
spend too much time looking at these paintings. I’m looking for a way to maybe look
for paintings that are of a particular size or price. I’m looking around for that, but I
don’t see anything like that.” He later added, “If I was in a hurry, I wouldn’t have
found anything. I’ve noticed on other sites there’s a way to narrow, to search by
category or size. By artist. For internet shopping, the idea is speed. Size, style,
impressionism or modern, characteristics or categories.”
Even users who noticed and used the search tool were unhappy that the listing pages
did not include any sorting or filtering. One user viewed all paintings after he had
used the search tool. He had been so specific with his search that he received only
one result, so he switched to browsing. However, he said, “Most of them are pretty
expensive. I wish there was a way to sort by price, so I could still see all the
paintings, but see the ones within the price range I have.”

Search
Users were overwhelmed with 50 pages of paintings on Guild.com. Options to
narrow the selection of paintings appeared on another page, if users clicked on
Refine Search.

The site offered a search tool to narrow choices, but it was only available on the
main Paintings category page, below the fold. Several users did not notice this
option. (The red line indicates the fold, or bottom of the visible page.)

Search
Guild.com later became ArtfulHome.com. The site included filters, letting users
select a category, price range, discipline, color, theme, artist, material or artist
location in order to narrow options.
The filter on Nike’s site worked well for users. Users were looking for a particular hat,
and easily navigated to Women, Accessories, and Headwear, and then located the
correct grey hat.
One user said, “I’m going to Headwear. And then color — that’s very good. We’re
going to go with grey, and there’s the hat.” She later said, “It took you right to what
you wanted, without any hesitation.”

Users had no trouble using the filtering tools on the Nike site.
48. Offer both sorting and filtering options, as appropriate.

Sites do not have to offer only filtering or only sorting. A combination works well. For
instance, users can find all mahogany 4-drawer dressers on a site through filtering
(Dressers > Mahogany > 4 Drawer), but then sort by price or brand.
For example, Urban Outfitters allowed users to filter by category, size, color or brand
and sort by price or rating or list items alphabetically.

Search
Urban Outfitters’ site offered sorting above results and filters to the left of results.
49. Pick attributes your customers understand.

Categories are useless if users don’t understand what they mean. Remember that
many of your customers know far less about the details of your products than you
do. Some may be buying a gift, or making a first-time purchase of an item. They
can’t be expected to know every term or feature associated with a product.
A user on Sasa.com looked to Ladies, then to Body, in order to locate sunscreen on
the site. She then tried to use the dropdown at the top of the page to narrow her
options to those relating to sunscreen. The best option was Skincare for Travelers.
She said, “I will use sort by function to find sunscreen, but it seems there’s no
category. Skincare for travelers? Because you need sunscreen when you go to
Thailand. What’s being shown is not what I expected. Slimming products and
massage oil for babies. I have to read item by item, which is quite annoying. I don’t
want to spend time shopping. If I’m purchasing online, I want to cut down on time.
If I spend equal time reading on my PC, that doesn’t make sense.”

A user on Sasa’s site was confused by the slimming products and baby massage oil
listed under Skincare for Travelers.
To help develop appropriate criteria, talk to salespeople in your stores, if you have
physical locations, and see what customers are most concerned about. Check search
logs to see what qualifiers users are entering with product names.
Lands' End's site offered good options for people trying to narrow their options for
pants. In the Women's section, users could select size range, leg style, specific size,
color and fabric as well as narrow by fit.

Search
Users had several appropriate options for narrowing product selection on Lands'
End's site.

50. Provide the most useful differentiating attributes specific to
product type.
Any options for users should be based on and directly relevant to the type of product
the user is viewing. Use product characteristics specific to product type. Some sites
tried to use the same product characteristics regardless of product type, which
resulted in near useless choices for users.
Appropriate categories vary by product type. Toys can be arranged by appropriate
age, clothing or shoes by size, videos by media type, and most products can be
easily sorted by price range.
Reel and Tower Records both showed all the variations of media and languages for
each title they offered. If a customer only has a VHS player, there is no need to see
other formats. Offering every option increases the possibility that customers will buy
the wrong thing. One user bought a DVD instead of a VHS and another user
mistakenly chose a video with Spanish subtitles. The site could have allowed users to
view only their desired format and language.
While the Fine Stationery site did include options for narrowing searches, they were
not options that were helpful to users. A user on the site was looking at thank you
notes, of which there were over 1300 examples on the site. Another saw 110
different designs for business cards on the site and said, “110 items. Oh, God.”
The options for narrowing choices were Specialty Shopping, which included the
categories What’s New, Now On Sale, Best Sellers, and Staff Favorites, or by brand,
paper weight, or price.
None of these options were helpful to users. Most users did not know the brand they
wanted, nor did they know much about paper weight. Even the price option was not
helpful, because it was listed as between one and four dollar signs, with no indication
of what each price category meant. In fact, the use of the dollar signs confused one
user, who saw the option of $$ followed by (17) to indicate the number of items in
that subset. She read it as a dollar amount and said, “Let’s see what $17 can get
me.”
While brand and paper weight may have been pertinent options to users more
familiar with stationery, those options alienated shoppers who were new to the
category. Regardless, other categories would have been helpful to all users, such as
color or style. Users may have been looking for white notecards, or notecards
accented with blue, or a modern or traditional look. These would have been better
introductory categories than weight, for instance.

Search
Options to narrow the product search were not helpful to users unfamiliar with
stationery brands or paper weights on FineStationery.com.
Similarly, a user looking for a digital picture frame on RadioShack.com wanted to be

able to sort her options by size, but the site only offered price, brand and type. She
said, “They give price, brand and type, but my goal is size.”

A user wanted to be able to sort frames by size, not by price, brand and type.
Depending on how users reached a page showing air conditioners on Home Depot’s
site, they saw different options for narrowing their choices. If users navigated via
Heating and Cooling, the only options presented were brand and price. One user
suggested, “Size seems to be important, so maybe that’s something that should be
placed on the 1st or 2nd screen when all air conditioners are displayed with their
pictures. BTU, followed by parentheses with the sizing info [information about the
size of room the unit could cool.]”

Search
If users navigated via Heating & Cooling, they could only sort air conditioners by
price and brand on Home Depot's site.
However, if users navigated to air conditioners via the Appliances section of the site,
the options listed were far more relevant and specific to air conditioners. These
included BTU, type (window, portable or wall) and energy star compliance. These
options were more clearly related to the users’ needs.
One user realized after looking a comparison table that he had been inadvertently
looking at wall air conditioners rather than window air conditioners. Armed with this
new knowledge, he returned to his search results and looked to see if there was a
way to select window or wall unit. Because he was in search results, and not the
Appliance view of air conditioners, no option was listed. Because he could not narrow
his results in the way he wanted, he tried to determine from product descriptions
which were window and which were wall units. He said, “Only some say they’re
window A/C’s.”
This forced him to come up with an alternate plan to get to the items he wanted, so
he revised his search from “air conditioners” to “window air conditioners.”

Options were more relevant to buying an air conditioner if users navigated through
the Appliances section of the site.
When good options weren’t available, two users tried to refine searches to reach the
results they wanted. One user searched for “energy efficient,” and then “energy
efficient air conditioner.” Another progressively searched for “air conditioners,” “air
conditioners energy efficient,” “window air conditioners” and finally “air conditioners
window energy efficient.”
By comparison, a user who navigated directly to the category page where both
energy star compliance and window unit were shown as options immediately selected
his options, saw his two possible choices, saw one was backordered, and ordered the
one in stock.
Further, neither user who searched to find an air conditioner was confident that the
items displayed really met their needs. One said, “It just brought me back to air
conditioners. I don’t like that. I would like to know these are all energy efficient and
go from there. Now I have to click on each to see more details about it.” Moments
later, she said, “I don’t want to shop here because I don’t find what I’m looking for
right away. I’d rather go to a store.” She quit the task. “Air conditioners came up
right away, they came up good. But for something as easy as Energy Star, that
should pop up as soon as they’re displayed.”
All of these problems could have been solved if each page displaying air conditioners
on the Home Depot site provided users with the same useful, relevant categories to
choose from.
When faced with useless options, users on Home Depot’s site turned to more and
more specific search terms. Search logs may well reveal product characteristics users
are looking for.

Search
eToys did a good job of directing users to appropriate products. One user selected an
age category from the homepage, which resulted in over 300 pages of products. She
selected by gender, and still had 4808 products to go through: “I don’t think I want
to go through 388 pages.”
However, the site provided many relevant options. Another user selected age and
gender, and selected video games, then narrowed them to the appropriate game
system, and a price range, which resulted in 26 matching products from an initial list
of 5,484. The site did a nice job of providing appropriate categories. She ended up
further refining her list by ERSB rating (selecting E for Everyone.)
eToys presented helpful options to narrow their large selection of products.
51. Ensure products are listed in all appropriate categories.

(Filtering must work perfectly.)
Many sites used filtering categories, but items did not appear in the categories they
should have, or erroneously appeared where they should not have. Users need to be
able to trust that the site is returning all relevant product options to them. When the
site does not, it limits their choices, potentially missing the sale, or may lead them
into believing the product meets criteria that it, in fact, does not.
One user narrowed her shredder choices on Office Depot by price, selecting $100-
$500 as the price range, and saw shredders for $49.99 and $69.99 in the list of
results. While including an item listed at $99.99 would be appropriate, as it is so
close to $100, including a completely different price range is simply incorrect.

Most users initially trust that the tools on the site will return any items matching
their criteria. Every item matching the user’s selections must be displayed or users
will assume the site does not carry the item.
However, any time an aberration was apparent on the site, users lost trust in the site
as a whole. If they navigated and found a product, but could not locate the same
item via filtering tools, they started to doubt that the site was accurately listing
everything that was available.
A user on Overstock selected a size and style of coat, and found a coat she liked.
However, the coat was only available in the wrong size. She tried repeatedly to
narrow her options and see only items in her size, but the tools were not working
properly and kept showing options that were not available. She said, “It’s not giving
me what I’m asking for, unless I’m doing it wrong.”
A user narrowed her selection to a size, style and color on Overstock.com (suede,
XL and Brown).

Search
When she viewed product details, her size and color was not available.
52. Clearly present filtering options. Do not scatter them around

the page.
If users navigated to Camcorders on the Best Buy site, they were presented with a
page intended to help users narrow options within the larger category. The page
asked, “Which Camcorder is right for you?” The page then prominently presented
options for users to narrow their choices: by format, price range, or brand.

BestBuy.com emphasized their options on the Camcorder category landing page.
Some sites scattered options around the product listing pages, which confused users.
Several users on Office Depot’s site immediately searched the site when looking for
shredders. This led to a category page with filtering options both above the results
and next to them. Because of this design, the categories on the side of the page,
which included price and brand, were not next to any listed products. Further, the
page only showed featured items, and not the full inventory of items. All of this
made the filtering tools confusing. Most users only noticed the options at the top of
the page to select a type of shredder and failed to notice or use the filtering options
on the side of the page.
One user commented, “There were too many categories and it was hard to scan
quickly. There were options on the side and on the top. It was a lot to scan in a
second.”

Search
The design of this page featuring shredders on Office Depot’s site made it difficult
for users to notice the options to narrow their selection on the side of the page.
They were not displayed next to the products.
FYE.com had a similar design, with some options above the product listings and
some to the side. The listings at the top of the screen were not clear, adding to the
confusion.

The options at the top of the search results on FYE.com’s site didn’t make sense to
users.
53. Display the most commonly used product attributes first.

Some sites revealed more product characteristics to choose from as users made
more choices. This approach can work well in order to deal with limited screen real
estate for listing all possible options, as well as to reveal more details as appropriate.
However, users do not know that more options will appear for them. This is
problematic if the characteristic they are looking for is not immediately available.
On the Office Depot site, users could initially select by type of shredder in terms of
heavy-, medium- or light-duty, and by price. However, they could not initially select
by type of cut, such as cross-cut or diamond-cut.
Once users selected a category of shredders, more options were displayed to help
them narrow their choices, including cut style, height, maximum shred speed and
number of sheets per pass. These options were more clear to users. However, it is
questionable if height is major consideration when buying a shredder. If it is, it is
likely less important than the number of pages that can be shredded at a time.
Consider the order in which options are displayed. Put the most important or popular
features first in the list.

Search
The first page for shredders on the Office Depot site gave users a choice of heavy-,
medium- or light-duty machines. These terms weren’t meaningful to most users.

Once in a product page, users could select from cut style, height, shred speed and
number of sheets per pass, which were easier to understand and more relevant.
Don’t remove useful categories as users make selections. A user limited her selection
of cat bowls and feeders to bowls on PetSmart.com, which narrowed the initial five
pages of results to only two, which she felt was much more manageable. However,
the option to select the material for the dish (ceramic or plastic) disappeared once
she selected bowls. She was only interested in ceramic bowls.

Search
Once a user selected to view only Bowls in the Bowls & Feeders section of the site,
the option to choose between ceramic and plastic products disappeared.
54. If there are a large number of options in a category, such as

brand, consider making only the most common visible by
default and hiding the rest behind a link.
It may not be possible to show users all options within a particular criterion. For
instance, a set of 20 products could well include 15-20 brands. Show users the
brands which offer the most products, or the most popular brands, and provide a link
to view more categories.

OfficeDepot.com listed a partial list of options for some criteria, followed by a link to
See All.
55. Offer further refinement of categories as needed.

For some criteria, it makes sense to start with broad categories, and then give users
further options within those categories once they’ve made their selections. For
instance, a user looking for a shredder on Office Depot searched, then used the
options on the side of the screen to narrow his choices. He selected a price range of
$100-$500, which was quite a large price range. After selecting this range, however,
a price option was offered on the side of the screen with $100 price increments.
56. List the number of products available with each attribute.

Stating the number of items that would be returned when a user clicked a particular
category or option was helpful to users. It helped set user expectations, so they were
not disappointed when one item appeared, or overwhelmed when 200 appeared.
ParagonSports.com clearly listed category options, but with no indication of how
many items would be returned for each selection. This could have been accomplished
simply by adding parentheses with the number of results after each criterion.

Search
Paragon Sports listed criteria clearly, but did not indicate how many items were
available in each.
Vitacost.com nicely showed the users the number of items available in each
category. For instance, the site indicated there were 12 Vitacost Brand items, and 62
Dymatize items.

Vitacost listed the number of products in each category in parentheses.
57. Let users select more than one attribute in a category as

appropriate.
Unless categories are mutually exclusive, let users select more than one criterion in a
category when sorting products. For instance, users may want to see products under
$100 though price options are divided into Under $20, $20-$50, and $50-$100.

Search
eBay allowed users to search by multiple criteria, such as both gray and tan
interiors.
58. Allow users to select criteria in more than one category.

Sephora.com included options for users at the top of the page. For instance, in the
eyeshadow section, users could narrow by brand, sort the items on the page, or
narrow by category. However, users had to select either brand or category, but could
not select both. It would have been helpful to have the ability to narrow options by
both brand and category. For instance, a user might be looking for Sephora brand
powder eyeshadow.

Users on Sephora could narrow by brand or category, but not both.
On LionBrand.com, a user had navigated to a list of free knitting patterns for infants.
The site allowed users to sort the patterns by type, skill level or yarn, which was
helpful. She sorted by yarn because “Homespun is the only kind of yarn I like.”
However, when she did so, she was removed from the infant section of knitting
patterns and was shown all free knitting patterns for Homespun yarn. She said, “Oh,
did this take me out of baby stuff? I wanted to stay in Baby.”

Search
Users could not narrow products by both category (such as Infant) and yarn type. A
user who sorted the above list by yarn type received results for all patterns, not just
infant patterns.
A user searched for LCD monitors on Target’s site. He was first annoyed that he
could not immediately sort by brand. The site divided results into categories, and he
had to click into a category in order to get filters specific to that category. He was
then annoyed because the site didn’t allow him to select both a brand and a price
range. He could select brand or price, but not both. He said, “It doesn’t add filters. I
want Samsung, in my price range. But they only have either or.”
Similarly, a user looking for a flat screen TV complained that he could only look by
brand or by size on Best Buy, but not by a combination of both. He could view by
size and the sort by brand, but could not list only the brand he wanted in a specific
size.
59. Show users what attributes they’ve already selected.

Users should be able to easily see which criteria they’ve selected, so they can edit or
change their choices as needed as well as review what they’ve already chosen.
One user looking for microwaves on the Comet site accidentally moved into a view of
only one brand, Hinari. He then thought the site only offered three microwaves in the
category he was looking for. This caused him to think the site didn’t have any
microwaves that met his criteria, when in fact it did.

The site listed the user’s selected criteria at the top of the page, next to a page
heading that was followed by instructions about how to narrow the user’s choices.
However, the user scrolled so the top result was close to the top of the page, which
meant that all the indications that he was in the Hinari section were off-screen. It
would have been better if the selected criteria lined up with the top product listing.
Comet showed users their selected criteria at the top of the left column, above the
area where products appeared.
When a user scrolled to focus on the first listed item, the indication that he was in
the Hinari section was almost off-screen.
Some sites listed the selected criteria across the top of the screen, like navigational
breadcrumbs. This worked best if the links appeared at the top of the area where
products were displayed, rather than at the top of the screen near the navigation.

Search
On Home Depot’s site, selections were listed at the top of the screen. They were too
high on the page for users to notice them. They were too far away from the area
where users were making selections and viewing products. In this instance, listing
the criteria beneath the Air Conditioners heading would have been easier for users to
notice.
Home Depot listed users’ selected criteria, but in an area of the page that was
visually removed from either the selection criteria or the product listings.
When users didn’t know what section they were in, they sometimes thought
inventory on a site was more limited than it was. A user on Wine.com thought the
site only offered two types of wine for less than $40 because he selected the $20-
$40 price range while already in Wine Collections.
Part of the problem here was the category name Wine Collections. He thought that
was a link to the site’s collection of wines, and not a link to sets of wines that were
sold as a package. But, he was also confused because he didn’t realize where he was
in the site. Like Home Depot, Wine.com listed the users’ selections at the top of the
page like breadcrumbs. In this design, the breadcrumbs were in the body of the
page, which would have been helpful if there had not been a paragraph of
introductory text between the breadcrumbs and the wines.
Only later when he searched for “Chile” and received results did he realize there
were more than a few wines for less than $40. He said, “Here we have cheaper
wines. We have wines for less than $20, but earlier the site didn’t mention them.”

A user thought Wine.com offered only two bottles of wine for less than $40, in part
due to the category name Wine Collections and in part due to the placement of the
breadcrumbs indicating his location in the site.
The Scholastic Store did a good job of showing users’ selected criteria. The site
summarized the users’ selections at the top of the list of criteria, with the label
Current Search and the option to clear all criteria or clear individual selections via an
X.

Search
The Scholastic Store clearly listed the user’s selections.
60. Let users clear previous selections.

Once users have made a selection to help narrow choices, allow them to move back
up to the higher level list of products. Users should be able to deselect preferences,
select new preferences, or select no preference.
Users were able to successfully add and remove options on the Nike.com site. As
users made selections, such as Women, Accessories and Headwear in the example
shown below, they appeared at the top of the side navigation. Users could then click
Clear to remove any previously selected option.

Users successfully added and removed options on the Nike site.
A user on Circuit City couldn’t determine how to change her price selection when
looking at digital cameras. Her selection was listed at the top of the page, but it
wasn’t clear how to remove it. She navigated back, via the Back button, to the point
where she made a selection in order to change it. The site could have shown her
selection with a way to remove it – using a Clear link, Show All link, or a small X to
indicate that it could be removed.

Search
A user did not know how to clear her price selection on Circuit City’s site.
On Lands' End, a user wanted to remove all her criteria and see all her available
options again. To try to do so, she clicked on the broadest category name on the
page. However, this didn't work. She still saw only the five pairs of pants which met
her initial criteria selection. Rather than forcing the user to remove each individual
criterion, it would be preferable to allow users to click on the category name and
"reset" the page. This user instead returned to the homepage of the site and started
her search again.

A user expected she could remove her filtering options by clicking Pants & Shorts at
the top of the left-hand column (indicated with a red arrow) on Lands' End's site.
This did not work.
Instead, users had to go back into the filtering menus to remove their criteria,
selecting Show All.
61. Don’t show filtering options when only one item is listed.
If users saw a page showing only one item, but with options for narrowing their
choices, they often thought they could change the number of items shown via those
options. This was not the case (unless users removed criteria), but the presence of
these options made users think this was true.
For example, one user navigated to the Gore-Windstopper Pants category on
ParagonSports.com when looking for ski pants. Though only one pair was listed, she
tried to use the menus to narrow the options based on size. She said, “That’s the
only one? Small, that’s it? It’s not giving me the sizes I’m looking for. Only small.”

Search
Users assumed if options were listed that they would be able to further refine their
searches, even if only one product was listed.
On Overstock’s site, if a user narrowed options down to just one product, the side of
the page where options were normally listed switched to read No More Refinements
Available.
Overstock’s site informed users when there were no more filters available.

62. When displaying products that meet users’ criteria, use
images that reflect the users’ selections.
If user can make selections based on visible characteristics, such as product color,
make sure that the product images returned show the item with that characteristic.
Don’t show a brown product image for a search for black shoes.
Users were very confused on JCPenney.com when looking for carry-on luggage. They
navigated to a category for carry-on luggage, but the product images showed sets of
luggage, rather than the particular items that met the users’ criteria (carry-on’s).
Users narrowed their options in the Luggage section of JCPenney.com to carry-on

items, but product images showed sets of luggage, rather than focusing on bags
that met airlines’ carry-on regulations.

Search
About the Authors
Amy Schade is a Director at Nielsen Norman Group. She has led research and co-
authored NN/g reports on the usability of intranets, email newsletters, and site maps
as well as the e-commerce report series.
Schade works with clients large and small in industries including e-commerce, music,
publishing, banking, government, telecommunications, non-profit and education,
including extensive work on corporate intranets. She has conducted worldwide user
research, including longitudinal studies, remote studies and eyetracking research,
running studies in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia and Australia. She
regularly presents tutorials on user testing, intranet usability, mobile user
experience, writing for the Web and email newsletters.
Before joining NN/g, Schade worked as an information architect at arc e-
Consultancy. She previously held a variety of positions in advertising and Web
production. She holds a Master's degree from the Interactive Telecommunications
Program at New York University and a BA in Communications from the University of
Pennsylvania.
Dr. Jakob Nielsen is a principal of Nielsen Norman Group. He is the founder of the
“discount usability engineering” movement, which emphasizes fast and efficient
methods for improving the quality of user interfaces. Nielsen, noted as “the world’s
leading expert on Web usability” by U.S. News and World Report and “the next best
thing to a true time machine” by USA Today, is the author of the bestselling book
Designing Web Usability: The Practice of Simplicity (2000), which has sold more than
a quarter of a million copies in 22 languages. His other books include Hypertext and
Hypermedia (1990), Usability Engineering (1993), Usability Inspection Methods
(1994), International User Interfaces (1996), Homepage Usability: 50 Websites
Deconstructed (2001), Prioritizing Web Usability (2006), Eyetracking Web Usability
(2009), and Mobile Usability (2012). In 2013 Nielsen received the SIGCHI Lifetime
Achievement Award for Human–Computer Interaction Practice. Nielsen’s Alertbox
column on Web usability has been published on the Internet since 1995 and
currently has about 200,000 readers. From 1994 to 1998, Nielsen was a Sun
Microsystems Distinguished Engineer. His previous affiliations include Bell
Communications Research, the Technical University of Denmark, and the IBM User
Interface Institute. He holds 79 US patents, mainly on ways of making the Internet
easier to use.

Acknowledgments
The first edition of this report was researched and written by Jakob Nielsen, Rolf
Molich, Carolyn Snyder and Susan Farrell.
We would like to thank all the individuals who participated in each round of user
testing for their time and feedback.
Also, thank you to Celeste Buckhalter for her assistance with the Georgia studies, to
Susan Pernice for her help with recruiting for and coordinating the studies, and to
Luice Hwang for her work coordinating the international studies.
148 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Acknowledgments

Evidence-‐Based User Experience Research, Training, and Consulting

Since 1998 Nielsen Norman Group has been a leading voice in the user experience field.
• Conducting groundbreaking research
• Evaluating interfaces of all shapes and sizes
• Guiding critical design decisions to improve the bottom line

We practice what we preach
We don’t just talk about the importance of testing with real users, on real tasks, in real life business situations:
we do it. Every week, somewhere around the globe, NN/g team members are conducting research that informs
the three pillars of our business: training, consulting and research. In that work we have:
• Tested over 2,000 different interfaces
• Observed more than 4,000 users—in person—in 18 countries and on 5 continents
• Analyzed thousands of hours of recorded user observations sessions
• Conducted countless diary studies, focus groups and remote user tests

Our collective experience will save you time… and money
Making technology easier to use is no longer a nice-‐to-‐have. Useful, usable products make money. And our
expertise can help your team achieve their design goals quicker and easier than going it alone. Choosing NN/g
means you benefit directly from our:
• Finely tuned methodology: We have an arsenal of proven tools at our disposal and know how and where
to apply each one, taking the guesswork out of how to achieve the optimal design solution to meet your
business goals.
• Comprehensive body of knowledge: We’ve taken the results of our decades of research and testing and
distilled it down into actionable guidelines, best practices and proven methodologies. Our research
library, containing over 50 published reports, X books and an email newsletter archive dating back to
1995 is unrivaled.
• Practical approach: Our approach is 100% practical, useful and actionable. Whether you attend one of
our Usability Week events or invite us to consult at your place of business, the training you will receive
can be put into action immediately so that you can see the results.

Evidence-Based User Experience Research, Training, and Consulting
Our people are the best in the business

At NN/g there is no “B Team”. When we dispatch consultants to work with you and your team, or when you
attend a Usability Week course, you are learning directly from some of the best-‐educated and most experienced
minds in the business.
• Our principals are considered pioneers in the fields of user research and interface design.
• Our researchers and consultants tackle the most recent and relevant topics in usability, from evergreen
challenges such as information architecture and intranet usability to emerging trends in social media
and mobile usability.

Stay Informed
Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox Newsletter
Summaries of our latest research and insights published twice per month.
To subscribe: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/subscribe
TRAINING
Usability Week Events
Usability Week training events are offered in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Europe, Asia and Australia.
Each week-‐long event features full-‐day, immersive training courses where attendees learn practical skills directly
from experienced practitioners so they can solve complex UI problems and create better interface designs.

Over 40 courses offered in these categories:
• Agile
• Applications
• Content Strategy
• Credibility & Persuasion
• Email
• Information Architecture
• Interaction Design
• Intranets
• Mobile & Tablet
• Non-‐Profit Websites
• Prototyping
• Social UX
• User Testing
• Visual Design
• Web Usability
• Writing for the Web
Available courses and upcoming locations: www.nngroup.com/training

In-‐house Training
Many of our courses can be taught at your location and customized to fit your unique offerings, methods and
resources.
In-‐house training is ideal for:
• Large teams that want to spread user experience perspective throughout the group
• Teams working on large projects that need to kick start the creative process and head in the right
direction
In-‐house training information: www.nngroup.com/consulting

REPORTS
NN/g has published over 60 reports that detail thousands of evidence-‐based design guidelines derived from our
independent research studies of websites, intranets, application, and mobile interfaces.

Over 60 reports addressing these topics:
• Agile
• Applications
• Audience Types (e.g., children, college students, seniors, people with disabilities)
• B2B Websites
• Corporate Websites
• Ecommerce
• Email
• Information Architecture
• Intranets
• Mobile & Tablet
• Non-‐Profit Websites
• User Testing
• Social UX
• Strategy
• Web Usability

Shop for reports here: www.nngroup.com/reports


CONSULTING
The same experts who conduct our research and teach Usability Week training courses are available for custom
consulting including:
• Evaluating your website, application, intranet or mobile interface (average cost $38,000 USD)
• Usability testing (average cost $35,000 USD)
• Strategic planning (average cost $12,000 USD)
• On-‐site training with your team (average cost $9,000 USD per day)
Consulting details: www.nngroup.com/consulting

Ecommerce UX 05 Search 3rd Edition PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ecommerce UX 05 Search 3rd Edition PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

E-Commerce User Experience

Vol. 5: Search (Including Faceted Search)

WWW.NNGROUP.COM 48105 WARM SPRINGS BLVD., FREMONT CA 94539–7498 USA

Copyright © Nielsen Norman Group, All Rights Reserved.

Please do not post this document to the internet or to publicly

This report required hundreds of hours of planning, recruiting, testing, analyzing,

Report Authors: Amy Schade, Jakob Nielsen

2 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Copyright Notice

Summary of Research Studies and the E-Commerce Report Series ...............4

Search Behavior ............................................................................................ 7

Elements of Successful Search .................................................................... 20

Search Visibility .......................................................................................... 26

Supporting Users’ Searches ........................................................................ 38

Advanced and Scoped Searches .................................................................. 60

Presentation of Search Results ................................................................... 65

Sorting Results .......................................................................................... 102

Narrowing Product Choices: Guided Navigation or Faceted Search ........... 105

About the Authors ..................................................................................... 147

Acknowledgments ..................................................................................... 148

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 3

4 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Summary of Research Studies and the E-Commerce Report

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 5

ABOUT THE THIRD EDITION

6 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Summary of Research Studies and the E-Commerce Report

WHY USERS SEARCH

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 7

• After unsuccessfully using the site navigation

8 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Search Behavior

• To locate a specific product

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 9

WHAT USERS SEARCH FOR

10 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Search Behavior

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 11

12 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Search Behavior

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 13

Search Type: Study 2 Average number of Average number of

All searches (407) 15.5 2.5

14 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Search Behavior

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 15

16 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Search Behavior

Ninety-four percent of users' queries in web-wide search engines included more

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 17

18 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Search Behavior

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 19

KNOWING HOW TO SEARCH

20 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Elements of Successful Search

PRESENTING SEARCH RESULTS

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 21

22 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Elements of Successful Search

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 23

Search Visibility .......................................................................................... 26

Supporting Users’ Searches ........................................................................ 38

Advanced and Scoped Searches .................................................................. 60

Presentation of Search Results ................................................................... 65

24 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Guidelines List

Sorting Results .......................................................................................... 102

Narrowing Product Choices: Guided Navigation or Faceted Search ........... 105

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 25

1. Use an open text field instead of a link to a search page.

26 INFO@NNGROUP.COM Search Visibility

2. Make the search box easily identifiable, with an open text

© NIELSEN NORMAN GROUP WWW.NNGROUP.COM 27

3. Do not put filler text in the search field.