4 ms·

“On average, UX changes have a smaller impact on quantitative metrics [since 2006]” does this actually imply UX advancement any more than the possibility that

• phkahler 6y ago
  >> does this actually imply UX advancement any more than the possibility that people have become more familiar with/adept at using UIs since 2006? Not really. The kinds of changes they're taking about get tested. A site will collect data, make changes and observe the impact on the data. A good way to go is present different users a randomly selected version of a site and track which version does better. With tests like that we can rule out people simply adapting over time.
  • benlivengood 6y ago
    > Not really. The kinds of changes they're taking about get tested. A site will collect data, make changes and observe the impact on the data. A good way to go is present different users a randomly selected version of a site and track which version does better. With tests like that we can rule out people simply adapting over time. I've always wondered if the reverse study is done; keep the old versions of the UX around for months/years as an experiment to make sure the improvements are still there, or if there's a regression to the mean. This sounds much harder to do because most development is roll-forward with new features and such. Also; practically how does attribution play into conversion measurements? In theory it should be easier now to tell whether it was landing-page+UX or view-through/click-through that made the bigger difference.