5 ms·
> Exactly. This isn't a usability improvement, it's fluff. Do you have any data that backs that up? (excluding call-to-authority and anec-data)
by Volpe 13y ago
> Exactly. This isn't a usability improvement, it's fluff.
Do you have any data that backs that up? (excluding call-to-authority and anec-data)
- wikwocket 13y agoIf you Google "checkout conversion remove field," you should see a number of articles on this, including some with A/B tests. The trend seems to be that the fewer fields shown or required, the better conversion is.
- Volpe 13y agoDoesn't that make this field better? Not worse. So the data says this field will convert more?
- jalfresi 13y agoSure, he's called Jacob Neilson and he wrote a shit tonne of books on the subject about ten years ago. Although I understand that its the norm to ignore previous computing history for the illusion of inventing something, more so if it's pretty.
- hussong 13y agoIt's Jakob Nielsen. While he can be a bit of a smartass sometimes and is not undisputed in the usability community, his books are definitely worth reading.
- Volpe 13y agoGuess you ignored the "excluding call-to-authority" part of my post. No one has tested this form. So just putting it down seems premature. I'd prefer people to be data driven, than just cargo culters.