First Issue
The first issue that our users encountered when doing the task of searching for a cruise within the $400 price range was that the search result included a lot of “pricing for this itinerary is not available at this time” entries. It showed up in the search results after the “price range filter” was applied. We found that the issue was caused by how the sorting was set; it was defaulted to “best value”. This is a violation of Neilsen’s principle of consistency and standards because the term “best value” is subjective, unlike “best price,” which is universally understood. The results with the “best value” included unavailable cruises that weren’t aligned with what users wanted to see. As such, this violates Neilsen’s aesthetic and minimalistic design principles, which provided irrelevant information on cruises that were not available. This feature also violates Neilsen’s visibility of system status principle because even when the user adds a new filter, the search results are still sorted by the “best value” deals, which continue to show the unavailable cruises. This negatively impacted the user’s experience because it added no value to their search results. The default sorting made the results unclear to the user.
Recommendations
The first proposed solution is to provide the ability for end users to remove cruises that are unavailable. This can be accomplished by including a filter option to remove any cruises that are not available. The filter will be added on the left side of the page with a box that can be checked or unchecked. The filter gives the user control over the search results, allowing them to remove or keep cruises with “pricing for this itinerary is unavailable”.
Secondly, the default sorting by “best value” is hard to understand and should be removed. The default sorting should be logical and clearly related to the filter applied to the user’s search. If they are searching by price range, it should be sorted logically by price from the lowest to the highest value, or vice versa. It makes it easy for the user to understand what is going on if the sorting reflects the filter being applied. The criteria used for sorting should be transparent and allow the user to have more control over their results. To easily find the “sort by” option, it should be moved to the left side of the result page. For added benefit, this option should remain in place as the user scrolls through the results.
Second Issue
Secondly, transparency of pricing was an issue noted by many of the users that we evaluated. The price originally presented was significantly less than the final price of the resort, activity, etc. This was frustrating for many of the users, who thought they had found a steal of a deal and wasted their time going through the booking process only to find the final price significantly higher than the initial quote. This violates Neilsen’s principle of visibility of system status because the actual price of the hotel is not what it is visible to the user. This also violates Neilsen’s principle of consistency and standards because the price shown in one page is different when transferred to the provider’s webpage.
Recommendations
There should be transparency regarding pricing. During browsing, it needs to show the actual price including taxes before getting to the end of the page. Our recommendation is to have a “True Price” feature that includes all fees, taxes, etc. up front. The proposed transparency enhances trust, ease of use, and a less stressful experience for the user. By reducing the stress of the booking process, we’re confident we’ll have more return customers. By adding the “True Price” to every single feature advertised on TripAdvisor, we further enhance the consistency and standards of the website design.
