Photo by Eric Kornblum for Gizmodo's Composites Shooting Challenge
Last week at OpenWorld, I ran into a web app with some, erm, interesting design.
I flew into SFO, which I rarely do anymore, and checked into my flight online via the airline’s website. I’ve used the site in the past, but the checkin process has become much more involved now that everything is a la carte.
Want more leg room and proximity to the front? Extra. Want to check a bag? Extra. Want to use the priority security line to speed past the peons? Extra. Want to get more bonus miles for the trip? Extra. Want to fly standby on another flight? Extra.
This isn’t an indictment of the a la carte business model. I’m not opposed to pay-for-what-you-use models (cough broadband), although the Ryanair “toilet tax” might be going a bit far.
The problem is that all these options have complicated the checkin process.
What used to be a two-step process, i.e. change seats and checkin, is now about half a dozen steps, nearly all of which carry a cost.
Beyond the tedium of walking through the checkin wizard, the defaults for each step are wildly confusing and potentially costly. Each step has radio buttons for the options, including one to decline the offer, and the default in each case was the costly option.
Plus, each step has an add button and a skip link, a common web UI trick to deemphasize one of the choices.
So, if you mindlessly pounded away at the big button on the left to get through the process, you would come to the end with a couple hundred extra in a la carte charges.
This is actually how I noticed the design. I got through a few steps and couldn’t figure out why it wasn’t over yet, at which point I stopped to pay some attention.
Think about the last time you checked in for a flight online. You were probably in a rush. Did you stop to study every step? Probably not.
I was prepared to chalk the experience up to poor design, created by new requirements stapled on to an existing web app. You know, a Frankenapp. However, as I complained about the process to John (@jpiwowar) as we waited in the security line for peons, another theory emerged.
He wondered aloud if the design was confusing on purpose, which makes a lot of sense. After all, selling the a la carte options is critical to balance the competitive pricing of fares.
I tend to think bad design is just bad, not bad on purpose, but John’s point shed some light on why a major web app would be so crappy. Plus, John isn’t a conspiracy theorist or a massive cynic from what I can tell. So, I don’t think he had that agenda.
Anyway, have you met an app that’s confusing on purpose? Thoughts about bad design with a motive?
Find the comments.
Confirmed, I am neither a conspiracy theorist, nor a massive cynic, though I do have my cynical moments.
…at least, that’s what they want you to think.
I do wonder how much revenue United recognizes from that murky design, intentional or not. People in a hurry, knowing they’re going to get hit with *some* fees anyway for a bag or two (I know, I know, who does that?) or a legroom upgrade, might not pay attention to the individual line items inflating the final fee.
You bring up another interesting point. If you’re already paying for something a la carte (bag check, legroom), you’re more likely to add more. You’re over the initial purchasing threshold.
Twitter Comment
Bad Design on Purpose? [link to post]
– Posted using Chat Catcher
godaddy does this little trick as well, so I wouldn’t say it’s bad design, per se (boy, does this feel like last week or what? just the 3 of us here chatting away, sans beer of course). i think it is intentional. who else does it? monster.com I believe; after you login your prompted with the university of phoenix ad or something with the big ass button to say “F*** Yeah, I want to see UP!” (yes, that was certainly intentional) and a small hyperlink that says, “No Thanks”
I believe it’s a bit disengenious to do that, but ultimately the responsibility is on us. Fargin Bastages.
The button-link combo is very common. It’s the radio button default to a paid option that seems suspect. Probably on purpose, definitely bad design.
ah, i missed that little detail, radio buttons. i’ve heard details are important.
i have nothing to add then.
It’s common enough IRL, why wouldn’t it be on purpose on a webapp? It tends to irritate me in restaurants, I always wonder why any service would do that. I think it is just stupid MBA’s thinking cost/revenue is more valuable than goodwill, ’cause their spreadsheet said so.
A few will always try to counterprogram: http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/travel/20pracalacarte.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/sep/27/southwest-airtran-deal-means-more-options-for-some/
I suppose it’s only a matter of time until you have to pay to not stand up. http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/09/10/stand-up-airline-seats-are-here-but-you-wont-use-one-soon/
No problem, the two together make it doubly bad, plus the average user hits this flow in a hurry making it even easier to get caught in the maze of extras.
A la carte pricing is common everywhere. My point is that the carrier’s web app is awful, probably by design, which brings up *interesting* questions from a product development perspective.
I suppose, even though it’s not discussed much, that counterintuitive design exists. I’d be curious to read the playbook, if only to validate it.