90 percent of everything : Usability Blog
Written by Harry Brignull

Email verification – is your call-to-action strong enough?

March 12th, 2010 by Harry Brignull3 comments

Email verification is often needed as a step in user registration. It plays the role of an identity check – to confirm that the person registering genuinely owns the email address given.



If you run a site that uses email verification in its registration process, here’s a challenge for you: go and find out how many users successfully fill in the registration form but never complete the verification step. If it’s higher than a few percent, you should probably be worried. In fact, whatever the percentage is, you should be thinking hard about how you can bring it down – after all, any leakage is bad leakage.

This isn’t a ‘normal’ conversion rate calculation we’re talking about here. Conversion rates, as they are normally defined, involve comparing the number of users who perform an action against the number of unique visitors (i.e. people who happen to hit the first page). Amongst these unique visitors, a large proportion of them are likely to never actually have been likely to convert (they were lost, having a look, or doing something else), which means you naturally get a large number of drop-outs.

The difference in this scenario is that we can be sure that all of the users were dedicated to completing the task – after all, why else would they have bothered to complete the registration form? They’ve done the hard bit – surely all of them should have completed?

Failure to complete the email verification step is sometimes caused by deliverability issues. However, it’s also entirely possible that the problem lies in your call-to-action design. Here’s an example from KpiLibrary.com (a nice site that happens to have a slightly flawed registration process):

What the user needs at this point is a large, unmissable call-to-action such as “Check your email now“, with no other irrelevant content around it. However, on this page there’s a mixed message – it starts with a green tick icon and and the statement “Sign up successful!…” – but it then goes on to explain that they need to check their email. Users are very likely to skip past the text and start filling in the log-in form, which will inevitably return an error. This is something that Luke Wroblewski refers to as being like “muscle memory”. He goes on to explain (transcribed from a podcast):

“… Time and time again, [...] people try to preface a web form with help text or explanatory paragraphs [...] and every just about single person skips over all that and goes to the first thing that looks like an input field.”

I’ve certainly experienced exactly the same effect myself in many user research sessions in the past. Here’s another example of a weak email verification call-to-action, this time from Mailchimp (which will probably be fixed the time you read this – they are very dedicated to UI design):


Here I am poised to register my email address…


And here I am done. Except I’m not. The text in green – which looks like it’s a positive confirmation – is actually telling me that I must go and check my email.

Like many other usability issues, the problem is incredibly obvious once it’s been pointed out. As Steve Krug puts it:

“If your audience is going to act like you’re designing billboards, then design great billboards.”

Here’s how Linkedin does it. A nice example of a clutter free page, stripped down to the core message to ensure the point cannot be missed:

Linkedin also provides OAuth-based verification if your email provider supports it (e.g. gmail), which is probably something we’ll see a lot more of in the future.

Finally, one thing to remember is that email verification doesn’t always need to be a barrier to registration. Just because your competitors do it, doesn’t mean you have to copy them. Facebook, for example, don’t do it – they use a form of lazy registration so people can start using the site before they’re verified.

‘A Brief Guide to Service Design’ by Paul Thurston & Nick Marsh

March 3rd, 2010 by Harry BrignullAdd a comment

Back in January, Paul Thurston (@paulthurston) and Nick Marsh (@choosenick) gave a great talk on Service Design at UX Brighton. They make some really interesting points about the differences between UX & SD, and strategic (“thinking”) vs tactical (“doing”) work. Here are the slides:

Using a feed reader and can’t see the slides?

Huge thanks to Nick and Paul for putting this together!

uxurls.com: a user experience aggregator

February 28th, 2010 by Harry Brignull12 comments

I’ve just finished setting up uxurls.com – a user experience aggregator. It’s a really simple popurls clone, intended for people who are too busy to set themselves up with their own RSS reader, or just fancy a quick glance at the sites I’m reading.

There’s about 130 sites on there right now and I’ll be adding progressively more in the next few weeks.

If you want your site added, feel free to drop me a line @uxurls, but I’m not making any promises. This site is really just intended as a way for me to share the sites I’m reading at the moment, and it’s definitely not intended as an exhaustive catalog of all things UX.

I hope you find it useful!

uxurls.com - a user experience aggregator

The email confirmation / paste disabling antipattern

February 25th, 2010 by Harry Brignull14 comments

Here’s a nice antipattern from the Odeon (UK), who show us how to annoy 99.9% of users in an effort to help the 0.1% who enter their email addresses incorrectly.

So, here I am registering on odeon.co.uk…

Odeon email confirmation - paste disabling antipattern




Oh look, I need to enter my email address twice. Never mind, I’ll simply copy and paste it…


Odeon email confirmation - paste disabling antipattern




Job done. No, wait, WTF? They’ve disabled paste!


Odeon email confirmation - paste disabling antipattern


I’ve been a bad user, I must to stand at the blackboard during lunch break and write out my email address over and over again until I promise never to use shortcuts ever again!

Seriously though, typos in email addresses when registering is a real problem (more than typos in passwords, as Jeremy Keith points out – since if your email address is correct you can always reset your password, but not the other way round). However, this problem hasn’t really been solved properly yet – we don’t have a standard design pattern that we can just copy as needed.

UserGlue’s proposal looks promising, but it’s more of a prototype than a finished solution. Have you’ve seen any other attempts to solve this problem in the wild? Have UserGlue hit the nail on the head? I’d love to hear your comments…

Spare a thought for the ‘experimenter effect’ in user research

February 18th, 2010 by Harry Brignull9 comments

Do you ever think about the impact of the experimenter effect (or Hawthorne effect) when you’re running face to face user research?

Here’s a quick test.

First, go and check your Analytics package to see how many users check your site’s Terms and Conditions before accepting them. My guess is that the number will be roughly 1-3% (maybe lower).

Now, take a look at the notes from your last few usability research projects. How many users diligently looked at the Terms and Conditions while you were watching them over their shoulder? In my last few projects, it’s been 10-30%

So, that’s roughly 10x more in my case. Pretty substantial. This is a perfect example of how people adjust their behaviour in face to face research sessions. As soon as you pay someone to sit in a room with you, give them a task and watch them intently, they will start doing and saying what they think you want them to.

The experimenter effect is unavoidable. I’m a huge advocate of face-to-face research, but this is one of the method’s biggest weaknesses (and in equal parts, it’s one of the biggest strengths of Analytics).

What steps do you take to mitigate the experimenter effect?

Comments below please!

Xbox controllers used in the millitary – life mimicking art?

January 21st, 2010 by Harry Brignull6 comments

If you’ve played either of the recent Call of Duty “Modern Warfare” games, you’ll be aware of the disturbingly realistic air attacks you can carry out on other players.

Call of Duty 4 (Computer game):

It seems that the grainy monochrome footage is easy to mimic on an Xbox 360 or PS3. The first time I saw footage like this was on CNN during the first Gulf war. It was horrible. Today, most kids will associate footage like this with harmless play, massively dissociated from reality. I really recommend taking a look at both videos – the similarities are staggering.

Real life:

What you may not know is that modified Xbox 360 controllers are used to control millitary hardware in real life. This isn’t “new” news – wired ran an article on it back in 2008. Around that time, the British army ran an TV Ad that showed a soldier controlling a UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle) using a modified Xbox 360 Controller.


Still from British Army TV ad

The army later confirmed that this was indeed real hardware, though, somewhat amusingly, were quick to point out that they had removed the Microsoft branding. There are some more examples of game console controlers used in the military here, here and here.

A spokesperson from Rayethon (An American defence system manufacturer – who make cruise missiles among other things) was quoted here as saying “We feel we have to take advantage of the fact that all the kids are growing up with video games”. In the same article, another system vendor was quoted as proudly stating “If you can use an Xbox, you can use this”.

I can’t imagine the games console designers being happy about their work being used in military applications. Still, there’s not much they can do about it. If it’s an effective control device that requires minimal training then it’s inevitably going to get appropriated.


More Xbox controllers in the millitary. Image credit: Popular Mechanics

Through the history of humanity, boys have played with toy spears and swords – I suppose this is just a natural continuation, and nothing out of the ordinary. What’s weird is that now, for the first time, technology has advanced to the point that allows us to design weapons of war that are almost indistinguishable in use from children’s toys. Stranger than fiction.