Sliced
In-depth usability testing and market research for a newly-launched charcuterie board delivery and catering service based in Chicago
UX Research - Usability
Duration
9 weeks
January - March 2022
Role
UX Researcher
Tools
Figma
Qualtrics
Heurio
Zoom (Remote moderated testing)
Usability testing
This project was completed as part of a graduate course in usability studies at the University of Washington in Spring 2022. Our team worked as contractors for Sliced.
Our team consisted of 5 master's students. While our team was highly collaborative and ensured that everyone had a hand in each step of the process, I specifically led the usability study design, data analysis and synthesis, and report writing.
Overview:
As a newly established brand and small business, Sliced was the very early stages of development. We worked with Sliced owner/founder Claire Murray to improve usability on Sliced's website by optimizing purchasing webflow and checkout process efficiency, and help her better understand who her target customers are and are not.
What we did: usability testing, heuristic evaluation, price testing
Results:
-
7% decrease in cart abandonment and 377% increase in conversion rate.
-
Established presence at local markets
-
Expansion to large-scale corporate events and catering, virtual workshops
-
Grew their social media following over 300%.
Timeline
During the course of the project, we met regularly with Claire to touch base about our progress, collaborate, and keep open lines of communication
About Sliced
In order to appropriately and successfully develop and run our study, it was important to fully understand the context and environment of the company and product we were working with.
Who and What is Sliced?
Sliced is charcuterie board delivery and catering service based in Chicago that:
-
Operates solely through the company’s website where local customers can place orders for individual cheese boards or request event catering services.
-
Aims to:
-
Fulfill online orders for local delivery and pickup
-
Identify and build rapport with target customers
-
Establish a brand presence & identity in the local community.
-
Throughout the project, we worked directly with Claire Murray, who is Sliced's owner and founder.
Who is Sliced for?
Broadly, Sliced is for Chicago residents who:
-
Are cheese enthusiasts
-
Host social gatherings & events
-
Are of upper middle to high socioeconomic status
.png)
Scoping & Problem Definition:
As a brand new business, Sliced had many opportunities for research and discovery. With Claire's input, we narrowed down our scope in consideration of time and resource constraints to focus on website usability and identifiying target customers.
Interaction Mapping
Before we concretely defined our research question and goals, we made an interaction map of the Sliced website
Goals:
-
Help us in understanding system, its functionalities, and how these functionalities are available to users, or customers.
-
Guide our thoughts and make sure that we were address the relevant interactions and flows.
Red flag = Initial areas of interest
2. Secondary goal - Help Sliced identify who their target customers are (and are not) via:
-
Price testing
-
Customer feedback surveys
-
Demographic surveys
Secondary research question: What kinds of people are interested in Sliced and what types of products would they potentially purchase and why?
Goals
By discussing and collaborating with Claire, we defined 2 goals for our research based on her vision, hopes, and priorities for the company and our own goals, requirements, and restrictions for the project.
1. Primary goal - Identify & improve upon usability problems on the Sliced website with a focus on:
-
Order placement flow
-
Information clarity & visibility
-
Overall look & feel
Primary research question: Can customers find the information and options they need to confidently place an order on the Sliced website?
Study Design:
As a brand new business, Sliced had many opportunities for research and discovery. With Sliced's input, we narrowed down our scope in consideration of time and resource constraints to focus on website usability and identifiying target customers.
Participants
Criteria
Given that Sliced is a newly launched business with little to no established customer base, their target customer was and still is ambiguous. Which is why we chose a diverse mix of participants–preferably current Chicago residents–who vary in:
-
Age
-
Gender
-
Diet (i.e. vegan, GF, vegetarian)
Some target demographics identified by our team and Sliced were that participants needed to :
-
Know what a cheese board is, AND
-
Have purchased or made a cheese board in the past, OR
-
Are currently interested in purchasing a cheeseboard
Recruiting
Since Sliced is located in Chicago and our team was located in Seattle, recruiting participants local to Chicago posed a slight challenge. We tapped those in our personal networks who had ties to Chicago and were able to recruit a majority Chicago-residents for our study.
All potential participants were sent a brief demographic and screener survey to confirm their eligibility and ensure that we recruited a diverse sample. 7 participants completed the study.
Participant overview:
Research Questions
Primary research objective:
To achieve our primary research objective–to identify usability problems and opportunities for improvement on the Sliced website–we formulated the following usability research questions and sub-questions around our top 5 areas of interest. Questions are organized in order of priority to address during usability testing.
Secondary research objective:
To achieve our secondary research objective–to help Sliced identify who their target customers are–we formulated the following market research questions and sub-questions around 4 key areas of interest: Demographics, Motivations, Preferences/Considerations, and Interests. Questions are organized in order of priority to address during price testing and usability testing.
Methodology
To address all of our research questions, we employed three different methods:
-
Price testing
-
Usability testing study sessions
-
Heuristic evaluation
Each of these methods provided us with unique data and insights that complement each other well.
Price testing
Before we ran usability testing sessions, we administered a brief price testing survey to gauge interest in the products as they were originally offered on the Sliced website. While usability testing was the main focus of this project, this market research aside was added since the client was very interested in learning about the demographics of their target customers, as they did not yet have very firm grasp about who Sliced should be catering towards.
Goal:
Provide insight about who is currently interested in the products, which products they are interested in, and whether or not the current pricing model is where she wants it to be.
n = 12 participants (price testing was presented to not only the participants that qualified for usability testing, but everybody that we sent our initial screening survey to, hence a greater number of responses than those who met study criteria)
Structure:
The survey asked the participant general demographic questions regarding age, gender, personal income, dietary preferences and/or restrictions, and familiarity with charcuterie boards. We gauged their interest in Sliced's current offerings by a handful of likert purchase intent questions for Sliced's offerings. The survey was designed to take no longer than 5-10 minutes.
Example purchase intent question
Usability testing
Usability testing study session were the main focus of this research project. While on a Zoom call with researchers, participants completed a series of tasks that we carefully developed, balancing a variety of scenarios, coverage of website features and elements, and time and resource constraints.
-
Initially planned 8 different tasks
-
Narrowed down after piloting
-
Referenced main areas of interests and research questions, selected the most representative and least redundant tasks.
-
Goal:
Determine if customers can find the information and options they need to confidently place an order on the Sliced website. Identify usability problems and opportunities for improvement on the Sliced website, with specific focus on:
-
Order Placement Process
-
Information Clarity, Visibility, Readability, and Findability
-
Overall Look & Feel (Aesthetic Integrity)
-
Site Navigation
-
Website Copy (Particularly on the Home and Product Pages)
Structure:
60 minute remote moderated testing via Zoom
-
Introduction and Pre-Test Questions (5-7 minutes)
-
Home Page Tour (6-8 minutes)
-
3 tasks and 3 corresponding Post-Task Questionnaires (20-40 minutes)
-
Post-Test Questions and Survey (5 minutes).
Participants were asked to think aloud and continuously verbalize their thoughts, reactions, and impressions as they browsed through and completed tasks on the Sliced desktop interface.
Each session had at least one moderator, note taker, and time-keeper/session monitor present in the call. Notetakers kept track of notes in a specially developed spreadsheet on which they recorded for each notes/remark (as applicable):
-
Task
-
Page
-
Web Element / Feature
-
User Feedback / Comments
-
Pos / Neg / Neutral?
-
Error Made (Y/N)?
-
Error Description
-
Behavioral Observation
-
User Suggestion
-
Research Team Suggestion
-
Conveyed Emotion
Sessions were recorded and reviewed by the team later to fill in gaps in notes. These structured notes aided in streamlining our analysis and synthesis.
Task Overview:
Pre-Test Interview
-
Questions to verify responses in the initial screener.
-
Questions relating to their experience with charcuterie boards.
-
Different set of follow-up questions depending on whether they had purchased, made, or been served a cheeseboard in the past.
-
Homepage Tour
-
Participant thinks aloud and shares first impressions and general thoughts on homepage & web elements without clicking
Usability Tasks
-
Participants complete three tasks on the Sliced website while thinking aloud.
-
Brief post-task questionnaire
-
Elicit more feedback and garner suggestions for improvement
-
Task 1: BYOT (Bring Your Own Task)
-
Scenario: Participant thinks of an event or occasion where they would want to purchase a cheese board and walks through process on site
Task 2: Find the Order Cancellation Policy
-
Scenario: Placing an order for an event that might get canceled
Task 3: Place A Custom Order
-
Scenario: Ordering a cheese board that only contains dried fruits and soft cheeses
-
Tasks were chosen to reduce redundancies and target key features and uses of the website
Post-Task & Post-Test Survey and Questions
Participants were asked qualitative post-task questions, including overall impressions, what they liked and disliked about the experience, as well as whether or not they would recommend Sliced to anyone they know.
At the end of the session, participants were asked to fill out a post-test questionnaire, which included Likert scale questions about overall experience, site navigation, and likelihood of returning to the Sliced website.
See full study script in the study kit
Heuristic Evaluation
Another team member and I performed a heuristic evaluation of the Sliced website using the Heurio Google Chrome Extension.
Goal:
-
Support recommendations and findings from usability testing sessions
-
Implement ideas into a Figma prototype to showcase suggestions.
Structure:
Researchers independently evaluated the website. Findings and violations where discussed with the entire team and incorporated into the study plan and final findings and recommendations.
Heurio interface and violation summary while performing heuristic evaluation
Findings and Recommendations:
As a brand new business, Sliced had many opportunities for research and discovery. With Sliced's input, we narrowed down our scope in consideration of time and resource constraints to focus on website usability and identifiying target customers.
Coding & Analysis
Coding
-
Utilized existing the structured note-taking document
-
Added column for "Problem/Success Category" to group notes by them and extract general categories
-
-
Themetic analysis
Snippet of notes document during coding
Primary Findings & Recommendations
Our primary objective was to identify usability problems and opportunities for improvement on the Sliced website and determine if customers can find the information and options they need to confidently place an order.
Critical findings - What needs improvement?:
Much of our findings and insight surrounding the first objective were gathered during usability testing. In combination with notes from the heuristic evaluation, I organized our findings into four overarching categories:
-
Lack of Customizability
-
Lack Of Information Clarity And Visibility
-
Problems with the Checkout Process
-
Aesthetic Integrity & Website Copy
Within each category, we detailed specific findings along with a severity rating, research questions answered, supporting data, visuals showing where the issue occurs on the website, and our team’s recommendations (when applicable).
Severity rankings:
-
Based on:
-
Number of participants who experienced a usability issue and how seriously the problem impacted their workflow/task completion
-
Number of Heuristic Evaluators who reported a violation around the issue.
-
-
Scale of 1-4, where 1 is subtle and 4 is critical.
Severity ranking definitions were adapted from Dumas and Redish (1999).
-
Level 1 – Subtle: Subtle and/or cosmetic problem, points to a future enhancement (little to no impact on task workflow).
-
Level 2 – Moderate: Has a minor effect on usability / causes minor frustration during the task.
-
Level 3 – Severe: Creates significant delay and frustration during the task.
-
Level 4 – Critical: Prevents completion of a task.
Example of detailed report on an issue
Critical findings & recommendations summary:
While the full report details individual findings and severity rankings, along with prototype visuals to accompany recommendations, these findings can be summed up in three main categories.
Finding 1 - Lack of customization across the board
Problem for 5 / 7 participants
-
Incomplete list of dietary modifications
-
Other options (dairy-free, gluten-free, vegan) are mentioned elsewhere on the website, but not present in listings
-
Only one modification can be selected (unable to select both dairy-free and gluten-free)
-
No further customizations apparently available (half board modifications, etc)
-
No resolution other than contacting the company directly
Current dietary needs selection
Finding 1 - Recommendations
Allow customers to:
-
Select multiple dietary accommodations
-
Specify exactly what products are being excluded and what will be substituted on the board
Finding 2 - What You See Is (Possi-Brie) What You Get
6/7 participants didn’t understand what their order would come with
-
Unclear board sizes - images do not show clear difference in scale or board contents
-
Board details are vague and obscure
Finding 2 - Recommendations
-
Include photos of different cheese boards in the product page image carousel to communicate that boards may look different and to showcase possible variety.
-
Put the board details front and center at the very top of the page, matching existing mental models
-
Present images that are scaled to the boards' relative size so customers can see this information at a glance
Current display of differently sized boards
Finding 3 - Checkout experience could Brie better
3/7 participants ran into confusion and errors
-
Delivery details being required is odd, jarring, and confusing. Small entry field and text size exacerbates issue
-
The delivery fee came as a surprise to customers
Finding 3 - Recommendations
-
Be transparent about the delivery fee
-
Include information both on the individual product pages before customers add to cart AND on the shopping cart page when users are prompted to choose local delivery or pick up before checking out
-
-
Remove delivery details field from original location and move to checkout page
Delivery instructions
Surprise fees
Positive findings - What went well?
In addition to the critical findings, usability testing revealed several successes of the Sliced website.
A breakdown of how many participants encountered these successes for each of the 3 tasks that were tested, in addition to the amount of unique participants that encountered the successes across the entire test session, are shown.
Success 1: Cancellation policy findability
-
7 out of 7 of our participants successfully located the order cancellation policy. Across the board, this task was the easiest for participants to complete.
Success 2: Appealing UI
-
6 out of 7 participants enjoyed the aesthetic, color palette, and visual elements and media on the Sliced website.
Success 3: Positive Initial Impressions
-
5 out of 7 of our participants specifically expressed initial positivity towards the Sliced brand. This often stemmed from understanding the brand story, product, and connection to Chicago.
Secondary Findings
Our secondary objective was to help Sliced identify who their target customers are -- what kinds of people are interested in Sliced and what types of products would they potentially purchase and why?
Calculating purchase intent
Our price testing question offered five options on the Likert Scale:
-
Definitely would buy
-
Probably would buy
-
Might or might not buy
-
Probably would not buy
-
Definitely would not buy
These values were assigned a corresponding probability of purchase based on the “Powers of 3” rule where each response is assigned a different probability: 81%, 27%, 9%, 3%, 1%, respectively. The Powers of 3 method was chosen due to its exponential scale—as linear scales, which assign “Definitely would buy” 100% probability, might not accurately represent the change in purchase intent
After adding up all responses, a weighted average probability was calculated for each of the products. These numbers are a reference point—not an exact calculation—for Sliced to estimate purchase intent across different products, providing a foundation for future price testing during new product launches and subsequent price changes.
Raw purchase intent metrics across products
Purchase intent adjusted by Powers of 3 rule
Overall, the regular cheeseboards had a lower purchase intent as price and size increased, with 1 response of “Definitely would not buy” for the Medium Board, 3 for the Large Board, and 5 for the Extra Large Board. However, this difference seemed to plateau when adjusting for our Powers of 3 method—with each of the boards scoring 10.2%, 13.2%, and 11% respectively. The mini box, also the lowest priced product, had the highest adjusted probability of purchase, at 20.2%.
Examining purchase intent across participants, those at the lowest income range—students with an annual income less than $25,000—were the least likely to purchase. Interestingly, P6, who was at the highest income range of over $150,000, had a relatively low likelihood of purchasing across the different Sliced products, perhaps because they had money to spend on other, more preferred options. Cross-referencing the feedback received during their session, P6 mentioned: “there's a mismatch between what I want on a cheeseboard and what [Sliced] likes putting on cheeseboards,” which could explain their price testing responses. We recognize other participants may have had similar attitudes, making the effect of a higher or lower price difficult to isolate, which is a limitation of our price testing method.
Purchase intent by income (note: “PX” refers to participant who was a no-show)
From our relatively brief price testing, concluded that:
-
Sliced customers may most likely be upper-middle class in terms of personal income
-
College students are not likely to purchase from Sliced (contrary to the client’s initial beliefs)
-
Sliced may benefit from re-evaluating their pricing model to better reflect their offerings, or vice versa
Final Deliverables:
Upon completion of the project, our team presented two separate final readouts summarizing our work, one to Claire, our client at Sliced, and one to our class.
Along with the presentations, we wrote a comprehensive report including an executive summary, background information, methodology, data, analysis, and recommendations, and we also assembled a study kit, including all materials that we developed for both our usability testing and price testing. This kit was designed to allow easy replication if Sliced desires more testing in the future after our contract ended.
Outcomes:
After the conclusion of this project, we kept in contact with Sliced to monitor and evaluate their growth. In the following 6 months after implemented suggested changes, Sliced KPIs improved significantly
Changes made:
Sliced implemented the following changes based on our insights and recommendations:
-
Improving availability and clarity of customization options
-
Addition of custom requests section
-
Offering selectable alternatives to certain items
-
-
Product description and visual presentation
-
Featuring board details immediately versus beneath the fold
-
Inclusion of name and specific sourcing for ingredients when possible
-
Using photos that show scale and visual difference across board sizes
-
-
Checkout flow
-
Standardized process and eliminated existing pitfalls by implementing DoorDash API
-
-
Adjusted website content and copy to emphasize sustainable, ethical, and local sourcing while maintaining their strong branding
-
Adjusted their business strategy to target corporate & brand events, large-scale entertainment, weddings, and other special events rather than individuals and small-scale events.
KPIs:
-
7% decrease in cart abandonment
-
377% increase in conversion rate.
-
300% growth in social media following and interaction rate
Business expansion:
-
Established presence and became mainstays at local markets
-
Expansion to large-scale corporate events and catering, virtual workshops as main clientele
Before and After
Homepage
Clear statement of company purpose, emphasis on large-scale events
Ambiguous message, targeted more toward individuals
Viewing board selection
Sizes clearly defined, distinct photography for each type
Difficult to distinguish board size, lack of visual variety
Viewing individual board & details
.png)
Details featured immediately, more meaningful descriptions
Crucial details hidden beneath the fold, overall lack of details