usability testing
design and also inform expectations of
kiosk usage.
The costs of not testing
Holly Hester-Reilly, founder of H2R
Product Science draws parallels
between successful usability testing
of e-commerce websites and kiosk
applications. For Hester-Reilly, “One of
the most common cases for usability
testing and improvement is e-commerce
conversion. That’s because it’s easy
to measure and high volume. A highly
usable checkout flow will result in
more completed purchases and
more revenue. This can generate 10x
returns.” Translating that to self-service
applications, unsuccessful experiences
will result in more customer requests
for human assistance, incomplete
interactions, and frustrated customers.
While traditional usability testing
can be expensive and time-consuming,
there are options that will allow for
testing without a significant financial
investment. Hester-Reilly suggests that
solutions such as interviews.com can
provide participants at a reasonable cost.
Moreover, while the expense of usability
testing is clear, the cost of not testing is
ongoing and can be significant.
One such cost is challenging to
measure; for high-frequency kiosk
use cases, the end user will have the
option to find alternative methods for
completing their task (chose another
restaurant, visit another ATM, etc.) When
kiosks are difficult to use, they may
relocate to find a more user-friendly
experience. In addition, more customers
will ask to speak to a human attendant.
As a result, more usable kiosks will save
money on support and reduce customer
frustrations. Usability can also ultimately
improve conversion rates.
Why usability matters
Usability isn’t just about increasing
conversions, it’s about providing
24 KIOSK solutions
customers with an enjoyable experience
– one that reflects well on the brand
and inspires loyalty and goodwill. This
holds true for any user experience be it
a product, website or kiosk. Brian Smith,
Design Director at Fullstack Labs believes
that: “There is no greater turn off to
an experience than feeling harassed
by the very product you are trying to
use. Customers will quickly abandon
and seldom repeat using a product
that makes them feel incompetent or
induces rage.” If someone has trouble
with a kiosk, their feelings will likely
carry over to the brand itself and can
be counterproductive to the kiosk’s
intention. Another point Smith makes is
that the experience should be enjoyable
across demographics. Regardless of
the demographics of the target user, it
should be accessible to users of any age
and gender.
Deployers must also consider that if
a kiosk isn’t usable by a percentage of
the population due to lacking handicap
accessibility features, it doesn’t matter
how good the experience is for
everyone else. For instance, if visually
or hearing-impaired users can’t interact
with the kiosk, or if those in wheelchairs
can’t properly reach the kiosk or
touch the screen, that population will
automatically be excluded from use. A
lack of accessibility can be interpreted
as a disregard for that population
and may inadvertently spread a larger
message about inclusiveness as a
company value. Of course, there’s also
a potential hard cost to being non-
accessible, in the form of lawsuits or
government fines.
While kiosks are meant to provide a
service, share information, allow users
to perform a task, and any number
of other goals, kiosk usability is a
key component to how successful a
deployment is and the ultimate impact
on customer perceptions. Deployers and
designers must take the time to run tests
throughout the development process,
and even once a project is deployed.
This iterative approach to kiosk projects
will only lead to happier users, and more
productive kiosks – and ultimately a
more positive perception of kiosks in
general. n