If you don’t watch out, after a couple months of A/B testing, your product will end up looking like Las Vegas!
Why A/B testing and visual design come into conflict
It’s great to implement consistent A/B testing in their product process, but then it becomes even harder to keep a consistent visual design while doing test after test. This tension comes from the fact that A/B tests push you towards local maxima, making the particular section of page you’re testing high-performance, but at the expense of the overall experience. As a result, there’s a lot of temptation to “hack in” a new design, the way that software engineers have to “hack in” a feature – but this is short-term at best. This often means adding a bold, colored link to the top of page with “NEW!” or adding yet another tab – these are all band-aid solutions because once you get to the next set of features, it’s not a scalable design to have 100 tabs.
Each of these competing features, taken by itself, moves the needle positively. However, there isn’t a great way to measure the gradual “tragedy of the commons” effect to the overall user experience. Each new loud page element competes with all previous page elements, and must be louder as a result – this leads to the Vegas effect that many Facebook apps end up in.
To really solve this problem, you need a central design vision – there’s no way around that. It also helps a lot to have a flexible design that embraces A/B testing – you can work with your designers to make this happen through modular, open elements.
Closed designs make it hard to add or remove content
Let’s take a particular example and look at it – this might be a standard example on a page like a video or otherwise:
It looks nice, but also has tremendous sensitivity to the content and an inflexible design that makes it hard to test new content. To be more specific, ask yourself the following quesitons:
- If you wanted to add a comments count in addition to views and votes, how would you do that?
- What happens when the views number gets beyond 10,000?
- What if you wanted to add favorites, or flagging for inappropriate content?
- If we decided to hide the thumbs down, how would this visually balance?
- If we wanted to fit more thumbnails onto a browse page, how easy it is to shrink the main thumbnail?
The above design is an example of a “closed” design where everything fits just right, but makes it very difficult to add or remove elements. There’s an exact balancing of all the parts of the element, which makes it very sensitive.
Many of the solutions to the questions involve either require building out new pieces next to the element, which throws it off balance. Thus, if the above were used in an A/B test, the visual look would be immediately ruined.
Open designs that are A/B test-friendly
Let’s compare this to the elements below, which have a more modular design that can scale vertically:
The above elements don’t have the same “just right” visual appeal, but make it much easier to add and remove content. The key design decision is to add multiple bands of content which can be grouped together and extended vertically. Ideally, you would never end up with a repeating tile of 4-buttons and 3-stats, but you could certainly test it much more easily than with the closed design.
Here are some of the variations that can easily be tested:
- Switch the title section and the stats/buttons sections
- Add and remove buttons (or no buttons!)
- Add and remove stats (or no stats!)
- Combine price tags with other stats
- Try different buttons
Following an open design on page elements enables substantial A/B testing within some flexible constraints. Now you may still be tempted to do something crazy like big hover overlays, <BLINK> tags, and other stuff, but at least you can make it easy to test a wide variety of low-hanging fruit. It also makes the owner of the overall visual design able to maintain a central “style guide” while still offering enough flexibility to keep people creative.
This same idea of open designs with horizontal bands of content can be applied to whole pages too – let’s examine a page from the king of A/B testing, Amazon.com.
Open page layouts
From the snapshot below, you can see that Amazon groups the center column of content – each element has a title explaining how it is, a list of items, and a navigation link to see more. This is also true with the item detail pages, which use a similar grouping to show everything from similar books to reviews to other elements. These pages can get very long, but because most of it is below-the-fold, it’s easy to get away with.
I’ve been told that this modular design enables Amazon to take a “King of the Hill” approach to testing each horizontal band of content against each other. Different software teams will create different kinds of navigation and recommendation, and if it causes people to click through to buy, then it floats up higher in the page. This systematic A/B testing is much more easily enabled when there’s the design flexibility for that sort of thing.
Here’s a snapshot for a reminder of what this looks like:
While you may argue that Amazon’s design is cluttered and actuallysucks, on the other hand, this approach lets them take a very experimental approach to pushing out features. It makes it very low-cost to implement a new recommendations approach and try it out without needing to figure out how to design it into the UX.
What’s next? Modular user flows?
Of course, if you can take a modular approach to scaling individual page elements or entire pages, the next question is whether you can take this approach to user flows.
I’ve never seen anyone do this, but this is how it might work:
- Any linear user flow is identified in a product (like new registration, payment flow, etc)
- This flow might be 1 page, or broken into N pages
- Similarly, every individual page might have a bunch of fields (like photo, about me, etc.)
- As part of the A/B testing process, you might want to drop a new page (or new fields) into the flow
- Then an optimization process shuffles pages throughout the flow to identify the best page sequence and page-by-page configuration
You might imagine something like this could be a very powerful process as it would allow you to identify whether you should offer a coupon pre-transaction or post-transaction, or on any given page, where an input field should be placed.
For those who want to know more, I have written a bunch more about A/B testing here.
I write a high-quality, weekly newsletter covering what's happening in Silicon Valley, focused on startups, marketing, and mobile.