Process
1. Competitor Analysis
To strengthen my understanding of how logo design tools use onboarding to better understand their users, I took a look at how LogoJoy, Tailor Brands, and Google’s 3hr Brand Sprint tackles this process. Key points that I looked for was the cognitive load and interaction costs, how accurately did the method capture the user’s mental model, and how useful was the information gathered (i.e. could that information be used to categorize logos in the CMS to show meaningful results to the user).
2. User Surveys
After the competitor analysis, I uncovered a few different directions of how I could refactor the onboarding process. To quickly validate or invalidate a direction, I used simple user surveys that was sent out to 50 users. The purpose was to justify the usefulness in collecting data based on the logos users like (this method is used by both LogoJoy and Tailor Brands). This survey was also to gain insight on how we might use this approach to format our tagging system in the CMS. Our results showed that no visible patterns as to why a logo was liked. Each user had a different rationale and there was no common ground to tie the data together.
Survey results showing no visible patterns why logos are liked.
3. Brainstorming + Affinity Mapping
A key issue identified was the subjective nature of the current Brand Values. The terms chosen needed to be carefully crafted so that there was no positive or negative connotation. I began pulling apart the logos in our system. Why was a certain logo considered vintage or modern? Was there an explicit attribute that gave the logo a certain feeling that was not subjective? By dissecting different logos and design styles, I found 4 spectrums that defined different parts of each logo that had no overlap and no subjectiveness. Each spectrum had a pair of polar opposites and are: Simple vs. Complex, Free flow vs. Precise, 3D vs. Flat, and Abstract vs. Literal.
The aha moment! We finally found a possible solution.
4. User Interviews + Testing
This new direction of the “Brand Values” was quite a drastic change from our previous method. In order to validate this direction, I conducted user tests to see how users would perceive the concept of categorizing the logos into these 4 spectrums. I curated a list of logos all with different styles and compositions, then asked users to label which term (i.e. simple, complex, or neither) in each spectrum matched the logo the best. The results after 4 user tests showed a 71% match. Users also understood the terminology easily and felt that the task was very easy to complete.
5. Speaking with Content Strategies
Moving forward with this direction, I spoke with 2 content strategists to help finalize the copy. Shopify ensures that the vocabulary used falls within a 7th grade reading level so the terms chosen for this screen must adhere to this guideline. A few updates were made such as “Free flow vs. Precise” to “Freeform vs. Structured”. We also changed the name of the screen to “Logo Styles” since it fit the content better and is more easily understood than “Brand Values”. Lastly, since the user is making a binary decision, it is best that they are prompted with a question. A simple question such as “What style do you prefer?” can be used for all 4 spectrums which is key in limiting the copy used.
Onboarding logo images to describe the 4 spectrums of logo styles.
6. White-boarding Session
Working with two other designers on the Hatchful team, we revisited the current onboarding flow by defining the cognitive load and interaction costs of each screen. We removed “Logo Usage” because the user’s input did not add any value and was just a data collection point for the team. We then reordered the flow so that the steps with the lowest cognitive load would go first. The new flow became: Business Name —> Industry —> Logo Styles. Afterwards, we participated in some Crazy 8 ideation sketching, and finally narrowed our options down to 2 potential solutions. Lastly, we consulted with the developers to gauge the level of difficulty in the implementation.
Whiteboarding session with the design team trying to find a solution.
7. Design, Test, Iterate, Test, Design again
I designed a solution based off of Option #1 from the white boarding session and tested it with users. It uncovered a few problems relating to the amount of context a user has, the pace of content, the interaction costs, and usability issues. I then designed Option #2 and tested it. The issues from the first option were solved, but it uncovered new issues. The process of designing and testing, reviewing with peers, and designing some more continued until the final design was set. Android, iOS, and web were created and prepped for developer hand-off.
New Hatchful logo style flow depicting the 4 spectrums used to customize logo results.