Assignment on UX Research for a Hotel Online Hotel Booking Website

1. www.nadiaserveti.com
Nadia Serveti
Product & Systems Design Engineer
nadia.serveti@gmail.com
UX Evaluation for a Hotel Online Booking Website
8 October 2015

2. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Table of Contents

3. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Heuristic & Competitive Research
3. Mock User Interview
4. User Interview
5. Recommendations & Future Steps
1
2
3
4
5

4. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
1. Executive Summary

5. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
1. Executive Summary
Given the limitations of this research (small sample size) we cannot give definite
recommendations for improvement. We can however, highlight certain insights
on features that are good candidates for further consideration and research.

6. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
1. Executive Summary (1/2)
Gain insight into user preferences for the functionality of the search tool and related activities
Understand how the process of searching for and booking a hotel feels to users
Identify primary and secondary usability issues or barriers
Identify features and functionality that users welcome
Identify missing features or functionality
Objectives
Heuristic Evaluation / Expert Review
Competitive Research based on heuristics
Usability Lab Study
Individual Interview
Methodology Participants
Mock User User
Gender Female Male
Age 41 45
Heavy user Yes Yes

7. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
1. Executive Summary (2/2)
Key Findings Recommendations
User wanted more options in Search Box Consider adding more options, such us Price Range
Pop-up windows annoyed the user Reduce or eliminate the pop-up windows
Confusion with Filters & Sorting Improve prioritisation / design / wording
Issues in identifying the functionality of the location icon Add a bubble / hint on hover
User was prompted to click on the suitcase icon to
insert the number of nights
Make the icon more subtle
User can’t save the hotel directly from the Results Page
and the MapView
Add such feature
No “Back to top” static button Add a “Back to top” static button
Issues in finding the “All Filters” button Make it stand out
When the user filters results, the updated number of
results is not displayed
Add such feature
The default zoom setting of the map doesn’t allow
display of the hotels
Default zoom setting should allow display of results
Overall the users were satisfied by the website.They managed to find an up to their standards hotel, even though
the above issues were identified.

8. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
2. Heuristic & Competitive Research

9. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Competitors in the UK
www.booking.com
www.expedia.co.uk
www.lastminute.com
www.travelsupermarket.com

10. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Categorisation of Findings
Minor Issue
Medium Issue
Major Issus
Positive Finding
Observation or User Need
Recommendation

11. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Heuristic Evaluation Findings
Positive Negative
1. Search Page:
• Allow location tracking
• Show Recent Searches
1. Search Page:
Relatively small Search Box
2. Results Page
• Change search details on the same page (there is no
need to go back to a previous page)
• Filters bar on top + Static on scroll down + Option to
close the static bar
• Option to display filters on a sidebar (Differentiator)
• Filter results using hotel name
2. Results Page
Can’t save hotels directly from the Results page and
the pop-up window on the Map view
Only one saved hotel list available
When the user filters results, the updated number of
results is not displayed
“Sort by” field can be covered, when the Filter drop
down list is active.
No static “back to top” button; there is only a link on
the individual hotel page, which is not static.
3. Results & Individual Hotel Information Pages:
• Save Hotel List + Delete + Print
• Show recently viewed hotels + Delete
• User is prompted to inform the website team, in case
the hotel description is not correct
No pagination on Results page; loading more results on scroll down

12. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Competitive Research - Booking.com Findings
Positive Negative
1. Search Page:
• Bigger Search Box area (50% of wrapper)
• Two options for Date Selection (Calendar icon & Day/
Month separately)
• “No Specific Dates” feature
• “Travelling for Work/Leisure” feature
• “Just Booked” Feed
• On the right part of the screen (50% of wrapper),
there is another search bar for location + interest
1. MapView:
Main navigation bar missing from top
Filters missing
2. Results Page
• Save hotels to more than one lists
• Send list to a friend( via URL)
• Testimonials (reviews) displayed on hover over
• Undo hotel Deletion from lists (multiple times)
• Automatically Saved Searches
• Sticky header in tables on Rooms availability
2. Results Page
No static “back to top” button; there are “back to top”
links on the individual hotel page after each section,
which are not static.
Individual Hotel Page:
“Back to Results” button missing
Pagination on Results page

13. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Competitive Research - Expedia.co.uk Findings
Positive Negative
1. Search Page:
• Bigger Search Box area (100% of wrapper)
• “Add a flight” feature
1. Search Page:
• When selecting >1 number of children, the search
area is rearranged, in order to add one extra field
(“child age”), while there is plenty of space for it to
appear next to the “number of children” field.
• User has to click on Hotels filter, as by default the
Flight+Hotel one is selected.
2. Results Page
• Average Price bar, for 3, 4 and 5 star hotels
• Map on top left side
2. Results Page
No static “top of page” button; there is a “top of
page” link at the end of the Results page, which is not
static.
No wish list
No hide/delete result from page
3. Individual Hotel Page:
• “Back to Results” button, but it’s not clearly displayed
3. MapView
Filters missing
Information only for selected hotel
User can’t just click and view the details for nearby
hotels.
Pagination on Results page

14. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
3. Mock User Interview

15. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Mock User Interview - Previous Experience
Flow
1. Visit Booking.com via Google
2. Insert Location
3. Insert Dates
4. Click “Search”
5. GoTo Results Page
6. Sort by Price
7. Scroll down until she finds “a decent hotel”
8. GoTo Individual Hotel Page
9. Select Room
10. Book
Search Parameters
• Specific Location (Massouri, Kalymnos island,
Greece)
• Specific Dates
Criteria
• HotelView
• Rate / Reviews
Constraint
• Price
Concerns / Difficulties
• Issues with the spelling of the location
• Hotels outside Kalymnos island, and even outside Greece, were displayed in the Results Page, which irritated
the user

16. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Mock User Interview - Dated Search (1/2)
Flow
1. Insert Location (“Massouri”)
2. Select location from drop-down list
3. Insert Dates
4. Click “Search”
5. GoTo Results Page
6. Sort by Price
7. Filter by Landmarks radius
8. Scroll down until she finds the
preferred hotel
9. GoTo Individual Hotel Page
10. Select Room
11. Book
Search Parameters
• Specific Location (Massouri, Greece)
• Specific Dates
Observations
1. Search Box:
• User inserted the dates by clicking on the dates (not the calendar icon)
• User clicked on the black suitcase icon to insert the number of nights
(instead of inserting the check out date)
• User clicked on the Location icon, thinking it was the “Search / Go”
button
2. Results Page:
• Hotels outside Kalymnos island, and even outside Greece, were displayed,
which irritated the user.
• User was looking for a way to remove the irrelevant results.The
Moderator advised to use the “All Filters” feature.
• The user found the “All Filters” button with difficulty.
3. MapView:
• Didn’t notice the “Zoom in to view hotels” message and initially thought
the map was not working
• Didn’t identify what the icons represented.
• User hovered over the “filters” bar of the map, expecting an icon
explanation.
4. Choosing Hotel Order:
Pretty aligned with the criteria mentioned in the interview

17. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Mock User Interview - Dated Search (2/2)
Mock User Feedback
Description Recommendation
Couldn’t identify the actual functionality of the
location icon
A “bubble” / hint on hover
Was prompted to click on the suitcase icon to
insert the number of nights
Make the icon more subtle
Couldn’t find the “All Filters” button easily Make it different (perhaps blue, as it is on hover)
The default zoom setting of the map doesn’t allow
display of the hotels; user has to zoom in
Default zoom setting should allow display of
results
Overall the user was satisfied by the website. She managed to find an up to her standards hotel, even
though the above issues were identified.

18. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Mock User Rating
* On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being very bad and 5 being very good, please rate the efficiency & effectiveness of the following tasks:
** On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied, please rate the satisfaction of the following tasks:
Search Box
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Satisfaction
Results Filtering
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Satisfaction
1 2 3 4 5
o
o
o
o
o
o
1 2 3 4 5
o
o
o
o
o
o
Results Sorting
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Satisfaction
Individual Hotel Page
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Satisfaction

19. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
4. User Interview

20. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
User Interview - Previous Experience
Flow
1. Visited Airbnb
2. Insert Location
3. Insert Dates
4. Select Price Range
5. Click “Search”
6. GoTo Results Page
7. Sort by Price
8. Book
Search Parameters
• Specific Location (Jerusalem)
• Specific Dates
• Price Range
Criteria
• Location
• Rate / Reviews
Constraint
• Price
Concerns / Difficulties
• Issues with the Price Range Bar

21. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
User Interview - Dated Search (1/2)
Flow
1. Visit our Website
2. Insert Location
3. Insert Dates
4. Change Number of adults
5. Click “Search”
6. GoTo Results Page
7. Sort by Price
8. Scroll down until he finds a hotel
that suits him
9. GoTo Individual Hotel Page
10. Book
Search Parameters
• Specific Location (Jerusalem)
• Specific Dates
Observations
1. Search Box:
• User inserted the dates by clicking on the calendar icon
2. Results Page:
• User was looking for a way to remove the irrelevant results (i.e. hostels).
The Moderator advised to use the “All Filters” feature.
• Difficulty in identifying what option to look for in the Filters Sidebar, in
order to exclude the hostels.
• Concerns about having the Description and the Guest Rate
• Pop-up windows annoyed the user
• Confusion with the Filters and what they represent (e.g. Landmark vs
Neighbourhood)
• User wanted to view both price per day and total price
3. Individual Hotel Page:
• User found it difficult to change the Search dates
• User wanted to view both price per day and total price
4. Choosing Hotel Order:
• Aligned with the criteria mentioned in the interview
• Pop-up window (“not many rooms left”) put the user under pressure

22. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
User Interview - Dated Search (2/2)
Mock User Feedback
Description Recommendation
User wanted more options in Search Box Add more options, such us Price Range
In “Sort by” field the “Our Favourites” value didn’t
seem useful
Having Price sorting selected by default
Hotel Price display (Results page & Individual
Hotel Information page)
Show daily price (previous/next days) for price
comparison
Concerns about having the Description and the
Guest Rate (e.g.“Very Good – 3.2/4”)
Guest rate should be sufficient
Confusion with Landmarks and Neighbourhood
filters
-
Difficulty excluding hostels from the search results -
The website was not too bad overall.

23. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
User Rating
* On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being very bad and 5 being very good, please rate the efficiency & effectiveness of the following tasks:
** On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied, please rate the satisfaction of the following tasks:
Search Box
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Satisfaction
Results Filtering
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Satisfaction
1 2 3 4 5
o
o
o
o
o
o
1 2 3 4 5
o
o
o
o
o
o
Results Sorting
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Satisfaction
Individual Hotel Page
• Efficiency
• Effectiveness
• Satisfaction

24. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
5. Recommendations & Future Steps

25. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Recommendations
Section Recommendations
1. Search Box
• Search box to stand out & consider adding more search options
• Make the functionality of the Location icon clear
• Make suitcase icon more subtle
2. Results Page
• The image to enlarge on hover over the images
• “All Filters” button to stand out
• Save the hotel directly from the Results Page and the MapView
• Display the updated number of results after applying the filters
• Filters drop-down lists to appear / disappear on hover over / mouse out.
• Improve prioritisation / design / wording of Filters
• “Sort by” button should not be covered by mistake (could be solved by the
previous point)
• Show daily price (previous / next days) for price comparison
• Back to top static button
• Consider reducing or eliminating the pop-up windows
3. Individual Hotel Page • Add “Back to top” static button
4. Map
• Default zoom setting should allow the display of the results
• Icon legends pop out on hover

26. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
Individual Interviews
Individual interviews should be used to generate ideas and insights on features and
enhancements desired by users.
Future Steps
Usability Lab Studies
We would like to expand the research to a larger sample size including current users of the
under evaluation online booking website vs users of other online booking websites vs non-users,
in order to obtain clearer feedback on pre-identified points.
Competitive Research
Competitive research by heuristic analysis may be expanded to include all significant
competitors. Furthermore, user feedback may be obtained for competitor editors, possibly
focused on the points flagged by the heuristic analysis. Feedback should relate to satisfaction and
importance of relevant features.
Heuristic Evaluation / Expert Review
This can be expanded to look into the product in more detail. This would allow us to pre-
identify points for testing with users.
1
2
3
4

27. Nadia Serveti | 2015 All Rights Reserved.
THANK YOU!
nadia.serveti@gmail.com
www.nadiaserveti.com