Crafting the UX of Samsung’s Smartphone Comparison Tool

01 INTRODUCTION

Overview

TEAM
2 x UX Designers
ROLE
UI/UX | User Research | User Testing | Wireframing | Prototyping | QA Testing
TIMELINE
Approx. 4 weeks
TOOLS
Figma | Adobe XD

Background

On Samsung.com, the existing product comparison capabilities were limited, creating a challenge for users seeking to make informed purchasing decisions. The absence of a comprehensive comparison feature hindered users from evaluating multiple products side-by-side, which was essential for making well-informed choices. This gap represented an opportunity to enhance the website’s functionality and user experience by introducing a more effective tool for comparing Samsung’s diverse range of smartphones.

The Problem

There is no ability to compare products
Competitors like Apple and Huawei offer specific comparison tools that allow users to compare similar products. Our goal is to build a prototype that enables users to compare up to three different products."This revision makes the statement clearer and more concise while maintaining the original intent.

The Approach

To address the limitations in product comparison on Samsung.com, we designed a prototype comparison tool aimed at improving user experience. Our objective was to create a solution that enabled users to compare up to three Samsung smartphone models simultaneously, thus facilitating a more informed decision-making process.

02 DEFINE & PLAN

Overview

  • Comparison Tool User Flow
  • Wireframing Process
  • Comparison Tool Wire Flow

User Flow for the Comparison Tool

Here is the user flow for the comparison tool we’ve developed. The flow outlines how users navigate from the Product Filter Page to interacting with the comparison tool and adding the products they wish to compare.

Wireframing the steps and components of the Comparison Tool

After defining the flow, we proceeded to wireframe each section of the comparison tool to clarify how we want users to interact with the comparison table seamlessly.

Wire Flow Overview

After defining the flow and reviewing numerous team sketches of the component wireframes, we received approval from the UX Head. As a result, we developed a clearer wireflow illustrating how the Comparison Tool will function.

03 DESIGN & PROTOTYPE

OVERVIEW

  • The Prototype

The Prototype

By now, we had an idea of how the designs would look through the wireframes and had defined a clear flow for the Comparison Tool. So, we took some time to create a high-fidelity version with a prototype.
View Desktop PrototypeView Mobile Prototype

04 USER TESTING

OVERVIEW

  • Interview Sessions

User Testing Approach

After the design process and creating the prototypes, we had a great opportunity to conduct user tests to observe interactions with the prototype. We recruited thirty users and conducted a 45-minute interview and test session with each.
The sessions began with questions about their shopping habits and how they shop for phones. Next, we asked when they bought their last phone and how they made that decision.
At this point, we invited them to explore the prototype and provided various scenarios to prompt them to use the comparison tool.

Demographics

We conducted two sessions of the test in the UK and Sweden. Here are the demographics of the users we tested:

UK (Test 1)

Gender

  • Female: 10
  • Male: 5

Age Brackets

  • 18-25: 4
  • 26-35: 8
  • 36-45: 2
  • 46-55: 1
  • +55: 0

Sweden (Test 2)

Gender

  • Female: 12
  • Male: 3

Age Brackets

  • 18-25: 2
  • 26-35: 8
  • 36-45: 2
  • 46-55: 2
  • +55: 1

Combined

Gender

  • Female: 22 (73%)
  • Male: 8 (27%)

Age Brackets

  • 18-25: 6 (20%)
  • 26-35: 16 (53%)
  • 36-45: 4 (13%)
  • 46-55: 3 (10%)
  • +55: 1 (3%)

User Testing Findings from the UK and Sweden

Here are the findings from user testings conducted in the UK and Sweden. In the UK, users were interviewed about their mobile phone shopping journey and tested our site's Product Filter Page. In Sweden, we collaborated with the local UX team to evaluate our comparison tool. Observing users from different regions provided unique perspectives. Here are the results of their interactions with the tool.

Key Findings

Here are the key findings and design change recommendations. Some of these changes were already implemented during the user interviews with the prototype.
Activating Comparison
Most users easily activated the comparison tool.
  • Four users missed it entirely.
  • Three users activated it after prompting, but said their usual behaviour was to open items in individual tabs.“I would have usually used multiple tabs
  • Checkbox on mobile might be too small. Four (4) users presented problems selecting devices.
Information Structure
  • Four users stated that rating battery in mAh was meaningless. They would have preferred to see hours of average battery life.“It’s useful in the battery if it tells me how many hours.
  • Users suggested they would prefer to have the table categories collapsed as a default. This would allow them to unfold those sections that interest them.
  • Users don’t immediately understand that the comparison table can be scrolled. Items might be too large and too spaced out, which gives the impression the header of the table is all there is.
Users are fairly confident at viewing specs and deciding which phone is better, although some technical terms were confusing. We suggest that displaying battery power as “average hours battery life” should be made a priority.
Show Differences
  • Eight users did not engage with the Show Differences button unless prompted.“I hadn’t noticed that
  • Eight users did not realise what had changed when they used it.“I can’t see the difference”, “It’s too subtle
  • Once users understood the goal of this function, they were largely positive.
This feature has potential but needs to be improved in terms of clarity and feedback. The next iteration will focus on making the CTA, and the actual differences, more obvious.
Add & Remove Items
  • Users generally uncertain about the search bar. Unless you know exactly what to search for, it isn’t that clear.“Do I have to use this?”
  • When asked to add an extra item, users hesitated, and preferred to go back to the PF and add from there.
  • Very easy to remove items from the comparison.
Users removed items very easily, and almost all users saw the search bar. However, users were slightly uncertain about what to type in the search bar. This could be improved by pre-populating with a drop-down of featured products.
Behaviour
  • Multiple users tried clicking on the images and titles in the comparison table to find out more info.
  • Some users wanted to see different colour options on the table.
  • Year of release is important information to consider.

Recommendations

Activating Comparison
  • Enlarge the checkbox on mobile
Table Information
  • Collapse the rows on mobile by default.
  • Add battery life in hours of usage on average, video and idle.
  • Compress the top of the table and the row titles to fit more information on the screen.
  • Maintain the delete button when scrolling the table.
Show Differences
  • Show differences by default on page load. Have the differences highlighted in bold, and the similarities in light text. Have a button to deactivate the differences.

05 CONCLUSION

OVERVIEW

  • Next Steps
  • Conclusion Statement

Next Steps

Based on the key findings and recommendations identified from the user interviews, we made the following changes. Our next step and goal is to test the next iteration with additional users, if possible.

Conclusion Statement

We observed many important insights during the user tests, gathering extensive data on common behaviors when users interacted with the prototypes. These findings revealed new pain points and optimization ideas for the project. Even after the final phase, some questions remained, prompting ongoing review and improvement of the project.
Here are some enhancement areas that remain for discussion and further consideration:
Product Cards on Product Finder Page
Effectiveness: The marketing flags displayed on the cards are irrelevant for customers when deciding on a product. This information could be written in a more engaging and device-specific way.
Product Configurations
Single Card Display: Different product configurations should appear under a single card on the Product Finder (PF) page. This would avoid having multiple similar-looking cards that only vary in the title.
CTAs on Product Cards
Potential Redundancy: Participants understood that clicking on the product title or picture takes them to the Product Detail page. Therefore, CTAs on the product cards might be unnecessary.
Comparison Table
Collapsing Rows: Further testing may be needed to understand user preferences for collapsed rows upon page load. Some participants preferred expanding areas of interest over scrolling to find features to compare.

Explore More Projects