AT A GLANCE:

• As a UX Research intern, I led a project to improve the information architecture of Indeed’s employer platform

• Using heuristic analysis, competitive analysis, and card sorting, I determined the optimal structure for 48 user settings in one central hub

• My recommended architecture led to design and implementation that is expected to reduce Client Success cases dealing with account maintenance

challenge

Indeed is the #1 job site in the world, serving over 300M jobseekers and 3M employers globally. The platform has multiple employer products that historically have operated separately. There is no consistent experience for employers to manage individual, team, or company settings. Feedback from sales teams and general consensus from product owners finds managing settings to be a challenging, fractured experience for employers.

Research Goal

Determine the ideal structure for a global settings framework to deliver a unified experience across products at Indeed.

Heuristic Eval / Comp. Analysis

I started by taking a larger look at the settings landscape for Indeed and similar organizations.

Using a previously conducted audit of all known settings as a starting point, I conducted a competitive analysis and heuristic evaluation.

Analysis featured five competitors included top tech companies (e.g. Google) and industry peers (e.g. Workday), each of which housed settings for multiple purposes in one central hub.

Ease of completing six popular settings tasks (e.g. changing a password, modifying notification preferences) were measured using Abby Covert’s Information Architecture Heuristic Framework. Competitors were graded against Indeed on a 5-point scale and qualitative notes were captured for instances when certain heuristics were not properly followed.

Heuristic Severity Rating: 0 = no usability issues; 4 = severe usability issues requiring immediate resolution

Analysis:

I aggregated scores for each competitor across the six tasks to rank Indeed’s settings architecture against others. I also reviewed qualitative notes manually to identify issues that occurred across competitors.

Findings:

Indeed had a less favorable score across each of the six measured tasks.

• The unclear distinction between company and account settings on Indeed negatively affected findability of desired settings

• Indeed had multiple settings repeated in different locations and the relationship between them is often unclear

• Many competitors included descriptions communicating the impact of modifying a setting (e.g. changing setting X will also affect Y)

These findings validated the need for a unified settings experience and highlighted specific areas of interest for further digging.

Card Sorting

Results of the aforementioned audit included a list of 48 settings spanning 14 product areas. To determine the settings architecture that aligned more closely with users’ mental models, I conducted a series of card sorts using OptimalSort.

I hosted eight moderated, open card sorting sessions, two with client success representatives and six with enterprise employers. Client success reps deal with account maintenance issues daily and enterprise employers are the most frequent users of Indeed products, making theses two groups ideal candidates for this activity.

Following completion of the card sort, participants were asked to describe their thought process with a particular focus on areas highlighted during the heuristic evaluation.

RECRUITMENT:

I identified participants through querying our database of enterprise users and manually selecting potential participants that created a pool diverse in company size. Challenges with recruiting and no-shows led me to develop an unmoderated version suitable for UserTesting. Potential participants had to pass a screener to be eligible for the study. This method results in an additional 15 tests.

Analysis:

I primarily used standardization grids and similarity matrices to analyze my card sort results. Identifying natural breaking points in the percentage of sorts that grouped certain cards together highlighted closely affiliated settings. For settings with less consistent groupings, qualitative analysis of the user-generated group titles and comments made during moderated sessions uncovered insights that helped determine the best fit.

Findings:

• Participants often grouped settings according to how other sites like Google and Workday structured their settings.

• Slight group title variations signaled a need for content design assistance

Recommended Solution

As a final deliverable, I developed a recommended architecture for employer settings. This solution takes into account not only results of research, but technical constraints mentioned in conversations with developers and product managers. The recommended architecture also introduced headings and subheadings that were missing from the original design.

Impact

My research led to designs that will become the new hub for Indeed employer settings. This project helped our team meet an important objective & key result focused on building a cohesive experience across platforms. As a result of this research, we anticipate a reduction in Client Success cases dealing with account maintenance.

NEXT STEPS

To create ongoing impact of this initial research, I recommend the following:

1. Tree testing – As a validation check to the proposed architecture, tree testing should be conducted with enterprise employers.

2. Further collaboration with Small/Medium-sized Business (SMB) researchers – Settings offerings for enterprise employers differ from those of small/medium sized businesses. Slight modifications may need to be made to fit the needs of this user base as well.

3. Usability testing of design – As a result of my research, a proposed design was created by my UX Designer teammate. Usability testing on this new design should be conducted.

Lessons Learned

1. Moderated card sorts are a cheat code – These sessions acted as a 2-in-1 card sort and interview. I learned a lot by probing on users’ thought processes after they had completed the sort.

2. Developer collaboration early in the process is critical – Understanding the technical constraints and reasoning behind certain architectural decision reduces time wasted revising recommended solutions.

3. Plan for a 30-40% no-show rate – Although we offered incentives and sent multiple reminders, this project struggled to stay on track as a result of a high no-show rate during card sorting. This impact was mitigated by including unmoderated sessions, but developing a version suitable for unmoderated completion required additional time.