The UX design process is, in a word, complex. The discipline itself is a jam-packed intersection of contrasting fields, including art, engineering, experimental research, and interpersonal skills—a blend of technical and creative skillsets. UX designers must test, design, architect, write, and do it all ad nauseum until they’ve crafted a completely usable solution.
There’s a hint of irony to the job—making something simple truly is complicated.
And yet despite the intricacies of UX design, we often use a singular metric to measure its quality: conversion rate. It’s not a particularly robust benchmark; conversion rate is simply the percentage of users that go on to fulfill your platform’s purpose, whether that’s making a purchase, downloading an app, or registering for an event.
Conversion rate is the king of the KPIs. Marketers labor over bumping it up a few points; siteowners pull out their hair trying to optimize every aspect of their platform to increase it. But is it really the key performance indicator we treat it as?
Too often we put conversion rate on a pedestal, succumbing to the tunnel vision of boosting a lionized metric used to analyze the success of a website. We condense a long journey, a process, an entire experience, into a single number (typically around 2%), without ever analyzing or examining the underlying process it took to output that percentage.
Many marketers or designers have instead opted for a deeper analysis of conversion rate, scrutinizing the steps a user takes to achieve conversion. These steps have given rise to a new strategy: optimizing for micro-conversions.
What Are Micro-Conversions?
Imagine you’re constructing a building. The safety, stability, and overall quality of the structure you’re assembling depends on the materials you’re using. You can stack up walls, floors, and ceilings brick-by-brick to erect a building, but if you’ve bought low-quality bricks, that building’s
Via: The Micro-Conversion Controversy