CoEdition.com
CoEdition.com is a women's fashion e-commerce site, founded by former Gilt Groupe executives
​
I worked, as part of a three-person team, as a UX consultant, specifically on the topic of clothing-fit
​
With their VP of Product, we evaluated their site, interviewed customers, looked through competitors, and iterated a design to address fit on their website:
CLIENT DISCUSSION
Our first step was to understand the context & needs of CoEdition users, from their VP of Product
​
We discussed a few possibilities for site re-design, and settled on re-thinking the user's experience with fit: understanding the problem in the marketplace, and how we could possibly address on CoEdition.com
​STORE VISITS
To better understand the landscape of clothing-fit, we visited a number of brick-and-mortar stores in Manhattan
​
Our observations:
-
Stores promised sizes in a broad range (e.g., 00-26), but actual inventory didn't reflect this
-
Inventory, if available, was limited, or located in an inconvenient part of the store
-
Terminology varied:
-
Most listed available sizes rather than categorizing as "plus-sizes"
-
Some used surprising language such as "skinny" to describe fits, rather than body types (e.g., skinny jeans, regardless of the waist size)
-
​DIGITAL COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE
We scoured numerous e-commerce competitors of CoEdition; below are several highlights:
EXPRESS.COM
HIGHLIGHT - Same item on different sized models
CITY CHIC
HIGHLIGHT - visual guide predicts fit
LOWLIGHT - visuals too closely resemble each other
DIA & CO
HIGHLIGHT - detailed questionnaire to predict fit
LOWLIGHT - too detailed for CoEdition
USER INTERVIEWS
-
Working with CoEdition, we obtained a list of engaged customers
-
We emailed a screener survey to each of them, in which we asked basic demo info, screening around the question of whether they struggled with finding clothing that fit online--88% did
-
We only contacted those who fit this criteria + expressed interest in speaking with us:
interview quotes
"I want reviews on nearly everything, ones that are fully transparent."
- Robin
"I don’t have the time to deal with measurements."
- Kylin
"It doesn’t take me really long to choose what to purchase unless it’s a brand that I’ve never worn before."
- Madeleine
AFFINITY MAPPING
We themed interview topics via an Affinity Map:
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
map themes:
Some users need measurements & sizing charts
Some users need visuals to determine fit
Comments & uploads help customers with fit
Customer service can help users decide on fit
ideal product should:
Include visuals & measurements
Ask questions about fit up-front
Explain why the info is needed
USER FLOW OF CLOTHING-FIT
Our interviews revealed very different steps for estimating fit with familiar vs. unfamiliar brands, shown here:
USER ARCHETYPE
We articulated an overview of our user, who we deemed the Fit Seeker:
USER'S PROBLEM STATEMENT
We articulated the key issues for our Fit Seeker:
BRAINSTORMING
Based on the synthesis of Research & Interviews, we held a "Design Studio" to sketch possible solutions, which focused on forming a profile, focused on fit:
FEATURE PRIORITIZATION
Along the way, we performed Feature Prioritization--including the MoSCoW Method (must-should-could-won't) to select areas of focus & ensure the Minimum Viable Product (MVP):
MID/HIGH-FIDELITY PROTOTYPE
As a team we each developed screens that could be used in our recommended product to CoEdition, which focused on the desktop experience
​
Below are some early screens I produced in Sketch, using CoEdition's photos + style guide:
ROUND 1 DESIGN - ANNOTATED WIREFRAMES & CLICKABLE PROTOTYPE
Our team evolved our screens in Sketch + developed a clickable prototype in Invision
We presented our Round 1 Design to our client at CoEdition, summarized below:
CLIENT FEEDBACK
CoEdition suggested several tweaks for Round 2
​
The next round SHOULD:
-
Work for non-logged-in users
-
Stimulate photo uploads from customers
-
Be based in metrics & testable concepts
​
The next round SHOULD NOT:
-
Require universally tagging all products of the site
-
Use "fruit terms" for body types (pear-shaped, etc.)
​
We modified our Round 1 based on the above feedback, and began Usability Testing:
USABILITY TESTING
After making slight modifications, per CoEdition's feedback, we used Maze to test our Round 2 design with users:
MODIFYING DESIGN PER TEST RESULTS
Users were confused by our Round 1 layout, which we addressed below:
ROUND 2 DESIGN
We modified the design--based on User Testing & client feedback--and presented to CoEdition The presentation included metrics for success + a summary of goals met by the re-design:
CONCLUSION
We received positive feedback on the proposed re-design, which met the requirements of interviewed users & the client
CoEdition is currently re-doing their site & considering new features to be integrated