For quite a while now, newspapers have been fighting upstream against other news outlets, blogs, and content sources in a battle for readership. Hell, even things like Twitter can be better and faster for getting eyeballs on an issue than mainstream sites. They’ve had many run of the mill issues, like simply lacking aesthetically pleasing designs with good information architecture that invite users in. But then there have been more specific problems like paywalls, popover ads, and interstitials which have been subject of much derision (and savvy users have been capable of working around them since nearly day one). Read More
Take a moment and think about your listing of majors and minors. Really think about it. Is it good? Does it reflect how great your offerings are? Is it even accurate? Is it just a stupid, boring, damned list (if you’re interested in something a bit off the beaten path, check out RIT’s Pathfinder system or look at what the University of Arizona is doing)? If the answer is yes, I want to kick you an idea. Filtrify.
On its face, Filtrify is just another jQuery plugin that you can use for atomic control of a collection of DOM elements. Which is cool enough I suppose. But check out this example on their demo site. Now, instead of movies, imagine it’s student action photos from different programs, or some other visual representation of the program. Instead of genres and actors and directors as filters, you have schools and interests and jobs. It would leave you with an interactive program listing that invites a user in to play and explore. In this particular case, Filtrify is serving as an extension of the live filter design pattern – enabling a user to see all the available options, and then selectively removing that which isn’t relevant to them. People like toys, and they are inherently curious. Create an environment that promises an opportunity for exploration, and you’ll net some explorers.
But wait, it doesn’t have to be Filtrify per se, either – that’s just one idea. Something like filtering blocks would work just as well. As would something you come up with entirely on your own. The trick is, you need to start rethinking the UX of the program listing (and probably a lot of other stuff on your sites, too), and really consider how your tools may be impacting prospective students’ ability to see you as the right institution for them. Jakob Nielsen pointed out how bad lists could be nearly a decade ago (see #7), yet schools seem to be married to them for lack of the desire to construct a better way. People don’t find long, unfilterable lists to be user-friendly at all. We already know that 17% of students will drop a school from their list if they can’t find what they want on your site. Even more will mark a school down if they have a bad experience. What is that risk worth?
The underlying issue here is that schools need to start putting more effort into the next step of their web design processes, and start looking at the user experience of what they are making. It’s easy and fast to slap stuff together and move on, but there is enormous value in usability testing. It’s part of the overall process that is too frequently skipped, since a webpage published is frequently seen as “good enough.” While the old fashioned linked list may be functionally adequate for the data being displayed, it’s a terrible way to encourage interaction and leave a good impression on your visitor.
Even if you didn’t want to use a library like Filtrify, you can still come at the problem of filtering content in a user friendly way by falling back on some basic principles like LATCH. LATCH is a content filtering methodology that most users are, consciously or not, readily able to adapt to. That makes it a great place to start when trying to solve the problem of helping people find what they need in any large archive of structured information.
So how could we apply LATCH to a set of link filters for our program listings? Here’s one example (and there are plenty others):
- Location: This could be a physical campus location, online programs, or a more meta concept like a college or school.
- Alphabetical: This pretty much goes without saying. But keep in mind your taxonomy might not be the same as the visitors. Don’t be afraid to overload topics and point them to the same overall detail page.
- Time: This one can be harder, but could be length of the overall program, number of credit hours, or number of total semesters.
- Category: Think generalized subject or job areas here. For instance, “teaching” will likely return a number of different specializations.
- Hierarchy: You could use this to break down by schools and departments, or requirements, or to set up graduate tracks
The insane part about all this is that in many cases it would only take a little work to make fairly significant usability improvements over the current lists of programs. Something as basic as a live search filter would provide users with at least a little empowerment over the current model for many schools. Empowered users will be engaged users. And it’s much easier to get an engaged user to fill out an application. And on the other hand, if the technology you’re employing on your website doesn’t instill them with faith in you to be modern and student-centric, then they’ll move on.
Majors, minors, and programs are just one of many examples that could benefit from a little of this kind of TLC. I mention it as the focus of this post mainly because it tends to be really high in the funnel though. But how about:
- Student organizations
- Offices and departments
- Faculty listings
How many things could you improve with just a few hours work, and a little focus on the overall UX of the content you are trying to present? Which do you think your visitors would get better use out of? Are you particularly proud of your program listing page? Share it in the comments below for others to see. And if anyone actually does build a site based on Filtrify, let me know, I’d love to see how it turns out!
October is rapidly approaching. What’s so special about October? According to the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), any Title IV institution receiving federal money will have to have a cost calculator on their website by October 29th. As this deadline approaches, tools are beginning to be made available to help you meet the requirements of the law. The problem is that while it’s easy (generally speaking) to comply with the law, it’s quite hard to do it in a way that makes the tool easily usable by prospective students.
So, what’s the issue? Well, the least of the problems is the fact that the law was written by people without the slightest clue as to what “usability” means. In typical fashion, they threw down requirements and expected us to solve the problem. However, meeting the requirements involves calculating a relatively complex amount of data, forcing asking users to fill out detailed forms to get the cost of attendance (in some cases, needing to answer as many as 48 questions). So, in demanding we make available the net cost, they’ve outlined a tool that is, at its base implementation, something people won’t use.
You may already have a calculator on your site (you certainly should, you’re selling a product, and people want to know what it costs), but it’s important to realize that it may need modified to meet federal requirements. Here are the main things:
- Average “net price” is the yearly price actually charged to first-time, full-time undergraduate students minus the amount of aid given to all students divided by the number of students getting aid. So NP = Cost – (total aid given/# students getting aid)
- Include data elements to approximate the student’s Expected Family Contribution (EFC), such as income, number in family, and dependency status or factors that estimate dependency status (An institution may use either Federal Methodology or Institutional Methodology to approximate the student’s EFC)
- You can ask for additional information to better compute net cost, but you cannot require any data beyond the base requirements of the Federal Template (see below).
Additionally, when calculating the final net cost, institutions must give the user:
- Estimated total price of attendance
- Estimated tuition and fees
- Estimated room and board
- Estimated books and supplies
- Estimated other expenses (personal expenses, transportation, etc.)
- Estimated total grant aid
- Estimated net price (calculated as much as practical given appropriate need and/or merit based aid)
- Percent of the cohort (full-time, first-time students) that received grant aid
- Caveats and disclaimers, as indicated in the HEOA
To put it simply, go look at the federal template below. Whatever it does, you need to do.
Cost calculators should be considered one of your best recruitment tools on your website, regardless of the federal mandate. The 2010 Noel-Levitz E-Expectations data showed that 68% of prospective students indicated that calculators had a lot of value to them, with nearly a third saying it actively improved their perception of the school. Luckily, there are a number of paths you can take to get a calculator on your site, if you are still wondering what to do.
This is the little guy that started it all. It is a great place to start if you need an idea of how this thing should work. Also, if you simply need to get something up and running, this will satisfy all of the base HEOA requirements. You’ll need quite a bit of data from your financial aid people (but that’s true no matter what), but with that in hand, you just fill out a couple pages of forms and it will give you a zip file to download that’s customized with your data. The Good: it’s a quick, canned solution. The Bad: it’s ugly, it’s inaccessible, and it’s not real easy to customize. This really should probably be considered just a starting point, rather than a long term solution. For instance, the final result page isn’t particularly user friendly and doesn’t do much to present the final cost in a way that makes it stand out. If you just need to get a handle on where you should be starting, this will definitely get you rolling.
The folks at Noel-Levitz were fast to jump on the calculator train, and were one of the first (if not the first) to have an offering to the market back in July of 2010. That said, I will call them the best of a bad breed (sorry guys). The advantage is, they are actively committed to making sure their tools come out top notch. Why am I not totally on board here? Accessibility is still a problem they need to address (in all fairness, no different from anything else I’ve seen so far). Also, the accordion style form they implemented as you proceed through the calculator runs the risk of intimidating or confusing users. This is supported by their own data which shows an 81% completion rate of scholarship estimates, dropping to a 39% completion rate of full estimates. That’s a major dropoff in the funnel that I would argue is a clear indication of usability problems (again, not unique to Noel-Levitz, I’d expect similar results for others as well). The output isn’t terrible though, for the users who are willing to stick it out to the end. They also allow pretty complete customization of data collection. You can try it out at their demo site.
Sorry, I don’t know anything about these folks, aside from the fact that they made calculators for higher ed. If anyone is using either of these options (or something else entirely), it’d be nice to hear your assessment in the comments.
Back in 2009, Robert Collins, vice president of student financial aid at the University of Phoenix, commented on cost calculators: “There is a tradeoff between accuracy and complexity. You need to balance the way that you present this to students.” He couldn’t be more right. And as soon as you start talking about things like EFC, you’re already making the calculator more complicated than a normal user should need to put up with. Cost calculators are a beautiful disaster of factors, combining UX with federal law, internal campus politics, math, and programming. Basically, I feel like we can break this down to three major problems.
There are two big issues I see with the data of calculators. The first is the array required to determine aid for EFC. It’s a pain to input and visitors will rarely know their anticipated EFC when filling out the form. Without EFC involved, you’re talking pretty simple stuff. The second main issue is that while HEOA gives us minimum requirements, it has set up an arms race condition for schools. Financial aid offices are terrified of providing inaccurate cost estimates, and will be driven to compete with schools providing lower or more accurate figures. They are bound to get hung up on minute details of financial aid calculations. You can’t do that though without causing more setup work and making the user end more complex. The problem is, you can not and should not be trying to port your full blown aid calculation algorithms to a simple cost calculator. It should be just that: simple. People will understand it’s just an estimate, like the sticker price on a car in a commercial. Some calculators ask for information that simply should not be necessary for a simple cost calculation, like age of oldest parent or number of people in household. A prospective student shouldn’t be worrying about that kind of data until they are filling out the FAFSA. Period. The less data you require from the end use, the better conversions will be.
It’s a fact of life. The more fields you put on a form, and the more steps it takes to fill out, the worse your conversions on that form will be. Every usability expert on the planet will tell you that. As mentioned, the Noel-Levitz numbers back it up. On top of it, there aren’t a lot of high schoolers floating around that know what their parents reported income was for the past year, or have an idea how much their parents will be contributing to their tuition payments. Towards the end of the article, you’ll see a gallery of current calculators. Some of them look like they want to actively discourage people from using them. At the end of the calculations, many of the tools spit out so many numbers and dollar values that you need an accountant to figure out which one you should be paying attention to. And if they are doing something wrong, offer clear and obvious error messages. Don’t deny them results if they forget to tell you how many cats they own. And for gods’ sake, don’t reload the form page empty if there’s an error and force them to re-enter all their data. Stop hating your users, please.
Improvements to Consider
Here are a few thoughts to consider that would help your overall calculator. Additionally, I’d love to hear what you think would help as well, just drop a comment.
- Make it accessible. Please. This isn’t hard to do.
- Start with a SIMPLE cost calculation that requires the absolute minimum amount of information possible from the user. Once they complete that, offer to give them a more accurate assessment if they are willing to take a few minutes and share more detailed information. That way you don’t discourage window shoppers.
- Make use of nice, visual price representations. The Noel-Levitz True Cost Calculator has done a nice job at this. The Google Charts API can help the DIY folks. People process visual data faster and easier than text.
- Make the total cost obvious. Like crazy obvious. You have to present a lot of numbers under the guidelines, you don’t want the most important number lost in the mix.
- Give users a channel to get help quickly: phone, Twitter, Facebook – whatever will get them answers fastest while they are at the calculator.
- Make it easy to get the users into an admissions funnel after they’ve calculated costs.
- Include helpful tips that can lower the total cost further.
- Let me reiterate making the initial experience as simple as possible. We’re talking Fisher-Price simple here.
- Net Price Calculator Requirements
- Price Tags and Net Cost Calculators
- Adding It All Up: An Early Look at Net Price Calculators
- An Early Look at Net-Price Calculators
Some Examples From Around the Web
These aren’t necessarily highlights of good calculator design. Rather, I just went out and grabbed a random sampling of what people are doing. Actually, if I had to grade us based on this sampling, we aren’t doing so hot. At best, some of these are functional, at worst, they are outright confusing. But I still think it’s worth seeing how others are approaching the problem, if only to get an idea of what to be avoiding.