The truth about clicks and conversion

Every time we test processes that have the same content presented in a different amount of steps (and clicks), the results are the same. In a qualitative survey, most users stated that they found the process with more steps longer, but much easier to use. However, interestingly, the data usually proves that the same users actually completed the multi-step variant faster than the one with fewer steps. Additional steps simplify and speed up complex processes.

This seems counter intuitive, but it actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it. By giving the user more clicks, you’re reducing the chances that they will feel overwhelmed or stressed. When stressed, people tend to react defensively. We all know this feeling from filing our tax returns. We put it off until we have no other choice because it’s complicated and time consuming. Apps like TaxFix are successful because they break down the complex form into understandable questions that can be answered in seconds. 

The more complex a process, the more important it is to break it down into simple steps. But how many steps do we need? And what’s too big or too small for one step? Our own rule of thumb is: all information must serve a purpose without the possibility to break it down further. Let's explain the theory by taking a look at an example from a checkout process. Which step makes it unmistakably clear what has to be done, without the possibility to break the step down even further?

1. Fill out the form fields to complete your order. 
2. Enter the payment details to order the product. 
3. Choose a payment method you want to use to pay for the product. 
4. Select the bank of your credit card.  

The correct answer here is ③. The request describes one simple task in order to fulfil a real purpose. You can expect to be prompted by credit card, Paypal, invoice or other. ① and ② are less clear. They are too large and ambiguous. It would be difficult to anticipate the details that would be required. ④ is too specific, there wouldn’t be a clear purpose that this step would fulfill. It wouldn’t help us get closer to our goal. 

So how do you figure out if you need to reduce the complexity of a task by adding more steps/clicks? By weighing up the pros and cons: Is the perceived effort (a longer task) or is the actual cognitive effort the greater hurdle for our application? In general we can say: the higher the cognitive effort, the more clicks we should dedicate to it. 

The higher the risk, the greater the need for control. For example, whenever we as users make an investment that is larger than we are used to, we look for security. And we feel secure when we feel we are in control of the situation. With more steps, we are able to anticipate the effect our actions have. We can also reinforce this feeling with UX design through a high communication density. Including chapter sheets, milestones and summaries to reduce the speed, but increase the feeling of control. More clicks for more security.  

Is it always the case that the higher the security risks, the more we must increase the communication density? If only it were that simple. A high communication density also means more friction. In some cases, we want to reduce any and all friction. For instance, when we recently developed a crypto wallet, we had professional traders needing to complete transactions involving millions of dollars, and fast. Every second counts with their order. Every bit of friction, every extra step can cost money, a lot of money. So we had to make it possible without any control mechanism in this situation. What’s the difference? These users are very familiar with this process, they know what they are doing and they do it all day long. The need for control mechanisms therefore decreases the more experienced users are in the situation. Depending on the context and target group, well-intentioned measures may even be perceived as an obstacle. 

Most interfaces developed in product design tend to be aimed at private users. Often it’s users who aren’t familiar with the system or who will only go through it once. And every single click can create a feeling of control. It’s important to consider how fast the system can go without losing the user. Does our application need more speed or more control? The more control, the more clicks. 

If you think about it, many interaction patterns were developed from when we used to use a mouse and keyboard to navigate our large desktop monitors. This of course was a major advancement over the conventional remote control we used for our TVs (and still do for our Smart TVs today). So when smartphones were introduced, so were gestures (swiping, tapping, etc.) to navigate around on the small, handheld screens.

Anyone who has to fill out the so-called »One Page Checkout« on mobile devices knows how nerve-racking this undertaking can be. Once we activate an input field, the keyboard covers one third of the screen. We then have to use our two thumbs for each input. Auto correct tries to help us but ends up driving us insane, and while we scroll to see what’s left to fill out, we lose sight of the beginning of the form. It’s not fun.

Mobile First design forces us to rethink. We counter the restrictions of the device and the context of the interaction with maximum reduction. We know that the space on the screen is very limited, the time window of attention decreases, and the risk of distraction increases. It is therefore important to keep the obstacles as low as possible, to reduce the cognitive effort to an absolute minimum and to make the interaction as effective as possible. 

All these aspects force us to design tasks sequentially with more clicks and thus to reduce the number of inputs per screen. Usability is related to cognitive effort and the need for control. If an application is to become simple and secure, device-specific optimization becomes important. Here, too, the context determines whether an increased number of clicks is beneficial to usability. As a rule of thumb, the more limited the end device is, the more clicks the process requires.