
Why Users Don’t Fill Out Sign Up Forms - voodoochilo
http://uxmovement.com/forms/8-reasons-users-arent-filling-out-your-sign-up-form/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+uxmovement+%28ux+movement%29
======
ghoul2
These are all really just UX-focussed _improvements_ to make it easier for a
user to fill out forms. From a _users_ perspective - well, at least my
personal perspective - the reasons are a lot different:

1\. I am not convinced you need the information you are asking me to fill out
- especially if I am just trying to figure out what your service does.
Generate "guest" credentials for me if you want me to try it out. I am really
not going to bother registering at the dozens of new services I try out (or
attempt to try out) every week. Not worth it. Once I have taken it for a test
drive and am convinced the service if of value to me, I will gladly fill out
the information needed, but yet again, will refuse to provide even a single
bit more than I consider _strictly_ necessary to provide the service. For
example, If you are providing say, email alerts using text messages, I do not
see why you need to have my A/S/L.

2\. I do not believe it when a new service "promises" to keep my information
private and secure, or to never spam me. This promise is rarely kept - maybe
it was meant when it was made, but soon the service gets new investors, maybe
a new marketing head who believes _her_ new email newsletter is NOT spam, etc
etc. You know the best way to have that promise kept? To not share the info in
the first place!

3\. For the same reason, I will not give you access to my FB/Twitter
credentials by using their SSO solution to sign-in to your service. That's Too
Much Information. SSO - BrowserID or whatever, is not a solution in this
context. Its merely a way to reduce the impact of a problem which shouldn't
exist in the first place!

4\. Each form is preventing me from doing what I wanted to do - try out your
offering. Decide what is more important to you - that I try out your product,
or that you get another row filled out in your marketing database?

5\. Sure, a well designed form is better than a badly designed form. Whats
even better? No form at all. Imagine a brick and mortar retail location
wishing to interview me regarding my personal info, buying habits etc before
they allow me to enter and browse. Never happens. Instead they try to entice
you later, once you have actually decided to purchase something, to signup for
their loyalty card to gain that additional info.

~~~
StavrosK
Why won't you sign in with Twitter? The best scenario for me is if they only
require read-only access to your timeline. They don't get your email (I
think), and they can't do anything to your account. It's pretty much the least
amount of information you can give, since all the Tweets are public anyway.

~~~
bartonfink
Possible reason - lack of a Twitter account. I don't have one and have little
interest in ever obtaining one as Twitter doesn't solve any problem that I
have.

I could create a Twitter account and only use it as proxy credentials, but
that seems like needless complexity.

~~~
Domenic_S
> Twitter doesn't solve any problem that I have.

Sounds like you contradicted yourself...

~~~
bartonfink
If Twitter is marketing itself as an authorization service, then I am
contradicting myself. It doesn't do that, however, and using it as a proxy for
that is an unnecessary hoop for me to jump through.

------
Duff
My #1 pet peeve is annoying address fields.

I live in New York. Why can't I type "New York", "NY", or have the system
figure out where I live by zipcode. Instead, I get some sort of pull-down
menu.

You already asked me where I live and I filled out the stupid form. So you
know that I said "New York". And that I gave you a US-formatted zipcode. And
that I came from a US IP-Block. And that my browser language is en-us. So why
do you have a mandatory field for "Country" implemented as a massive pull-down
with Afghanistan listed first?

~~~
tedunangst
I am still pleasantly surprised by country pulldowns that list the U.S. first.
It's like, wow, the author actually tried filling this thing in once or twice.

~~~
FuzzyDunlop
Which doesn't solve the problem at all. Unless you live in the US.

There's a startup niche for 'user friendly address entry in forms'.

~~~
jff
There is surely something to be said for making it a little easier for people
in the world's largest single-nation economy to give you money.

~~~
mooism2
There is surely even more to be said for making it a little easier for people
anywhere in the world to give you money.

------
Seth_Kriticos
The most dominant reason for me not to sign up to most random services is that
I'd have to manage another set of credentials. There are tools for that, but
it's still a hassle (and I value my time). Just use SSO solutions like
clickpass (I'm in no way affiliated, just the first thing that came to mind),
and I might stick around, if I like what you provide.

~~~
antninja
SSO is good for free apps. If I built a premium app, I would be reluctant to
rely on Facebook or Twitter to protect my customers' paid accounts or the
access to their credit card numbers.

~~~
AndrewDucker
Not to mention that if you did then I couldn't log in from the office.

~~~
Seth_Kriticos
All valid issues, but none of them blocking IMO.

1\. You'd certainly have to choose the right sources for SSO. I'd say people
usually trust their Google account, so that's a good start (and Google does
payments, so they make sure to keep it tight). Then go from there, I'm sure
other dominant platforms have similar offerings.

2\. You can provide an alternative set of credentials. HN is an excellent
example. You can log in via id+password, OpenID or clickpass.

3\. I will resist signing on until I know you (your application) better. It is
more effective to get my attention first (with something like a limited intro,
showing what's it about) and once I get hooked, present the payment options.
Putting up a pay wall before showing anything is putting me off. Start with
light authentication and then add to it once money enters the game.

ps. Requiring users to create new credentials also results in the "one
password for everything" phenomenon that's so prevalent. I very much doubt
that that will increase security. I'm more inclined to believe that it will do
the opposite, as your service will most likely get the less secure/shared
password from the get go (remember, you customers don't know how much they
will value you later on).

------
entropyneur
The conventional wisdom that asking for credit card on free trial signup is
bad for conversion is hardly an established fact. Sure, more people will fill
out the form (which is admittedly the point of this article), but whether or
not you'll get more paying customers depends on too many factors for there to
be a one true answer. Here's a good discussion of this issue:
[http://www.quora.com/For-web-apps-is-it-better-to-ask-for-
th...](http://www.quora.com/For-web-apps-is-it-better-to-ask-for-the-credit-
card-before-their-trial-starts-e-g-on-the-signup-page-or-after-their-trial-
expires)

Also, some nitpicking: SSL has nothing to do with encrypting information on
the server.

~~~
EvilTerran
But the article's not talking about conversion rates, it's talking about user
experience. It's taking the site user's perspective, not the site owner's.

Asking for credit card details before starting your free trial inevitably
seems scummy from the user's point of view. It's awfully reminiscent of those
services with a "free trial" that start charging you automatically the moment
the trial ends, and make it difficult & laborious to cancel -- those AOL discs
being an infamous example.

I'd also consider it a violation of points 4, 5, and 6, to varying degrees.
Why should I go to the trouble of digging out my card, copying in & double-
checking the numbers (point 5), just so you can hold onto it in a way I can't
know is secure (point 4), when you shouldn't even need it (point 6)?

~~~
entropyneur
Customer experience is only a means (however important) to better business
performance. Even the article title suggests that it's considered in that
context. And frankly, I fail to see what other context can there be.

But more importantly, notice how I refer to it as _customer_ experience. I
couldn't care less about the experience of a random user who is never going to
become a customer. Maybe I want to deliver better service to a smaller subset
of customers. Is it a downgrade from the customer's perspective? I don't think
so.

By asking for the credit card right away I'm simply sending a message that I
need some commitment from you before I give you something for free. Yes, it is
definitely less enjoyable for the user than the other way. But my point is
that viewing it purely from this perspective is useless.

~~~
EvilTerran
"A random user who is never going to become a customer" may still recommend
your service to others, if they like your site in principle, but decide after
trying it that it isn't for them. Or, if they come away with a good
impression, they may think of you before your competitors if they need such a
service later.

For instance, I've never given <http://nearlyfreespeech.net> a cent
personally, because I don't need a website at present -- yet I've recommended
them to about half-a-dozen people who've gone on to sign up with them, because
their website makes it easy for me to understand what they've got going for
them. Also, when I _do_ need a small website, they're at the top of my list
for hosting.

As such, structuring the UX so users who are currently ambivalent about paying
you in the future are forced to make a decision now may be good for your
conversion rate, but I don't believe it's self-evidently good for the size of
your customer base long-term.

Consider a real-world analogy: if I go into a shop, just to browse, with no
intent to buy anything at the time, and the staff are frosty to me because of
that, I'm gonna badmouth that shop to my friends. I believe most people would
do likewise.

Maybe I'm just an idealist, with my liking to think of the business-customer
relationship as a co-operative one, with both sides working for their mutual
betterment. The "customer experience is merely a means to higher profits; if
it needs sacrificed to achieve that goal, so be it" attitude turns that
relationship into an adversarial one. I find that... distasteful. To the point
that I go out of my way to avoid businesses that I feel are trying to
manipulate me through their UX -- the archetypal, pushy door-to-door salesman,
for instance.

Maybe that's just me. I like to think not.

------
alan_cx
This sounds terrible, but for me at least it is true.

I don't fill out forms unless I have to because I sit back in my chair,
relaxing surfing the web, and use my mouse almost exclusively to do so. To
fill out a form I have to move and do something. I have to shift my comfy
position, lean forward and get both hands involved. Too often I will find that
I wasted my time and effort as what I get for filling out a form was simply
not worth it.

Honestly, and perhaps, tragically, that is the real reason why. Other reasons,
like those in the article, do play a part, but effort is a huge part of it.

If there were some way that I could fill out a form by clicking my mouse a few
times, I'd be more likely to.

~~~
jmilloy
> 5\. Too much work to fill out compared to value gained

You're not really that different - sounds like number 5 precisely.

~~~
alan_cx
Well, that just goes to show how lazy I am. Its funny. I read the article,
honest, and I with out reading it again, I don't remember that at all. Some
thing is wrong...

In fairness to me, I was more thinking that pathetic physicality of it, which
I think is kinda different. But, I suppose I'm too lazy to argue it. So, I
take the gentle slap :)

------
rickdale
Reason Number 9: User can't figure out the captcha and finds its seriously
annoying when repeatedly trying.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
ReCAPTCHA is terrible at this. It doesn't achieve its goal of reading books
well, since it frequently brings up words that use unusual letters or
diacritics that most users won't be able to type. Because of those letters,
transliterations by one user can be wildly different from another, making the
system think you got it "wrong". And finally, they're often hard to read.

~~~
diggan
It does achive it's goals. It uses two words. One word that they know what
letters it is and one that the letters is unknown.

Read more here: <http://www.google.com/recaptcha/learnmore>

~~~
toyg
Tangentially, has anyone seen the actual hard data produced by recaptcha? It's
hard to say whether it's effective or not, without looking at actual numbers
(i.e. ratio of correct results, average results per image etc etc).

------
ruswick
The one thing that kills me is having a service that invites you to sign up
with Twitter of Facebook, but then afterwards also requires you to fill out a
huge form with all of your other info. The whole point of signing up with
Twitter of Facebook is that it's supposed to be quick and simple. Forms like
that defeat the purpose.

~~~
leviathant
Absolutely. I've tried to "sign up with Facebook" about five times, and four
of those times, after "signing up" it asked me to enter my email, create a
username & password, and fill in my first and last name. I was optimistic that
the pattern would change, but now I completely avoid using any external
Facebook account integration.

------
atacrawl
I would add a ninth reason -- perceived length. Over the course of my career,
it's been proven true that conversion rates are higher when the shorter the
form appears to be. Basically, don't ask for anything that isn't necessary
from a data perspective, and if you do, hide _everything_ until it's
absolutely necessary.

~~~
hammock
Always A/B test. I recently shortened a registration form and it REDUCED
completion rates by 20%. Especially surprising to me considering some of the
questions removed were highly invasive/personal.

~~~
dmix
I've also done a ton of testing on high traffic forms and reducing forms from
7 to 5 fields had a negligible effect on signups.

Also dont forget the emotional experience of using your site. Hiding fields
might make them continue filling it out longer, but it might leave a negative
impression on your company for not honestly showing how much work its going to
be from the beginning.

------
skore
Reason Number 0: Because your users have decided they aren't THAT into signing
up with you, after all.

It may sound like a conflation of the other reasons that were listed (just
lower the barrier and people will care _enough_ to sign up), but it's more
important than that. I have to tell this to my clients (website developers)
over and over again - No matter how much you tweak your signup form, the
single and best asset you can have in enticing signups is something that the
user _really, really_ wants to sign up for.

Put differently - There surely is some wiggle room in pushing a couple of
percentage points out of your signup statistics, but that often ranges with
the margin of statistical error.

No optimization will ever make up for asking users to sign up for something
they don't actually want or need.

While blog posts like this one are nice for people who obsess about
optimization, I have seen them do a lot of damage - for instance, I still get
people who are convinced that _the one thing_ that is holding back their
business is having a four page signup (membership selection, registration
details, confirmation, checkout) instead of a three page setup. Some even go
so far as to demand that everything should be on a single page.

In my experience, there is a clear, inversely proportional relation between
the obsession over signup optimization and the value that the website offers
to customers.

If your website gives out free gourmet food and massages, you can literally
require people to fill out ten page forms and ask for confirmation via
standard mail - your signup form will still convert users like crazy. At the
opposite end of that scale, there are forms like the recent April Fools joke
'Google Nigeria' - the simplest possible form: Enter your Credit Card details
and be done.

Sorry about the rant, but this (pardon my french) wanking about optimization
has produced a lot of endless, annoying discussions with clients who burn up
all their time on optimization - time that they should have rather put into
having a sound business idea that people would actually care about.

(And yes, I know that #5 and #8 go in the same direction as this rant, but
they just range in a completely different category and all this just triggered
my rage mode.)

------
kulkarnic
I am very loathe to trust this article because a) there are 8 reasons
mentioned. If you're trying to change your design, you want the top 2 or 3
that give you the most bang for your buck.

and b) because the author doesn't say where s/he got this data from. Was it a
diary study? Interviews? Observational studies? Introspection?

Without knowing how hte data was generated, I don't see why it should be
trusted (yes, it may be valid, but would you spend the next 8 hours "fixing"
your site based on someone's quickly written article?)

~~~
j_s
Your complaint b) seems to apply to everything recommended by the
uxmovement.com site. This is interesting to me because of things like the
infamous '41 shades of blue' at Google:
<http://stopdesign.com/archive/2009/03/20/goodbye-google.html>

------
chrisfarms
> This application will not be able to...

^-- should read "This application will NEVER..."

It's easier to skim read and more finite imo

~~~
ams6110
Agreed; in general you should avoid passive voice.

~~~
j_baker
I think that advice is a bit antiquated. There are plenty of times where the
passive voice is ideal. One very common reason to use the passive voice is
that the end of a sentence is the ideal place to put something you want
emphasized:

This house was _robbed_!

Vs

Someone _robbed_ this house.

See the difference?

