
Don't Waste Time on User Onboarding - DanHulton
https://greaterdanorequalto.com/dont-waste-time-on-onboarding/
======
waylandsmithers
I get that there are probably established best practices that people follow
for designing onboarding but I've never experienced one as a user that I
didn't want to immediately dismiss or skip through.

~~~
burtonator
Here are our stats for Polar....

Before onboarding our cohort retention was 2%...after 1 week.

This means that after a week only 2% of our users came back to use the app.

After a basic onboarding we jumped to 10%. We're now at about 14-15% (just via
improving the app).

About 50% of our users completely skip the onboarding altogether.

I think I'm going to experiment with a video instead of a tour to see the
difference.

~~~
dlanouette
> About 50% of our users completely skip the onboarding altogether.

How is this different than when you had no onboarding? (serious question) Did
you make other changes that made the onboarding process less important to end
users?

~~~
virgilp
The glass is half full, not half empty. About 50% of users DON'T skip
onboarding - and for those users, it really matters.

------
natvod
Something I've noticed is a lot of companies use user onboarding and
educational messages as a crutch for confusing UX and product experiences.

Many companies also have a one-size-fits-all approach to onboarding, where
they send the same messages to all users, regardless of their in-product
actions. Instead, it's better to trigger relevant messages if the user has
taken a specific action and hasn't taken the next step to achieve Y result.

You can always send onboarding sequence to users who haven't taken any actions
at all.

It should also be noted that for some established companies, a lot of their
onboarding isn't necessarily to educate you but to force you to take certain
actions that their testing has shown will make you active. For example,
Pinterest forces you to follow certain topics when you sign up.

------
Animats
He has one good point about user testing. The way to test a user interface is
well understood, but not done enough. You have a setup to take video of the
screen _and the user_ at the same time. You get some people roughly comparable
to the desired user base to try it. Alone, with no help. You give them a set
task to accomplish.

Then you have someone review and annotate the videos. Where did people get
stuck? Where did they back up? Where did they give up? Put together a
highlights reel and have the developers and managers watch it. It's usually
obvious by that point what's wrong.

------
ddebernardy
My only point of contention after skimming through the article is with the
trial period. The other side of that coin is that, if it's too short then
users bookmark your site thinking they'll sign up later and forget, and if it
doesn't exist then users may end up not signing up at all and going with the
free option instead. In practice it really depends on the product's
criticality.

~~~
arkitaip
Came to write this. Companies forget that their product isn't evaluated in a
vacuum, that for any serious business need, a person or an group is going to
evaluate multiple products for a extended period of time. Having no trial
period or a very short one means losing out of business simply because of
short term greed. Also, it doesn't help that psych pop is used to arbitrarily
justify any conversion tactic.

~~~
DanHulton
It's an optimization problem - you lose X% of people if your trial is long
enough that they don't prioritize evaluating it before it expires. You lose Y%
of people if your trial is too short for them to evaluate it against
competitors. If X > Y, shorten your trial. If Y > X, lengthen it.

The problem comes in the fact that it's really hard to identify what X and Y
are - there's some voodoo involved in properly attributing actual reasons for
not converting a trial.

This is why I like the idea of going immediately paid with a very-long money-
back guarantee, though that comes with its own optimization problems.

~~~
ddebernardy
In my mind, there's more to it than a metrics-driven optimization in isolation
from the rest of the company.

In your example, the Y% of people you might lose if your trial is too short
may very well turn out to be higher paying and/or lower churn customers. What
you suggest in your post is the marketing equivalent of sales and support
ignoring the colloquial small fry, without realizing that the latter might be
sitting on company boards and referring large clients.

Also, if they bookmark the service until they can set aside a time to sign up
and evaluate (which as an occasional buyer of SaaS products, I can anecdotally
report that some do), you'd have no way to reach out to them and build a
relationship unless they contacted you.

By contrast, if you have a free tier, and/or make it clear from the outset
that when your trial expires you'll be able to do new ones when the product
hits major milestones, then you have the end-user's email, you're building a
relationship, you can interview the end-user to understand why they didn't
convert, you can try to rescue trials that didn't move forward with a sale for
a reason or another, etc.

------
nathan_f77
This article is great, and full of really helpful advice!

I think the best advice for me was "Add sample data to avoid an empty nest." I
just realized that my product has this problem, so I'm going to be adding some
sample data for new users. I think I'll also have a toggle switch so you can
easily hide all the samples. (It would be annoying if you had manually delete
everything.)

Concierge setup is also a great idea, and I've recently been offering that to
new customers.

~~~
jstanley
Instead of adding sample data when the initial view would be empty, I prefer
to replace the empty view with a message about what the user should be doing
first.

So instead of "0 photos" and a blank page, it could say "Get started by
[uploading some photos]".

~~~
arkitaip
It annoys me when onboarding basically means having to delete the demo data
that was automatically added because I like my apps clean and tidy, and
because random data makes it difficult to discover the app's functionality my
myself. Maybe there's a compromise where you can suggest to the user that they
can import demo data to see the potential of the app?

~~~
narrowtux
When I tried Asana, they had lots of example projects you could choose to add.
These showed what's possible with the more advanced features.

I really like this approach because the use case for products like these
varies from one client to another. Just throwing in some demo data that's
always the same wouldn't really help everyone.

------
mitko
The article talks about “user onboarding” as if it is different from the first
run experience. Perhaps it is a SaaSy jargon to separate them. But for us at
Sleek, we obsess over the first run as it is how we onboard users - until the
user has gone through their use case, we assume they’re new to it.

Learn by doing, not by learning.

~~~
DanHulton
It's one of those weird terms that seems to mean different things to different
people. For some, it means "first-run experience", and for some it means "the
tooltip hoops you make people jump through". I think for too many, it's the
latter.

But yeah, many people only _get_ a first run. You have to obsess over it,
because if that doesn't work for you, it can be like pulling teeth to get
people to come back.

------
networkimprov
On the other hand, if you're offering something that breaks with an
established paradigm -- i.e. first-time viewers don't know what to expect, a
short storyboard to clarify your model might be invaluable, and worth fussing
over.

~~~
jimktrains2
I'd venture to say that breaking UI paradigms shouldn't be taken lightly. Your
application is not special to me, the user. I don't want to have to learn how
to use the interface of dozens of different applications because they all
thought they were special snowflakes and could break established paradigms.

~~~
networkimprov
I was referring to application paradigms, not common UI patterns.

~~~
jimktrains2
What's the distinction? If a user is surprised by what happens when they
interact with the UI, the UI has failed.

If we're talking about an application that requires a lot of outside knowledge
(e.g. GIS (Geographic Information Systems (mapping)), accounting, video
editing), you're not going to be able to "teach" the user what they need to
know in the UI or some short videos.

In one case on-boarding is a symptom of a bad UI, in the other it's more-or-
less useless.

------
wishrider
But how do I get visitors in the first place, this is the first challenge.
Twitter is pretty good at hiding my promotion tweets from other users...

~~~
onion2k
No idea if this is common practise, but I block any account that promotes a
tweet in to my timeline so I don't see it again. If it is, and you're serving
a niche market with few people who'll buy from you, promoting tweets _could_
be a really bad idea.

~~~
michaelbuckbee
I've heard others do this as well and I don't quite understand it. If you
don't want to see ads, sure maybe use AdBlock or PiHole, but why block the
company?

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you offended that the company
spent money on a promoted tweet? That it was an overreach on their part?

~~~
onion2k
_If you don 't want to see ads, sure maybe use AdBlock or PiHole, but why
block the company?_

Blocking the company stops the tweet appearing _everywhere_ I see tweets.
That's on my home computer, laptop, Chromebook, office computer, my phone,
etc. It continues to block the ads from that company if/when Twitter work out
ways around ad-blockers. And it makes me feel like I'm proactively looking
after my account.

I use ad blockers as well.

 _are you offended that the company spent money on a promoted tweet?_

I just find that Twitter promotes the same tweets over and over again, so if
you don't block them it gets very repetitive. If I was actually offended I'd
reply first so they had to pay for an engagement as well as the promotion.

~~~
jordanpg
I don't want to see ads, _ever_. I hope a growing number of people feel the
same way.

I don't care about the business model of the whole internet. It is obviously a
house of cards. A business model based on bad UX? I hope it collapses.

No, I don't know what will replace it. I don't care, as long as it doesn't
involve ads.

I really don't care if the ads are innocuous or labeled or relevant. I don't
_ever_ want to see an unsolicited nudge to spend money on something. _Ever_. I
can't be any more clear than this. I hope there are more like me every day.

~~~
enlyth
I completely agree.

I don't care if your ad is clever, relevant, organically sourced,
environmentally friendly, necessary for financing your product, something I
actually want, need, or didn't know I wanted yet.

The internet is plagued with this cancer everywhere you go, no matter what you
do. Somehow it's become acceptable that every second of our attention and time
is competed for by corporations trying to sell us things.

I simply do not want to see ads, ever.

~~~
jimmaswell
I don't understand this overreaction. Ads are there, so what, they don't even
make noise or tend to cover parts of the screen like they used to.

~~~
_Understated_
You need to look at what powers the ads.

It's never "just" an ad. Like the way you see an ad in a newspaper. It's the
spyware that comes with it and the fact that tons of them are animated!

And yes, I consider it spyware and virus-like behaviour to track me wherever I
go and I will actively do what I can to stop it. Even if it means you don't
get paid... you chose that seedy medium to make money, not me. It's not my job
to validate your business model.

By all means block me. I will go elsewhere.

Browsing the internet without an ad blocker is actually impossible for me
now... whenever I rebuild a machine I have those few hours or so before I get
the ad blocker installed where the internet is a horrific assault on the
senses with everything trying to steal my attention away from the thing I am
there to see and slowing down the page load (significantly in some cases)

I still remember when plenty of the internet was running fine from hobbyists
and whatnot without resorting to ads and tracking... it costs practically zero
to run a website (granted, at scale it's a whole other ball-game but how many
people have that problem?)

The internet would survive fine without ads. It would have a different mix of
behemoths and hobbyists sites but it would survive just fine.

That being said... I do remember trying to punch the monkey to win :D

Edit: added stuff for clarity

------
httpsterio
I was a bit sceptical when I read the title, but the author raises a good
point about calcifying users into suboptimal ux decisions.

Wofkflow breaking UI changes are always hard and there's always someone whose
use case [you're breaking]([https://xkcd.com/1172](https://xkcd.com/1172)).
Then again, you can't please everyone and it might hurt to stick with older
decisions.

Onboarding itself is extremely valuable. No application is so self explanatory
that everyone gets it without a guide. When should you onboard then? I'd say
when you're sure that you're not doing any major changes within the next few
months.

All UIs can and should be iterated upon and it helps if you have a timeline on
when you're upgrading which views and components and it'll help you decide
when to launch the initial onboarsing process.

~~~
jimktrains2
> Onboarding itself is extremely valuable.

As a user, I find them extremely annoying. They stop me from achieving what I
want to achieve and I try to get rid of them as quickly as possible. I also
find them as the hallmark of a bad UI -- if you have to tell me how to use
your product, then it's not well designed.

~~~
dotancohen
> if you have to tell me how to use your > product, then it's not well
> designed.

VIM users, licensed drivers, and pilots would disagree. Powerful tools require
training. If you're pushing an app that I'm already familiar with before I've
ever used it, then you are obviously not innovating.

~~~
chillfox
As VIM user, a licensed driver, and a pilot, I would like to point out that
there’s a huge difference in risk of death and injury between those.

Learning vim can be done quite safely by trial and error, then googling for
how to do specific things when interested. The other two, not so much.

So unless you’re product has a risk of death or severe injury then I will
agree that it shouldn’t need training.

About planes. Unlike cars, they don’t have a standard cockpit layout which
leads to lots of bad design In my opinion.

------
mrharrison
Don't waste too much time on user on boarding, but putting some time towards
user on boarding is good exercise to see if your product is understandable and
are any holes that may off put users.

------
northerdome
It has it's place for the right use case. Superhuman requires you to go
through a 30 minute on-boarding one on one with a person. Superhuman isn't the
most intuitive if you don't take the time to learn it as it's efficiencies
come from keyboard shortcuts and features that differ from established email
norms. For this kind of B2B app with a certain level complexity a seamless on-
boarding makes all the difference. I never would have use the app long term if
not for the process.

------
thirteen37
While the article has done good points about what to do instead of an on-
boarding, I'd also suggest on-boarding can be good for the user. Video games
tend to do on-boarding, and often it's not skippable and covers very basic
idioms (use the left stick/WASD to move).

The difference I think it's the novelty of the new environment and a sense of
accomplishment that it rarely is a chore. So go ahead and on-board if the user
gets to see something very cool.

------
calewis
If you need to create on-boarding your product is to complicated. Add features
over time, measure there impact and remove them if they don’t work.

~~~
atoav
I disagree. there are products that are complicated, because the underlying
problem your product helps to solve is complicated. And if there are existing
solutions that tackle this problems differently to you, you might have to give
users a pointer.

If you e.g. design a software for electronic circuit design, good user on-
boarding will allow you to highlight specifically why your product shines in
comparison to other products.

Another objection: some “products” are specifically meant to work for power
users and a increased software complexity can increase the working speed and
power you give to the user at the cost of making it harder for new users (e.g.
vim for text editing).

Of course if your product is the equivalent of a egg timer, it should be 100%
self explainatory. And even if you do a electronic circuit design software it
is always good to keep things self explainatory where you can.

But sometimes you have to explain things in order to equip your users with a
new, innovative and powerful concept they might never heard about before.
Removing that concept to avoid complexity could them be akin to changing your
target group. You can fl this, but it needs to fit the concept.

Oh and sometimes you can just do both. Give your app an expert mode.

~~~
overcast
Do you honestly believe you can onboard someone to electronic circuit design
software, by having a bunch of annoying modal boxes popping up showing you
where some key features are? I agree there is complicated software, but that
isn't made less complicated by silly onboarding. And if your software is not
complicated, you're just pissing people off having to click away from all that
junk. If it's not complicated, but confusing, that's a UI design issue that
will not be solved by a 3 minute intro.

~~~
atoav
So you take the idea of on-boarding in it’s most horrible manifestation and
use it as a argument against the fundamental idea of introducing users to new
concepts within the software they are using?

~~~
ben509
Is that really the most horrible manifestation or a typical onboarding
experience in practice?

Most of the onboarding I've seen clearly has some real thought put into it,
but it still _feels_ modal.

They usually involve widgets that pop up and must be dismissed. Often they
pretend to not be modal by not covering the screen, but I assume I have to
chase them down and make them go away.

------
gav
One of my favorite resources for onboarding is Samuel Hulick's
[https://www.useronboard.com/](https://www.useronboard.com/)

His teardowns are particularly valuable to see how others do things and what
does and doesn't work. Plus they're entertaining.

~~~
DanHulton
Absolutely an inspiration of mine. If anything, my only quibble is that he
doesn't go far enough. I'm working on a similar series, except I'm examining
the entire Trial-to-Paid flow, from the moment you sign up to the moment you
convert, including lifecycle emails, payment flow, etc. Takes a while to do,
though, since you usually have a month or more before the email cycle is
exhausted.

------
abitoffthetop
Don't waste time on writing an article about introducing new members either.
just go immediately into another customer manifesto. I appreciate that the
customer has to be the focus, but this article was a bit bait and switch, and
didn't give any time to the legitimate issues of growing a startup team.

------
ypeterholmes
Strange title for an article analyzing onboarding.

------
yeahitslikethat
This is terrible advice. And Click bait.

I'm fact the article gives a lists several things you should do to onboard
customers.

