LexisNexis: Simplifying Search

‍

The above illustrates the multitude of search and browse experiences across the core legal and tax research/guidance tools we offer our customers. Each providing numerous search entry points with varying means to perform advanced search and pre-filtering. Across the products we receive similar complaints regarding unpredictable and unmanageable results lists.

‍

The challenge

How might we simplify the search and browse experience to empower users to complete their research quickly and diligently.

‍

In doing so we can also:

• Create a page and component design system that could be used across our products
• Build re-usable components to save design and develop resources
• Create a cohesive and responsive experience across products and devices

‍

My role in the project

I had previously worked on the discovery and roadmapping of this project back in 2018 when I was working as a permanent employee at LexisNexis and was brought back in as a contractor to improve the working effectiveness and efficiencies between design and product development, which had suffered due to lack of UX support. We had a design direction approved by senior leadership but didn't have a clear path to execution so my role was to develop a roadmap of evolving our current landing experience to the agreed design direction.

‍

‍

Key insights from user research:

I tend to search with either Google or even your competitor product to start a general search, then once I am closer to what I'm looking for I'll move to your product because of your great content

‍

• Users would flip flop between searching and browsing when they couldn't find what they were looking for, causing frustration
• When searching a new topic with broad keywords the result lists were too large and unpredictable causing abandonment
• Users found the advanced search filtering by content type helpful (4 times more likely to have a successful journey according to the data analytics)
• Users didn't understand the breadth and value of the sources available to them.

Key design guidelines:

• The majority of our users want to run a quick keyword search.
• By highlighting content type filters above the search bar we will increase their usage.
• By creating a single search entry point that points to advanced search we improve search usability and predictability.

‍

‍

Challenges faced:

Buy in from senior leadership team that this was the right direction to move in given the learnt search methodologies currently used on the product. We overcame this issue through agreeing to an evolution of the page rather than one large update to the product. We updated the design of the big search bar with high level content type filters sitting above it, which was familiar to users through their use of Google. Then we retired the advanced search box and integrated advanced search fields with the evolved big search bar.

‍

The collaboration and process of design to development had become fractured before my arrival in the team. The development team was pushing ahead without UX/UI contribution. UX was no longer part of story kick-offs, writing of acceptance criteria or doing desk checks. With my arrival I made sure UX was delivering designs prior to sprint refinement and planning so that we could be an integral part of the agile development process, giving the team the deliverables they needed to pick up stories and these stories had UX acceptance criteria that could be checked off in desk checks. This meant being the conduit between our UI designer, Product Manager, Tech leads and squad members to develop a healthy process for development.

‍

Outcomes:

• Successful rollout of new landing page incrementally to customers. 5% initially.
• Successful engagement of global stakeholders to adopt a design system.
• TolleyLibrary NPS rose from 39 - 51
• Usability detractors for Search dropped 3 points