Here I present the research process followed when redefining the taxonomy within the product catalog for Mango's online store.
Having worked internally, we set out to find out the client's point of view. In this second exploration phase, we aimed to obtain information that allowed us to understand their needs when defining the taxonomy they expect to find when searching at Mango's catalog.
As a first activity, we sent a remote card sorting test, divided by the 4 lines of Mango (Woman, Man, Kids, and "Plus sizes"). In total, we received a response by 202 participants, 50 users per line. This activity allowed us to understand in what way they establish the categorization of content. In the same way, we could see what content they were not being able to categorize due to compression problems with the copy being used. We also understood, at what points our internal proposal matched or didn't match with theirs, as well as analyzing the differences between the different profiles.
The next activity consisted of 4 workshops with 5 participants each. Each workshop focused on understanding the different types of users for each of the lines (Woman, Man, Kids, and "Plus sizes"). We were able to generate a map of attitudes and habits of search and findability of the product according to each of the profiles identified. We obtained relevant information about the terms our customers use when referring to each type of content. We repeated the card sorting activity, to be able to compare with the previous one so we could be able to identify the differences between them and between different user profiles.
With all these insights, we moved on to the next phase, validation. Having reached this point, the objective would be to make a taxonomy proposal that we would validate with remote users. To do this, we sent an online tree testing, with a series of tasks about the taxonomy. This remote exercise was sent to users from the 5 countries with the highest number of visits and purchases (Spain, France, Germany, USA, and the United Kingdom). As a result, we obtained confirmations in the areas in which the proposal adjusted to the user's expectations.
To validate the taxonomy points that needed improvements, and allow the user to find the content faster, we did the last exercise with clients. We invited 5 clients and proposed a series of tasks related to the 4 lines. This allowed us to validate whether both the taxonomy and the functionality were correct.