Usability Report: Google Flights
Introduction
As part of the “Evaluating Designs with Users” course offered through the UX Research and Design Specialization on Coursera, I conducted user research on Google Flights by implementing think-aloud moderated usability testing, semi-structured interview questions before and after usability testing, and measuring overall task completion and System Usability Scale (SUS) scores.
Google Flights is an online flight search and booking platform that allows users to search and compare flight prices and schedules from various airlines and travel agencies. The platform offers a user-friendly interface with advanced filtering options, allowing users to customize their search based on their travel preferences and budget. One of the most noteworthy features of Google Flights is its ability to predict price changes, providing users with valuable insights on when to book a flight. Furthermore, Google Flights integrates seamlessly with other Google services like Google Maps and Google Calendar, streamlining the travel planning and management process.
In contrast to other competitors, such as Skyscanner, Google Flights stands out due to its more comprehensive search capabilities, accurate predictive pricing, and easier integration with other Google services. Google Flights often includes more airlines and travel agencies in its search results, providing users with a wider range of options to choose from. Additionally, the predictive pricing offered by Google Flights is typically more reliable, thanks to the platform’s use of machine learning algorithms that analyse historical flight data.
Despite Google Flights’ benefits, the online flight booking search service has some weaknesses. The goal of this report is to identify the usability issues and pain points that users face when interacting with Google Flights, and to provide actionable recommendations to improve its user experience.
Methodology
💬 Order of Methodology: Introductory user needs assessment, think-aloud moderated usability testing, SUS and closing questions
⚒️ Tools: Zoom (remote usability testing), Google Sheets (collecting task-centric data and calculating SUS scores) and Google Forms (SUS distribution)
Participants
Participants 1 and 2 are price-conscious users who actively monitor discounts and book flights that are accessible and convenient, willing to sacrifice comfort to find the best deal possible. They initially rely on Skyscanner to search for flights, compare flights across different sites and ultimately book directly through the official airline website to avoid hidden costs. The main difference lies in the time of booking and airline preference. While Participant 1 prefers the safer option of planning ahead and booking through the EasyJet website, Participant 2 is willing to take a risk and book last-minute flights through Ryanair’s website.
The use case of Participant 3 differs in several ways. Being an experienced traveller, she prioritizes departure time over price when booking flights. Additionally, she is conscious of environmental issues and prefers flights with lower carbon footprints. Unlike Participants 1 and 2, Participant 3 does not have a strong loyalty to any specific airline.
All participants converge on two key points:
· Their personal experience with planning trips suggests a need for greater transparency and simplicity in the flight booking process, especially when selecting options like luggage, equipment and travel insurance.
· While participants perceive Google to be a well-known brand, they have not yet engaged with Google Flights. This presents an opportunity for Google to attract new users by improving their marketing efforts.
Findings
Usability Testing
Overall, the average SUS score for Google Flights was 58.33, indicating that users found the platform to be challenging to use, and it may not be fully meeting their flight booking needs. As a UX researcher, it’s important to dive deeper into the specific issues that users face and identify the areas that need improvement to improve the platform’s usability.
Task 1: “Find the cheapest 2-way trip from Malta to Paris in the coming 7 days. Your trip should last for 4 to 7 days.”
Positives:
· The minimalistic design of the Google Flights homepage
Negatives:
· Selecting flight dates in the date picker calendar format
· Selecting departing and returning flights in 2 separate pages
· Differentiating pricing information for individual flights and round trips
· Differentiating booking CTA for main airline and third-party booking options
· Navigating through all the flight information generated in the search results grid
Task 2: “Plan a 2-way trip from Rome to Barcelona for under €130 from January 15th to 22th of 2022. This time, search for the earliest departure flight from Rome and the latest return flight from Barcelona. Make sure to include a cabin luggage.”
Positives:
· Filtering of flight details during more complex tasks
· The clear pricing information in the calendar UI
Negatives:
· Selecting flight dates in the date picker calendar format
· Reliability of some of the cheaper airlines
· Some difficulty with selecting early and late flights
Task 3: “Plan a 2-way trip from Dublin to Stockholm for under €1100 from January 22th to 29th of 2022. Apart from searching for an early departure flight from Dublin and a late return flight from Stockholm, I want you to find an airline that offers refunds. Make sure to include a check-in luggage.”
Positives:
· The detailed fare options at the bottom of the itinerary page
Negatives:
· Finding refund options during flight selection
· Searching for T&Cs during flight selection
· Filtering and searching for short journey times that are within budget.
· Poor localization: EU-based participants were not accustomed to some of the terms used (e.g. carry-on baggage)
· Differentiating booking CTA for main airline and third-party booking options
Closing Session
In my concluding session, Participants 1 and 2 shared some interesting insights. They both suggested that the Google Explore feature should be the main homepage for Google Flights. According to them, a navigable map that displays all possible destinations with the best deals would add significant value to their experience by saving time.
Solutions
The most confusing aspect of Google Flights for the three participants was the presentation of departing and returning flights on 2 separate pages. After stalling during flight selection, the participants opted to proceed directly to the main airline’s websites to cross-reference flight fees and durations. One way to overcome this issue is by displaying departing and returning flights on a single page, similar to Ryanair’s format. Additionally, corresponding pricing information should be presented for both flights during the selection process and aggregated on the travel itinerary page.
Other usability issues stem from violations of design principles, namely the Principle of Proximity and Hick’s Law. The white space in the search results layout can be better utilized by grouping the most prominent flight details for booking completion. In addition, presenting fewer choices to users can reduce the time it takes to complete a booking.
Here are some other actionable insights for the UX team:
Update search filters: To help users refine their search for the perfect destination, I highly suggest refactoring search filters by placing the most frequent ones on the left side (Price, Time and Duration, Airline and Refundability) and the rest in a separate ‘more filters’ dropdown menu. Furthermore, Participant 3 strongly expressed dissatisfaction with the airlines filter option for selecting airlines. Including a search bar in the airline checkbox list could potentially resolve this issue.
Improve date selection feature: Participant 2 found the arrows used to navigate flight dates confusing. Minor changes to the date picker include removing arrows in the ‘dates’ input fields for selecting days, while retaining the arrows in the calendar UI for skipping months. Additionally, it was recommended to visualize the circles displayed in the date picker for departing and returning dates in the same blue color.
Prioritize booking CTA for main airline: In the itinerary page, Participants 1 and 3 were directed to a third-party travel agency to complete the booking. The third-party booking options were perceived to be untrustworthy, and participants ended up cross-referencing flight prices between third-party booking agencies and the main airline’s website. This process was frustrating for users and negatively impacted their overall experience. Google Flights should consider displaying booking CTAs for the main airline in a more prominent part of the page and weed out third-party booking services for users concerned with them.
Make baggage policies clear: Participants found the baggage content difficult to consume. Specific interaction issues include difficulty to differentiate between terminology (carry-on and check-in) and baggage fees. Baggage policies should be clear and easy to understand through better localization and visualization, so users can avoid unexpected fees.
Improve searchability for time-related flight details: Participant 1 expressed difficulty in selecting flights based on duration. While cost is an important factor, flight duration is also a critical consideration for many users. Potential solution would be to group flight time and duration in the search results grid and include relevant field names in the ‘sort by’ indicator for better searchability (e.g. ‘flight duration’ and ‘early departure’).
Provide more information on refund options and T&Cs: Participants 2 and 3 had difficulty finding airlines that offer refunds during Task 3. The UX team can consider making refund options more visible in the search results page, possibly by optimizing the white space in the search results grid to include refundability. As for the T&Cs, participants requested quicker visuals and clearer direct link to the official airline’s T&Cs instead of small print, allowing for better navigation and transparency in the itinerary page.
Familiarity with Google Flights: Participants found Google Flights not as intuitive as their preferred platform, Skyscanner. Google Flights should consider providing progressive onboarding and step-by-step tutorials to minimise cognitive load for new users.
Increase user trust: Participant 3 expressed concerns about the reliability of some airlines. The UX team should consider providing more information on the airlines’ reputation, safety records, and customer reviews to increase user trust in lesser-known airlines. One way to go about it is to display airline passenger ratings from trusted sources in both filter options and search results grid.
Limitations
As is common with any research endeavour, certain limitations were encountered during the study. Therefore, it is recommended that the results be approached with caution, and interpreted within the context of these limitations.
Due to task requirements, only 3 participants were recruited for this study. Although they were experienced in planning trips and have a clear understanding of flight metasearch engines, testing 5 users in usability testing is always optimal to account for variability and provide sufficient insights.
Planning a trip at the last minute in Task 1 turned out to be the hardest task in this study. Best practice here would be to instruct participants to perform tasks from easiest to hardest in an upcoming study.
Although this study aimed to map out common flight booking tasks, travellers typically browse online flight booking search engines aimlessly. Therefore, a future iteration of this study might adopt an experimental design with mundane realism by:
· Investigating differences in information processing methods when performing specific and general flight search tasks (e.g. plan a trip to any destination within your budget)
· Comparing usability between the desktop and mobile versions of Google Flights
· Comparing usability between Google Flights and Google Explore
Conclusion
The findings from my usability testing suggest that while Google Flights is a functional tool for searching flights, there is room for improvement in terms of user experience.
Based on the research findings, it was observed that participants showed a preference towards checking individual airline websites instead of relying on Google Flights as they believed official websites provide more accurate and detailed information about flights. This indicates that Google Flights needs to improve its comprehensiveness and trustworthiness as a metasearch engine and travel fare aggregator in comparison to its competitors.
Users develop mental models of products based on their experiences with them. As a result, when users encounter a new travel fare aggregator, they expect it to exhibit similar behaviour to the other aggregators they are familiar with. When the learning curve of the new product is minimal, users can devote their attention to accomplishing their task, rather than learning the product’s usability. This enhances the user’s sense of control and autonomy. As Participant 1 aptly put it:
“[Google Flights] is a different flavour. It’s like vegemite, you either love it or hate it.”
Thanks for reading :)
