Usability Review and Competitor Analysis 13th January 2016

CONTENT 1.Conversion Goals 2.User Journey Analysis (Desktop & Mobile) 3.Heuristic Review 4.Google Analytics Review 5.Live User Testing (Focus user groups) 6.Recommendations

1. CONVERSION GOALS By identifying key conversion goals and assigning a level of priority, we can focus the target user’s attention accordingly. Making sure the user completes these processes in the least amount of steps, resulting in a higher conversion rate and meeting business objectives. PRIMARY Complete credit card / loan application Landing page & application process NOTE: All user testing / analysis is focused on evaluating the usability of the online application process for credit card and/or personal loans from various competitors. This included the onboarding journey from landing on the homepage to successful application.

2.A. USER JOURNEY DESKTOP Home page Financial Services (Menu) More info (Credit Card) Apply Now Select Credit Card again Enter 15 form fields Next Enter 18 form fields Submit Confirmation Wait 2 – 3 Days (Call Back) A1A2A3 A6A5A4 A9A8A7 A10 OUTCOME: 10 Steps TIME: 03:52

2.B. USER JOURNEY MOBILE 2.B.1. HOME2.B.2. SELECT MENU

2.B. USER JOURNEY MOBILE 2.B.3. SELECT SERVICE2.B.4. SELECT READ MORE2.B.5. SELECT APPLY NOW

2.B. USER JOURNEY MOBILE 2.B.6. ENTER PERSONAL DETAILS2.B.7. ENTER FINANCIAL DETAILS2.B.8. CONFIRMATION PAGE

2.C. USER JOURNEY FORM FIELDS Total amount of form fields 33 Total amount of required form fields * 16*

2.D. USER JOURNEY COMPETITOR ANALYSIS OUTCOME: 7 Steps to complete process TIME: 01:56 OUTCOME: 8 Steps to complete process TIME: 02:28 OUTCOME: 10 Steps to complete process TIME: 03:52 OUTCOME: 24 Steps to complete process TIME: 08:08 OUTCOME: 25 Steps to complete process TIME: 13:21 OUTCOME: 19 Steps to complete process TIME: 14:02 OUTCOME: 21 Steps to complete process TIME: 09:35

2.E. MOBILE APPLICATIONS COMPETITOR ANALYSIS Showing which competitors application process is mobile friendly.

3. HEURISTIC REVIEW This is a usability testing method for finding the usability problems in a user interface design so that they can be attended to as part of an iterative design process. Heuristic evaluation involves having a small set of evaluators examine the interface and judge its compliance with recognized usability principles (the "heuristics"). FOCUSING ON: A. Features & Functionality B. Homepage / Starting page C. Navigation D. Search E. Control & Feedback F. Forms G. Errors H. Content & Text I. Help J. Performance

3.A. WOOLWORTHS RESULTS 72/100 (GOOD) Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and complete vast majority of important tasks. A. Features & functionality 12.4/20 (62%) B. Homepage / starting page 5,2/10 (52%) C. Navigation 20,8/26 (80%) D. Search 4/8 (50%) E. Control & feedback 4.8/8 (60%) F. Forms 11,2/13 (86%) G. Errors 10,4/13 (80%) H. Content & text 12/15 (80%) I. Help 10/12 (83%) J. Performance 7/11 (63%) Best Performing: F. Forms 11,2/13 (86%) I. Help 10/12 (83%) Worst Performing: D. Search 4/8 (50%) F. Homepage / starting page 5,2/10 (52%)

3.B. DIRECT AXIS RESULTS 66/100 (MODERATE) Users should be able to use this site or system and complete most important tasks, however the user experience could be significantly improved. A. Features & functionality 12,6/20 (63%) B. Homepage / starting page 7,2/10 (74%) C. Navigation 16,6/26 (63%) D. Search 8,4/14 (60%) E. Control & feedback 6,4/8 (80%) F. Forms 4,48/13 (34%) G. Errors 9,8/13 (75%) H. Content & text 11,2/15 (74%) I. Help 8,4/12 (70%) J. Performance 3,4/11 (30%) Best Performing: E. Control & feedback 6,4/8 (80%) G. Errors 9,8/13 (75%) Worst Performing: J. Performance 3,4/11 (30%) F. Forms 4,48/13 (34%)

3.C. CAPITEC RESULTS 93/100 (EXCELLENT) This site or system provides an excellent user experience for users. Users should be able to complete all important tasks on the site or system A. Features & functionality 17,4/20 (87%) B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%) C. Navigation 24,8/26 (95%) D. Search 14/14 (100%) E. Control & feedback 5,4/8 (76%) F. Forms 13/13 (100%) G. Errors 13/13 (100%) H. Content & text 14,4/15 (96%) I. Help 11/12 (91%) J. Performance 8,8/11 (80%) Best Performing: F. Forms 13/13 (100%) B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%) Worst Performing: E. Control & feedback 5,4/8 (76%) A. Features & functionality 17,4/20 (87%)

3.D. STANDARD BANK RESULTS 76/100 (GOOD) Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast majority of important tasks A. Features & functionality 14,8/20 (74%) B. Homepage / starting page 6,6/10 (66%) C. Navigation 19,8/26 (76%) D. Search 6,4/8 (80%) E. Control & feedback 7,6/8 (95%) F. Forms 13/13 (100%) G. Errors 9,8/13 (75%) H. Content & text 11,4/15 (76%) I. Help 9/12 (75%) J. Performance 9/11 (81%) Best Performing: F. Forms 13/13 (100%) E. Control & feedback 7,6/8 (95%) Worst Performing: B. Homepage / starting page 6,6/10 (66%) A. Features & functionality 14,8/20 (74%)

3.E. RCS RESULTS 71/100 (GOOD) Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast majority of important tasks A. Features & functionality 13,8/20 (69%) B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%) C. Navigation 19,6/26 (75%) D. Search 10,8/14 (77%) E. Control & feedback 5,4/8 (67%) F. Forms 8/13 (61%) G. Errors 7,6/12 (58%) H. Content & text 11,4/15 (80%) I. Help 7,2/12 (75%) J. Performance 6,6/11 (60%) Best Performing: B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%) H. Content & text 11,4/15 (80%) Worst Performing: G. Errors 7,6/12 (58%) J. Performance 6,6/11 (60%)

3.F. ABSA RESULTS 66/100 (MODERATE) Users should be able to use this site or system and complete most important tasks, however the user experience could be significantly improved. A. Features & functionality 12.4/20 (62%) B. Homepage / starting page 5,2/10 (52%) C. Navigation 17,8/26 (68%) D. Search 4/8 (50%) E. Control & feedback 4.8/8 (60%) F. Forms 8/13 (61%) G. Errors 10,4/13 (80%) H. Content & text 12/15 (80%) I. Help 10/12 (83%) J. Performance 7/11 (63%) Best Performing: I. Help 10/12 (83%) H. Content & text 12/15 (80%) Worst Performing: D. Search 4/8 (50%) B. Homepage / starting page 5,2/10 (52%)

3.G NEDBANK RESULTS 71/100 (GOOD) Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast majority of important tasks A. Features & functionality 13,8/20 (69%) B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%) C. Navigation 19,6/26 (75%) D. Search 10,8/14 (77%) E. Control & feedback 5,4/8 (67%) F. Forms 8/13 (61%) G. Errors 7,6/12 (58%) H. Content & text 11,4/15 (80%) I. Help 7,2/12 (75%) J. Performance 6,6/11 (60%) Best Performing: B. Homepage / starting page 10/10 (100%) H. Content & text 11,4/15 (80%) Worst Performing: G. Errors 7,6/12 (58%) J. Performance 6,6/11 (60%)

3. HEURISTIC COMPETITOR ANALYSIS SCORE : 93/100 Best performing: Forms 13/13 (100%) EXCELLENT: This site or system provides an excellent user experience for users. Users should be able to complete all important tasks on the site or system Worst performing: Feedback 5.4/8 (67%) SCORE : 76/100 Best performing: Forms 13/13 (100%) GOOD: Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast majority of important tasks Worst performing: Homepage 6,6/10 (66%) SCORE : 72/100 GOOD: Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast majority of important tasks SCORE : 71/100 Best performing: Homepage 10/10 (100%) GOOD: Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast majority of important tasks Worst performing: Errors 7,6/12 (58%) SCORE : 66/100 Best performing: F eedback 6,4/8 (80%) MODERATE: Users should be able to use this site or system and complete most important tasks, however the user experience could be significantly improved. Worst performing: Performance 3,4/11 (30%) SCORE : 66/100 Best performing: Help 10/12 (83%) MODERATE: Users should be able to use this site or system and complete most important tasks, however the user experience could be significantly improved. Worst performing: Search 4/8 (50%) Best performing: Forms 11,2/13 (86%) Worst performing: Search 4/8 (50%) SCORE : 71/100 Best performing: Homepage 10/10 (100%) GOOD: Users should be able to use this site or system with relative ease and should be able to complete the vast majority of important tasks Worst performing: Errors 7,6/12 (58%)

4. GOOGLE ANALYTICS REPORT Tracking WFS users to gain insights to their behaviour, devices they are using, and identifying any problem areas. Reports can be segmented and filtered to reflect the needs of your business. Real-time views let you know which content is popular, how much traffic is pointing to that content, and how successful you are at converting them into customers.

4.A. ANALYTICS OVERVIEW (Sep 1, Nov 30, 2015) Unique users: 1,622,315 Pages per session: 8,42 Bounce rate: 30,87% Desktop users: 58% Tablet users: 10% Mobile users: 32% Returning users: 65,6% Bounce rate: 23,61%Bounce rate: 43,15%Bounce rate: 33.82% Analytics overview shows a very healthy application, users are viewing a high volume of pages per session and returning regularly. 30,87% bounce rate is excellent conversion for an e-commerce site. Mobile device bounce rate is high at 43,15% and should be addressed to see why users are exiting.

4.B. LANDING PAGES Sessions: 895,656 Session duration: 00:05:56 Bounce rate: 10,57% Sessions: 32,793 Session duration: 00:04:58 Bounce rate: 13,19%

4.C. ORGANIC WFS KEYWORDS Within the top 50 keywords, these are relating to WFS: KEYWORDSESSIONSBOUNCE RATEDURATION

4.D. POPULARITY PER REGION PROVINCESESSIONSBOUNCE RATEDURATION

The evaluation of WFS and competitors by typical customers or target groups as they normally would in the real world. This helps in evaluating software more accurately as we observe first hand what users do, like, and struggle with when applying for a credit card or loan. All user testing done on: Chrome Version LIVE USER TESTING

NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL 5. QUESTIONS ASKED DURING USER TESTING 1: (Without clicking anything) Take some time to scan over the homepage. 1.A: Have you been on this website before? 1.B: Does it look professional, trustworthy, easy to read, and represent the brand? 1.C: Did you know that this site offers credit cards and loans to users online? 1.D: Would you trust this brand enough to signup for a credit card or loan? (If not) please explain why.? 1.E: Would you prefer to complete your application yourself or request someone to call you back on the phone to do it for you. 2: Please start your credit card / loan application. 2.A How hard was it to find where to start your application? 2.B: Is there enough easy to read information to help you decide to proceed (anything missing that you would expect to see). 2.C: Please complete your online application. 3: Thank you for completing, in your own words please describe how you found that process? 3.A: Was there any sections in particular that you battled with and why? 3.B: Is there anything that you can suggest to improve this process to create a more enjoyable experience.

5.A WOOLWORTHS USER TEST SCORE 65 WATCH TEST NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL

5.A WOOLWORTHS USER TEST (Mobile) NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL WATCH TEST SCORE 60

5.B CAPITEC USER TEST SCORE 69 NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL WATCH TEST

5.C RCS USER TEST SCORE 32 NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL WATCH TEST

5.D ABSA USER TEST SCORE 11 NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL WATCH TEST

5. STANDARD BANK USER TEST SCORE 00 NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL Credit card applications failed while user testing WATCH TEST

5. DIRECT AXIS USER TEST SCORE 45 NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL WATCH TEST

5. NEDBANK USER TEST SCORE 65 NOTE: All test videos are private and only available via URL WATCH TEST

5. USER TESTING COMPETITOR ANALYSIS SCORE 65 SCORE 00 SCORE 69 SCORE 32 SCORE 45 SCORE 65 SCORE 11

6. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on our usability review and analysis of targeted users, across the desktop and mobile platforms.

6.A. CALL TO ACTION HOMEPAGE There is no clear call to action from the busy home page. Users battled to find where to apply online. The navigation link “FINANCIAL SERVICES” is broad and non-descriptive to everyday users. We recommend using something clearer: APPLY NOW FOR YOUR WOOLIES CARDS ONLINE

6.B. SEARCHING FOR CREDIT CARD Currently, search results do not display financial products and services. Many users are more inclined to search rather than browse. We recommend including financial products and services into search results.

6.C. INTUITIVE APPLICATIONS Users did not know which credit card they could apply for. We recommend moving this important information above and in line of the users focus.

6.D. URL REWRITING URLs are not currently rewritten in a short descriptive and SEO friendly way. This is how they will be displayed in search results and in the user’s bookmarks. We recommend using short descriptive URL’s: WFS Landing page Credit Cards Application

6.E. REDESIGN STEP INDICATOR The current step indicator can be confused for clickable tabs. We recommend redesigning it: 1.Clear Labelling; Step 1: Enter personal details, Step 2: Enter Income & expenses. 2.Moving it to the top of the page, above all form elements.

6.F. PRE-POPULATE FORM FIELDS The product option is chosen before the online application begins. Users are are not re-selecting the option at the start of the application. We recommend a pre-populated option based on the user’s initial choice.

6.G. POSTAL CODE SEARCH Users are required to search for postal codes and cannot physically enter the code. We recommend using an auto suggest field for Suburb, that will drop down and suggest postal the user can select. Remove search button and postal field.

6.H. RSA ID OR PASSPORT NUMBER Non-South African residents cannot apply without an ID number. Competitors have ID or passport number options. We recommend allowing users to input ID or passport numbers.

6.I. INSERT DEFAULT VALUE FOR AMOUNTS Users who did not fill out non-required fields did not input 0 as the value. When selecting “NEXT” “DONE” they all had to scroll back up to the top and battled with what they were expected to input into these fields. We recommend inserting a default value of 0.00 for non required fields.

6.J. INTEGRATE APPLY WITH SITE Currently, clicking “APPLY” opens a new window with different URL. This separates it from the user experience, without explanation and giving the user a chance to orientate themselves. We recommend creating one seamless experience for users, from landing on the homepage to successful application.

6.K. KEEP USERS INFORMED Currently, after completing the online application, a WFS consultant will call within 2-3 days and a message is sent by mobile only. We suggest that after an application has been made, whether successful or unsuccessful, that users be informed immediately via on current status.

6.L. ADD TRACKING TO APPLICATION PROCESS LANDINGWFSAPPLYCONFIRMATION Google Analytics can be used for reporting and to track the flow of users. This will give us a conversion rate and allow us to see where users are exiting before completing the process. 1234

THANK YOU