[Sigia-l] Summary: Best Practices in Web-Based Configurator Design

[Jodi Bollaert]

Greetings,

Below is a summary of responses to my "Best Practices
in Web-based Configurator Design" post.  I've included
responses from other lists as well.  Thanks so much to
all of you for your input.

*************************************************

Jodi-
I'm assuming Chris Macgregor will reply to you with
some of his 
writings on good uses of Flash for product
configurators. Some examples 
that have good ROI include Yankee candles and Mini.
See his article at:

http://www.flazoom.com/cooler/1066747630,36621,.shtml

While that article focuses on the benefits of Flash,
perhaps one might 
be able to extract some general principles.

Regards,
-Jed

*********************************************

Have you seen the Forrester Report, Building a Better
Automotive 
Website
(nov. 2002)?
May provide some insight to users needs, etc...

Great assignment! Good luck.
Katie

**********************************************

Jody,

Sorry I don't have any research to share with you. 
But FWIW, I just 
posted
a similar question to the sigia list the other day,
looking for 
examples of
"build your own XX" sites.  Two that were offered up
were the 
engagement
ring builder on Blue Nile www.bluenile.com and the
paint selector tool 
on
www.behr.com.

Is it possible for you to share the non-auto
configurator tools that 
you've
looked at?  I'm still looking for any examples, good
and bad.

Thanks and regards,

Kathy LeMunyon
Senior Information Architect
Rare Medium Atlanta
P 770-576-4290
F 770-576-4200

*******************************************

Jodi,

Last year I wrote an article on Flash based
configurators on 
Flazoom.com. The
article covers configurators mainly from an ROI
perspective, but I 
think it
will be helpful to your information search. 

RIAs that Work: The Configurator
http://www.flazoom.com/cooler/1066747630,36621,.shtml

CHris

=====
CHris MacGregor, Interaction Designer
http://www.flazoom.com                  
chris at macgregor.net

**********************************************

User-friendliness

You have a variety of dimensions to work with
 - cognitive groupings, in the buyer's mind, e.g
  - outside cosmetics (body style, paint, lights, ...)
  - power (engine, transmission)
  - inside cosmetics (seats, dash, colours, ...)
  - handling (suspension, brakes, ...)
  - ...
 - cost
and logical dependencies - which choices restrict
other choices.

Better to use "choices" rather than "options," as some
choices are not 
"official" Options, like body style.

You could indicate logical dependencies with arrows to
options or 
deeper screens, and/or presenting the most popular (or
profitable) 
choices first as a default. Non-compatible choices
should be visible 
but greyed out. If they are clicked on, you should
indicate what other 
choices are incompatible.

I'd also suggest creating a picture as you go,
highlighting the 
choices. Cost effects (+ive or -ive) should be beside
the option, and 
in a running total. Round display to the nearest $.
It should all work inside 800x600.


Implementation

One way to represent option compatibility internally
is by a bit 
matrix, or series of bit matrices, showing which
combinations are 
compatible or incompatible, overall, or in the current
display. 

A java applet would be the most responsive solution.

Tom

***********************************************

Hope this is helpful!

Jodi

=====
Jodi Bollaert, Principal 
Blue Sun Works 
jodi at bluesunworks.com
248.310.6774