It may not be good UX as measured by some aesthetic standard or set of best practices, but the site is accomplishing its goal for Amazon and arguably the consumers who use it.
It may not be good UX as measured by some aesthetic standard or set of best practices, but the site is accomplishing its goal for Amazon and arguably the consumers who use it.
just because they have a process doesn't mean it works. but yea, like someone said, i guess the general user doesn't care. i know it has lessened my use of the site.
So, it ugly and bad as hell, but everybody is trained and accustomed to it. Why risking confusing customers without need?
1) You can A/B test yourself into a corner. They are definitely doing it right, whether it is the right thing to do is a different question.
2) Having some process insight into the operations / logistics side I can confirm that everything thing is connected to the webside one way or the other. That is what gives Amazon its huge operational advantage. Downside is, with everything developed in-house, this approach can end up as a motely collection of legacy systems. And that makes changing things difficult and had the potential to become a major pain in the ass long term.
Maybe they should A/B test this team and go with the other one.
They miss the big changes like 'shall we show all the products in a 3d immersive VR gallery' or 'make a site which downloads all data and works entirely offline'.
Those big changes might usually fail, but if you never try any of them, you'll end up with a site that looks and behaves like it's from the 1990's, while the rest of the world has moved on.
The consumers who use it have no goal other than getting stuff they think they need, faster.