Improving Warby Parker’s in store eyeglasses
purchasing experience by providing an interactive way for users to select eyeglasses
Warby Parker has both a physical store as well as an online store. The online experience is
highly personalizable, however, the same sort of personalization is missing in a physical store
experience. Through this project, we aimed to understand how we could personalize users
experience in a physical store.
An interactive mirror installed on all store mirror panels with adjustable height
accessibility) to help users in their eyeglasses selection process.
Conducted in-store observations
Conducted contextual inquiry and interviews sessions
Designed the survey
Took part in affinity diagramming session
Created low-fidelity and mid-fidelity screens
Created evaluation plan
Conducted expert evaluation session
Conducted usability testing sessions> and feedback
Created project presentation and presented in front of the class and
Our first aim was to understand the eyeglasses purchasing process in
United States. For this we did online and offline store purchasing process research. Next, we
carried out literature review to understand what wearing eyeglasses in today's day and age
Since, the aim of this project was to pick a company whose User Experience we aimed to improve, we
conducted extensive competitive analysis. We carried out surveys and interviews in two
Research Questions - Phase I
phase of surveys and interview focused on general purchasing experience regardless of the
What are the factors involved in
purchasing new eyeglasses?
What kind of knowledge gap, if any,
leads to issues while purchasing eyeglasses?
Do users prefer buying glasses online or
offline and why?
Research Questions - Phase II
The second phase of surveys and interviews focused extensively on the purchasing experience
at Warby Parker Physical store.
What kind of research/preparation do
users do before visiting Warby Parker store?
What aspects of physical store influence
purchasing patterns and how?
What are the various decision making
points while purchasing eyeglasses at the store?
We deployed the following research methods to answer the above research
Observed store layout of competitors as well as Warby Parker.
8 interviews to understand general as well as specific issues related to
eyeglasses purchasing experience.
2 contextual inquiry to understand user selection process/
50+ respondents. Questions based on insights gained from other methods and
previous phase surveys.
HIGHER LEVEL INFORMATION GOALS
1. Customer: What are the reasons and preferences for buying new eyeglasses?
2. Physical Store: What is the layout and organization of eyeglasses in the
3. Store Assistants: How many and how are they trained to interact with the
4. Purchasing Goals and Behaviour: What are the reasons user chose Warby
brands? What is their selection and comparison process?
5. Staff service touch points: What role do store assistants suggestions play
6. Service Methods and Technology: What are the in-store technologies used by
assitants to ease the purchasing process?
7. Eyeglasses purchasing experience: What are the users satisfaction and pain
during the purchase process?
In this phase, we transformed our research into user needs, behaviors
and pain points. We found user needs through affinity mapping and task analysis and
user pain points. We saw that there are three types of users (Customers, people visiting with
customers and store assistants) involved in the complete transaction of
buying eyeglasses. These needs saw a few emerging behaviors amongst users, which were represented
using Personas. These behaviors were categorized into groups of Ethan, Lois and Klevon. We then
generated customer journey maps to aid design decisions.
User Pain Points
Users have difficulty finding
Users spend more time than
Users looked to go with someone
store to get second opinions
Users took pictures in store to get
Users felt pressured to try
given by store assistants
Users thought that store assistants
qualified enough to give recommendations
Once, we discovered user pain points, we conducted informed brainstorming session to come up with
We analyzed and combined the concepts into three main concepts
based on the different technology platforms. The first one being iterative mirror, the
being AR technology and the last being combination of website and app. While all these
focused on improving the in-store experience, interactive mirror focused on users who
store without doing prior research about different glasses available at store, whereas
a connection between online and offline experience focused more on users who have done
prior research before coming to the physical store.
Idea 1: AR APP
Idea 2: Website + App Connection
Idea 3: Interactive Mirror
USER FEEDBACK I
To decide on which idea to go by, we conducted
pilot evaluation with all team members present to get everyone on the same page
within subject evaluation to understand the relative ranking and acceptance of the three
between subject evaluation to explore feature-level feedback to combine ideas later on
In within subject evaluation, generic questions were asked however in between subject
evaluation, more idea specific questions were asked.
What do you like about this
What is the most confusing part of this
How likely are you to use this system?
What changes would you like to make in
FEEDBACK I RESULT
FEATURE LEVEL DECISION
After the feedback session, we decided to take feature level decision as we didn't want to
discard features just because people did not like how the way feature was presented and decided
to go with interactive mirror option.
Share/Sending Pictures to Phone
Glass recognition and showing info on the screen
Notification on entering store
Usage of mirror without code
SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Since the user group interacting with the system would have diminished visual skills while
pictures with the system, making the system accessible was one of the top priority.
Large Button Area following
Simpler interactions - using only
instead of elaborate gestures
Camera countdown timer to give
picture being clicked
Automatic interactive region
adjustment for users with different heights
USER FEEDBACK II
We created hi-fi mockups and simulated Warby Parker's physical store layout to collect feature
USER FEEDBACK II RESULT
We created mid-fidelity prototype without adding colors and asked an expert to review our
got two main takeaways from this session.
TAKEAWAY 1: Users found the icons without text to be confusing. The
recommendation icon with stars made users feel that it was more of a review system
than a recommendation system.
TAKEAWAY 2: Users found the method of faceId login confusing when they
the mirror the second time. Introducing faceID and writing instructions
when to use faceID will make users familiar with the concept of faceID. Also, making
the faceID login process optional provides user more control.
TAKEAWAY 3: Users were skeptical of photo storage. Providing them
assurance that there images will be deleted as well as providing a mechanism to
delete all the pictures manually puts user in more control and increases the
confidence in the system.
"Add five eyeglasses to the compare list" Scenario: You have entered stored and shortlisted five eyeglasses while
browsing the collection
"Send three pictures clicked to your phone" Scenario: You want to share the pictures with your friends
"Delete all pictures" Scenario: You decided to pick more eyeglasses in the store before deleting the
" View recommended eyeglasses" Scenario: You didn't like any of the eyeglasses picked earlier and now want to get
Before evaluating our system with the user, we conducted 6 cognitive walkthroughs where each
expert was given two tasks assigned at random. Each task was accompanied by steps to carry
the task and experts were asked set of four questions at each step in the task. However,
we did not find any major issue
design wise, we decided to conduct user evalautions without iterating through the design.
DESIGN IMPLICATIONS FROM THINK ALOUD
Add a state change to indicate
Redesign the icon of
Disable the compare button when
I thoroughly enjoyed applying the User Centered Designing Process through this project. In the
research phase, I learnt that we only get one chance to get a survey right and releasing
prematurely can lead to insignificant and un-actionable data. I am glad that we were able to
include accessible design in our project. During our evaluation phase, we
conducted pilot sessions which were extremely helpful to pin point issues with our