G2 Crowd: Needs Assessment and Usability Study

  • Role Student UX Researcher
  • Class Needs Assessment and Usability Study (SI 622), School of Information
  • Instructor Joyojeet Pal
  • Location University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • Skills Interview, Survey, Heuristic Evaluation, User Testing
  • Year Fall, 2016


G2 Crowd is a four-year-old startup based in Chicago, offering business software reviews. G2 Crowd is growing rapidly and currently has approximately 150,000 user reviews and nearly 800,000 user visits per month. Buyers can read software reviews from their peers to find the right software for their business. Reviewers can also leave reviews about business software they already own or answer other users’ software questions. The third user group is software vendors, who users can contact directly from the G2 Crowd website to ask software questions. Our team's goal was to identify usability issues with g2crowd.com.



Interaction Mapping


Competitor Analysis

Heuristic Evaluation

User Testing

Mapping Key User Journeys

We conducted interviews with client to understand the project requirement and with target users to understand their needs and frustrations. Subsequently, we mapped the major interactions or user journeys on the website. This enabled us to understand g2crowd.com in detail and therefore perform a comprehensive analysis of competitors.


We sent out a pilot survey to 50 users that our client linked us to and then a full fledged survey to respondents using Qualtrics. The survey gave us many useful insights into the needs of our target users and the usability issues they face.

Competitor Benchmarking

To appropriately scope our comparative evaluation, we established competitor categories. (Prof. Newman's Taxonomy)
1. Direct: Offers crowd-sourced user reviews and ratings for business software. (Offering the same functions in the same way )
2. Indirect: Offers expert (i.e., not crowd-sourced) research, reviews, and ratings for business software. (A competitor that covers some but not all functions)
3. Partial: Offers expert (i.e., not crowd-sourced) reviews and ratings for technology-related products.(Offering the same functions in a different way (i.e., through a different medium) )
4.Parallel: Offers suggestions for alternate and new software products. (Same kind of service/function to similar audience via similar channel)
5. Analogous Offers crowd-sourced user reviews and ratings for products and services in general (Not the same type of service, but a non-competitor that might give ideas about how to provide functions better )


After conducting individual evaluations of the site, we met as a team to aggregate our findings. Each team member presented his or her findings to the team, while another member recorded the finding, along with the associated heuristic(s), in a spreadsheet. After all the findings were aggregated, team members individually assigned severity ratings to each finding using Nielsen’s “Severity Ratings for Usability Problems (Nielsen, 1995b). We calculated an average of team members’ severity ratings for each finding, and selected findings with the highest average severity ratings as our key findings.

Usability Testing

After a heuristic evaluation using Nielsen's 10 heuristics, we finally we peformed 8 usability tests in both lab and remote conditions. Some findings in brief were:
1. Compare function was difficult and ridden with minor usability issues.
2. Information overload on product comparison page.
3. Navigation needed both structural and sematic improvement.
4. Data visualizations were uneccesarily complex.
5. Poor affordance of clickable buttons.
6. A need for a saving product comparisons for future.

Findings (selected)
  • Help users interpret data by using simple, well-labeled graphs.
  • Use visual design principles to make these content easy to find, consume and share.
  • Restructure the compare function.
  • Interactive UI elements should be visually designed to support actions users intuitively expect from them.(Affordance)
  • Improve navigation by adding standard UI elements like breadcrumbs on all pages.
Findings: Visualizations

We found there was a need to help users interpret data by using simple, well-labeled graphs. Simple tables and bar graphs offer easy-to-perform comparisons. Most users would agree that comparing along a line is easier than comparing across an arc, which is an area on a radar/spider chart. The following list outlines the specific issues with the radar map:
1. It is difficult to reach this graph as it is hidden under a “read more” link under the reviews. After clicking “read more”, a user expects to find a detailed review and not this animated graph.
2. The grid area contains a substantial amount of non-data ink.
3. The visual organization of the page makes the plot of the graph difficult to understand. For instance, the font is small and the legend and large multi colored social media icons are equidistant from the graph.
4. Users tend to assume the axes are related, i.e. the axes are pushing/pulling each other, which may not be true.
5. There is occlusion in some cases especially if more than two series are plotted. 6. Labels are far away from the center.
7. The area of the shapes increases as a square of the values rather than linearly. A small variation in values may result in a disproportionate difference in area.

The product comparison graphs are difficult to access since they are hidden under a “see more” link in a product comparison page.
1. Chat windows occlude certain areas of the graph.
2. What appears to be a legend is actually a set of clickable filters.
3. The labels are tiny and not legible.
4. It’s difficult to visually distinguish the axis title from the axis variable.
5. The distance between labels and key areas of the graph needs to be reduced.
6. Social media icons near the graph axis obstruct clear and preattentive understanding.

The G2 crowd grid as seen on a category page is helpful, but has many usability issues that lead to inefficiency and frustration.
1. The “Market Presence” axis could be on the left side.
2. All axes should have a differently colored line with an arrow and a differently styled typeface.
3. Some users were puzzled by the choice of word “niche” since a product with a very low satisfaction and market presence would be in the “niche” quadrant even though the word niche means specialty and is not related to dissatisfaction.
4. Some users, including a Master of Business student, were not able to identify at first glance the company that was the leader in the Grid. We recommend adding the prefix “Q1” before the leader quadrant to clearly differentiate that “leader” is a quadrant not an axis.
5. A company icon in the grid upon being clicked should allow a “add to compare” function.
6. The set of colorful and big social media icons distract and devour attention unnecessarily and should be removed from its current location near the x-axis.
7. Some subjects reported that the meaning of the G2 Score could only be see on mouse-down and not mouse-hover.

Findings: Comparison

According to a user survey previously conducted by our team, product comparison is one of the most used features on G2 Crowd’s website. However, our test subjects consistently struggled when trying to use the product comparison feature. Part of the problem is that users are confused by the changing label of the “Add to Compare” button under each product.

Once users have successfully selected products for comparison, they are presented with a series of green and grey bar graphs that represent ratings for specific aspects of the products. Green bars represent the “winner” for a category; grey bars represent the “losers.” Almost none of our test subjects understood the meaning behind these colors. Some even wondered if the grey color meant the bar was “disabled” or the data was “unverified.”

Findings: Visual Design

The following recommendations would increase the legibility of the text:
1. Darken the text color.
2. Increase the typeface size.
3. Increase the space between lines of text, also called leading.

Video Summary

  • Our responsibility per the project scope was limited to using UX research methods to discover issues within the organisation and recommend solution but not to implement solutions even if the client wanted to push for implementation and we had to carefully manage expectations around this.
  • Some recommendations turned out to be political in nature and despite external forces, our team decided to include all recommendations in our report thus manintaining integrity.
  • We should have sent out surveys much before in the project lifecycle and that might have improved our response rate. Sending out surveys during the busy end of a semester was a poor choice in hindsight.
  • I had to be the guy in the team who convinces others that conflict of ideas is not conflict between people and sometimes such conflicts if kept impersonal can produce great synthesis of ideas. As in sociology there are both consensus and conflict theorists and both have valid viewpoints so I had to apply that to team dynamics.