Pattern #3: Fewer Form Fields

Pattern Author: Jakub Linowski - Founder @ GoodUI

Based on 10 Tests, Members See How Likely This Pattern Will Win Or Lose And Its (?) Median Effect

Almost Certain Loser
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
Almost Certain Winner
Fewer Form Fields

  1. Remove: Form Fields Fewer Form Fields

    This little pattern suggests to get rid of as many form fields as possible on the basis that they cause friction.

Median Effects

?

Engagement

Ex: Any Action / Visit

(5 tests)

?

Conversions

Ex: Signups, Leads

(4 tests)

?

Sales

Ex: Transactions, Upsells

(3 tests)

?

Revenue

Ex: AOV, LTV

(1 tests)

?

Retention

Ex: Return Visits

?

Referrals

Ex: Social Shares

Tests

Pattern #3: Fewer Form Fields
Was Tested On Volders.de by Michal Fiech

Test #300 Tested on Volders.de by Michal Fiech Michal May 25, 2020

Find Out How It Performed With 23,356 Visitors

Signup Desktop, Mobile

  •  

  • Measured by successful form submission   |   p-val (?)

Zoom In
  •  
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
A
  •  
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
B

In this experiment, a password field was removed on a contract cancellation form (Volders).

In the control version, users were required to enter their email address and a password. If the email address was associated with an existing account, then the password was used to authenticate the user (and validated). When users entered a new email address, then the password field was used to create a new account. 

In the variation, the password field was removed, as the authentication happened after the conversion itself using other backend mechanisms.

 

Get Access To See The Test Results

The Same Pattern Was Also Tested Here

Test #280 Tested on Volders.de by Alexander Krieger Alexander Jan 24, 2020

Find Out How It Performed With 24,301 Visitors

Signup Desktop, Mobile

  • Measured by progress to next payment screen   |   p-val (?)

  • Measured by contract cancellations   |   p-val (?)

Zoom In
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
A
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
B

In this experiment on a contract cancellation funnel, one field was removed - a secondary contract ID. The control and variation both had a primary "customer ID" with which to identify and cancel someone's contract with.

Get Access To See The Test Results

Test #224 Tested on An Anonymous Site Feb 11, 2019

Find Out How It Performed

Home & Landing Desktop

  • Measured by total searches completed   |   p-val (?)

  •  

Zoom In
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
  •  
A
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
  •  
B

This experiment reduced the search form by removing the distance field.

Get Access To See The Test Results

Test #155 Tested on Mt.com by Vito Mediavilla Vito Feb 22, 2018

Find Out How It Performed With 8,652 Visitors

Product Mobile

  • Measured by form fill initiation (starts typing any field)   |   p-val (?)

  • Measured by form submits   |   p-val (?)

Zoom In
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
A
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
B

Get Access To See The Test Results

Test #122 Tested on An Anonymous Site Aug 01, 2017

It Worked Here

Checkout

  •  

  • Measured by visits to next step.   |   p-val 0.00001

Source: web.archive.org/web/20170227061603/www.conversiondoctor.com/conversion-blog/coupon-codes-increase-checkout-abandonment

The test was run for an online retailer in the women’s clothing market (according to Conversion Doctor). The control (A) had a coupon code on the first page of the checkout process. The variation (B) had the coupon code removed.

Test #11 Tested on Prizegrab.com by Greg Van Horn Oct 20, 2016

Find Out How It Performed With 3,142 Visitors

Home & Landing

  •  

  • Measured by form submits   |   p-val (?)

Zoom In
  •  
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
A
  •  
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
B

Get Access To See The Test Results

Test #42 Tested on Adoramapix.com by Herman Klein May 11, 2016

Find Out How It Performed With 15,516 Visitors

Shopping Cart

  • Measured by visits to shopping cart   |   p-val (?)

  • Measured by post-purchase page visits   |   p-val (?)

Zoom In
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
A
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
B

Get Access To See The Test Results

Test #28 Tested on Digitalmarketer.... by Justin Rondeau Justin Mar 01, 2016

Find Out How It Performed With 6,315 Visitors

Home & Landing

  •  

  • Measured by form submits   |   p-val (?)

Zoom In
  •  
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
A
  •  
  • (?)% ((?) successes out of (?) visits)
B

Get Access To See The Test Results

Test #121 Tested on Bionicgloves.com by Sq1 Mar 13, 2015

Maybe It Worked Here

Shopping Cart

  •  

  •  

Zoom In
  •  
  •  
A
  •  
  •  
B

Source: vwo.com/blog/promo-code-box-ecommerce-website-bleeding-dollars-ab-test/

VWO.com published this test which removed two coupon fields on a shopping cart: a gift card code and a special offer code.

Leaks

Leak #9 from Booking.com   |   May 15, 2019 Home & Landing

Booking A/B Tested 3 Search Bars Challenging The Fewer Form Fields Pattern

A - Feb 4, 2019
B - Feb 4, 2019
C - Feb 4, 2019 IMPLEMENTED

I've been watching this Booking experiment closely ever since sharing a very similar concept some months ago. Their homepage was openly challenged with the UI hypothesis of exposing a "room quantity" field right in the search bar (instead of hiding it in a pulldown menu). And their team took the initiative to run a test. Based on the observed outcome and roll out decision it turns out that the UI concept was better than their control. View Leak

Leak #46 from   |   Feb 25, 2020 Home & Landing

Booking Discovers That Two Search Bars Are Not Better Than One

A - Jan 13, 2020 IMPLEMENTED
B - Jan 13, 2020

In this experiment Booking added a second search bar on their homepage. The intention might have been to provide users a way to filter more destinations by country. Could this scenario have created an akward uncertainty about which form field to engage with? Whether this explanation is true or not, I'm not sure. What we do know however that in the end, the control version with the single search bar prevailed.  View Leak

Leak #53 from Netflix.com   |   May 25, 2020 Home & Landing

Netflix A/B Tests Displaying A Password Field Which Fails And Gets Rejected

A - Mar 31, 2020 IMPLEMENTED
B - Mar 31, 2020

It looks like Netflix has been iterating on showing additional fields upfront on their homepage. After they succeeded at displaying an email address upfront, this experiment now takes next step of showing a password field. The result of the leaked experiment however suggests a negative outcome as they reverted back to the control version - without the visible password. View Leak

For each pattern, we measure three key data points derived from related tests:

REPEATABILITY - this is a measure of how often a given pattern has generated a positive or negative effect. The higher this number, the more likely the pattern will continue to repeat.

SHALLOW MEDIAN - this is a median effect measured with low intent actions such as initiating the first step of a lengthier process

DEEP MEDIAN - this is derived from the highest intent metrics that we have for a given test such as fully completed signups or sales.