This set of notes explains how to make "institutional websites" usable — but it actually spans three very different types of things, so do not mix them up:
(1) Corporate Website = the public-facing storefront. Visitors are external parties: potential customers, investors, journalists, job seekers. They do not come to buy things (that is e-commerce); they come to judge "is this company reliable, worth partnering with / investing in / joining". Therefore the core is credibility— the About Us, Contact Us, and Social Responsibility pages are the load-bearing walls of trust.
(2) Intranet = the internal work system. Users are the company’s own employees, who are forced to use it every day. Here the goal is not "looking good to persuade", but "saving time" — finding a colleague’s phone number, booking a meeting room, submitting a suggestion; every lag translates to hundreds of thousands of dollars in hidden costs (the employee search article has hard numbers).
(3) B2B website = a sales-oriented website that sells to "organizations" rather than "individuals". It is most similar to B2C e-commerce, but has four critical differences:the purchase decision cycle lasts months to years, prices are high and require negotiation, the people who buy are not the people who use the product, and approval must pass through multiple layers of people. Therefore B2B UX = the usability of B2C e-commerce + a dedicated content strategy to address "long cycles + multiple decision-makers".
The full text has six sections: ① Three load-bearing walls of corporate websites (About Us / Contact Us / Social Responsibility) → ② How to make intranets usable (employee search / SharePoint / award-winning cases / redesign process) → ③ What makes B2B different (5 key differences) → ④ How B2B builds trust (pricing / sales representatives / internal multi-person decision-making) → ⑤ The overarching theme of "trust and transparency" across all areas → ⑥ Intranet social engagement and team collaboration. Each section provides core principles + Why + counterexamples, with all numbers retained.
I. The three load-bearing walls of corporate websites: About Us / Contact Us / Social Responsibility
Corporate websites do not sell products; they sell "trust". NNGroup has repeatedly found that external visitors do not trust what you say about yourself, and will go to Yelp, Google Reviews, and social media to cross-check. Therefore the task of these three pages is not to "brag", but to "provide enough real information to put people at ease".
1.1 About Us: Users use it for due diligence; you must explain clearly "who you are and whether you are reliable"
Research scale (two notes merged with duplicates removed): Three rounds of research (expert design reviews + qualitative usability testing), observing 70+ users, testing 165 websites(100 in main testing + 65 additional reviews), covering large companies (Zappos / GE / Chevron), mid-sized companies (Slack / LogMeIn), small companies (Oscar Insurance / Squarespace), government agencies (HUD / Small Business Administration SBA / Federal Trade Commission), nonprofits (Make-A-Wish / St. Jude / Charity Water); research was conducted in the United States and Hong Kong; the latest round included 20 non-technical participants aged 24–65; final output was 85 design guidelines. Note: These two About Us notes (corporate site version + B2B version) are two cuts of the same study and have been merged.
Who visits and why: Professionals (evaluating suppliers / seeking partnerships), medical, legal and technical experts (quick baseline assessment), journalists/content creators, potential investors, job seekers. One job seeker said verbatim: "I check the company’s mission, customer base and products to evaluate fit; the overall feel of the website is also very important."
| Dimension | Core principle | Key practices / data |
|---|---|---|
| Information layering | Different users need different amounts of information; build a "multi-layer pyramid", do not cram everything onto one page | ① Homepage tagline (a few words explaining what you do) → ② 1–2 scannable summary paragraphs at the top of the About page → ③ Subpages (mission and values / company history / leadership team) → ④Always place an About link in the footer(users will definitely check the footer when they cannot find it in the main navigation) |
| First explain clearly what you do | Many companies mistakenly assume "everyone knows who we are", and fail to even explain their business clearly | Journalists, investors and ordinary people are often confused by an organization’s business; a simple phrase or paragraph usually solves this; if content is vague, work with stakeholders to define the mission, and conduct competitive analysis + user testing to find the best wording |
| Authenticity + transparency (the new baseline requirement) | Users are more skeptical than they were a decade ago; platitudes and stock photos actually cost you points | Use real employee/product photos, plain language ("like talking to a real person"), tell stories, and display balanced (including neutral) testimonials + cite third-party reviews; Zappos’ "Zappos for Good" subcategory is a positive example |
| Acknowledge that users will cross-check externally | What you say does not count; what other people say on Yelp/Google/Facebook counts | Ensure consistent messaging across all channels (including third-party platforms); if time-pressed users get answers directly on the search results page, they will never enter your About page at all |
- Positive factors: clean design, authentic imagery, simple and consistent layout, easy-to-find contact information, displayed social responsibility, credible external endorsements, good products and services.
- Negative factors: complex navigation, hard-to-find important information, empty content, walls of text with insufficient white space, cluttered interface, fonts and color schemes unfriendly to accessibility, missing trust/security markers, aggressive sales language, poor mobile usability.
- Counterexample (label jargon): Do not use obscure labels such as "Corporate Governance"; users’ security concerns are very specific — "If I place an order, will they actually ship it?" "After I register, will my email be sold and flooded with spam?" "How much of my donation goes to administrative fees?"
Why: With the rise of online scams and data breaches, users are highly wary of "submitting personal information/email addresses". A clear, authentic About page is the first gate to lowering this wariness and converting visitors into customers/job seekers/donors.
1.2 Contact Us: The three essentials of phone/email/address — hiding them makes you look guilty
Research scale: Conducted a usability study with 20 business professionals, observing them as they looked for contact information on 40 corporate websites, producing 12 guidelines.
Core principle: Users expect to see traditional contact methods (address, phone, email); do not use forms or chatbots to replace them. Hiding the phone number = the company "does not want to be disturbed" = untrustworthy. In the study,most users preferred to call directly, rather than sending an email or filling out a form.
| Guidelines | Do | Counterexample |
|---|---|---|
| Provide all required information | Phone (separate lines for main line/customer service/media/investor relations, ensure calls are routed to the right person) + main address + local addresses + email + (optional) chat/social media/fax | Yamaha’s Contact page had no specific information, only a block of poorly formatted content, disappointing users |
| Place it where users expect it | main navigation + utility navigation + footer (eye-tracking research: users look in the top-right corner or footer) | The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) had no Contact link in main navigation, frustrating users who only found it in the footer |
| Do not hide/remove the phone number | Displaying the phone number prominently signals "we are willing to be contacted" | Hiding the phone number to cut costs is tempting, but damages reputation; OneCall / GiftTree prominently displaying phone + live chat = positive example |
| Write full addresses | Include state/province + postal code | This also improves local search rankings (sites with detailed addresses are more likely to appear when searching for "Salem NH dentist") |
| International users | Provide separate contact information for each region | Chevron uses an entry page → click a country to enter the detailed Contact page for that office |
| Forms can only supplement, not replace | If you use a form, limit it to 3–5 fields, and only ask for necessary information | Slack only provided a form, disappointing users; Melissa & Doug providing multiple options of form + email + international phone numbers = positive example |
| Do not require registration to contact | Clicking "Contact" should directly give email/phone | Adobe required login/account creation to contact, which users resented: "I clicked contact because I want an email or phone number, not to be told to log in" |
| Clearly mark available hours and response times | Mark service hours, time zone, and estimated response time for each channel, and keep your promises | GSA marking "email response within 24 hours" + listing live chat hours = positive example |
| Only launch chat/social media if you can respond in a timely manner | Let users initiate chat proactively (do not pop up automatically); indicate whether the person on the other end is a human or a bot | Poor bot experiences hurt trust in return; if you use social media as a contact channel, you must assign staff to monitor and reply |
Why: The choice of contact method is influenced by context, time, trust level, personal preference and other factors. Providing sufficient options = respecting differences; cutting traditional channels to force users onto "cost-saving" automation = passing trust costs onto users.
1.3 Social Impact and Sustainability: Users buy in, but only trust "good deeds backed by evidence"
Recent corporate site research shows that companies that actively give back to society/communities are seen as more "kind and responsible" in users’ eyes, which directly affects partnership and job application decisions. But users are highly alert to "greenwashing (empty environmental slogans)"; they want evidence, not slogans.
| # | Practice | Core principle / counterexample |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | When social responsibility is part of core identity, set up a standalone category in navigation; otherwise place it under an About subcategory | Wells Fargo placing a CSR subcategory under About, Sempra using a dedicated navigation category = positive examples; users expect to see it in multiple places including About/careers/company culture/news; provide overviews on homepage/About/careers/news + link to details |
| 2 | Websites must include environmental and sustainability information | Missing this section will be misread as "not caring about the environment"; Alcoa has a detailed sustainability chapter = positive example; but as user skepticism grows, you must provide details instead of empty talk |
| 3 | Use detailed facts and legitimate proof to support claims | Avoid vague, broad statements (especially on sustainability/volunteering/diversity, equity and inclusion); IBM using concrete projects such as "Plastic Bank" to bring skeptical users back to trust = positive example |
| 4 | Use a sincere, non-corporate tone | Be fact-based, neither exaggerating nor overly modest; LogMeIn’s sincere, humble CSR copy made users feel "they actually care" = positive example |
| 5 | Avoid overly complex terminology | Use "charity" and "volunteer service" instead of "philanthropy"; Computershare used the heading "Corporate Responsibility," which was criticized as too formal and unapproachable, and less effective than "community contribution" or "giving back to society." |
Why: Companies aligned with users' environmental values benefit in revenue, loyalty, and brand recognition. However,skepticism is the default attitude—so "goodness" must be verifiable (facts/data/specific project names); otherwise, the more it is proclaimed, the more fake it sounds.
II. Corporate Intranet: Not about persuasion, but about "saving time"
Intranet users are a company's own employees, who use it every day and are required to use it. The ROI here is extremely concrete: a well-designed feature saves real money.
2.1 Suggested-Employee Search: The highest-frequency feature, the life-or-death difference between 2 seconds and 1 minute 44 seconds
Core data point (the single most important one to remember): Employee search is the intranet's most commonly used and most important feature. Its design evolution directly corresponds to massive costs:
| Year | Design level | Average time to find a person | Annual cost (typical company) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | PDF directory only | 1 minute 44 seconds | A company wastes US$750,000 per year |
| 2005 | Search functionality becomes widespread | 1 minute 6 seconds | Approximately US$475,000 |
| 2006–2011 | Slow improvement (adding skills/projects/languages to SERP and profile pages) | Limited progress | —— |
| After 2012 | Innovative suggested search (Acorda Therapeutics case study) | 2 seconds(a 99%+ reduction from 2001) | For a 10,000-employee company, only US$14,500 per year |
Characteristics of excellent employee search: A single open search box (no scope options before or after the query),instant suggestions (response < 0.1 seconds), rich results (employee photos to distinguish people with the same name + increase approachability, names linked to full profiles, clickable email addresses to send messages, clickable phone numbers to dial, blog/IM links), clear categorization (grouped by type + headings + visual separation). Acorda places employee results first, and groups other categories (documents/websites) with visible total counts.
Why: Forms, news, and applications can all improve efficiency, but "communicating with the right person" is irreplaceable. An open search box + instant photo-bearing suggestions is the highest-ROI improvement intranet teams should prioritize.
2.2 SharePoint Intranets: Installation is not the finish line
| Key point | Content |
|---|---|
| Market position | Radicati Group report: SharePoint has high adoption across industries, with projected20% average annual growth over the next 4 years; since 2006, a growing number of award-winning intranets have been based on it; nearly 10,000 community members and 5,000+ related design firms |
| Not out-of-the-box | Installation is only the starting point; do not assume installation = complete functionality; business analysis, information architecture (IA) planning, UX design and research, and content governance are required. |
| Find UX designers who understand SharePoint | Feasible recommendations require understanding its capabilities and limitations; if the development team is unfamiliar with the version, reserve time for training. |
| Design considerations | Do not over-segment user roles for personalization (hard to manage); ungoverned collaboration spaces become information silos (set rules + ensure indexing); most teams want custom branding rather than the default SharePoint look (requires development investment). |
| Positive example | NAV CANADA: Simple branded design, easily recognizable navigation, improved visibility of commonly used features, project highlights + dedicated employee activity sections. |
2.3 Award-winning intranet case study: Small multidisciplinary team + agile + user-centered
Wellcome Trust's Trustnet: By a small multidisciplinary product team Built from scratch in-house (product manager + editor + UX designer + UI designer + front-end and back-end engineers) without using ready-made solutions, with full lifecycle autonomy, using agile iteration to prioritize core needs each cycle. User-centered practices: Start from problems (define solvable core problems in the discovery phase) → diverse research (interviews/contextual inquiry/competitive analysis; the event booking feature drew inspiration from B2C) → sketches to high-fidelity prototypes + usability testing. Highlight features: Card-style meeting room finder (with photos to quickly judge suitability), a single integrated form for room booking + catering + equipment + visitor badges, intelligent search, mobile responsiveness, group pages, community bulletin boards, Outlook-integrated event calendar, fitness booking, HR-system-integrated automatically updated staff profiles, cross-channel display on elevator screens.
Core principle: Common traits of award-winning intranets = starting from user needs (not ready-made tools) + full responsibility held by a small multidisciplinary team + agile incremental delivery.
2.4 The 11 steps of intranet redesign: Lay the foundation before building
Organized into four phases (team formation → current state analysis → vision alignment → resource preparation):
- Appoint a lead (to avoid diffused responsibility, with final decision-making authority)
- Form the intranet team (continue the existing team / hire external agencies / build internally; data: over the past 10 years, 80% of award-winning intranet teams hired external agencies, ranging from agile coaches to full development; a small "launch team" including IA/content strategy/user research can be formed first)
- Identify redesign triggers (mergers and acquisitions/transformation/rebranding/system upgrades/user complaints/leadership initiative)
- Review plans and conduct user research (review past research + measure existing system baselines: quantitative testing/surveys/site analytics)
- Map the organization's digital ecosystem (inventory tools, decide which to keep/modify/merge/replace)
- Engage stakeholders (executives/department representatives/module owners/end users)—listen to their needs, but do not treat their opinions as user needs; validate with direct user research
- Align stakeholders on the system vision (serve employees + organizational goals; promote with videos/toolkits to reduce resistance)
- Allocate resources (time/people/technology)
- Create user-centered design artifacts (user stories/journey maps/task lists)
- System and operations planning (technical tools, development process, design system)
- Promote the redesign plan in advance (videos/contests/content adoption/claiming to foster a sense of participation)
III. Why B2B Is Different from B2C: 5 Key Differences
Core premise: B2B and B2C share many commonalities (clear IA, engaging content, detailed product information, simple interactions),most B2C usability principles apply to B2B. But B2B customers often complain that websites are not as usable as consumer-grade products — because audience needs differ:longer decision cycles, higher prices, different marketing priorities. NNGroup summarizes 5 main differences.
| # Differences | B2B Specifics | What to do / Positive examples |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Content supports long-term purchase decisions | High value + multiple decision-makers; customers may start researching months or even years in advance, sharing options with their team and seeking approval as they research | Provide rich content (articles/white papers/case studies) that clearly explains the problem-solution-your advantage; provide "evaluation criteria" so customers can compare against competitors (which also shows your expertise); use comparison tables; provide tools that make it easy for teams to share and discuss. Quadgraphics case studies structured by "challenge/solution/result" = positive example |
| 2 Integration/compatibility/regulatory information must be clear | B2B products are often one component of a larger system,compatibility is a key decision point, and missing this information is a major pain point | List product integrations, version compatibility, feature parity, technical support, industry standards (provide links), hardware connectivity (engineering drawings + environmental requirements), software integrations (cloud/API); supplement with compliance information (environment/privacy/quality). AWS pages detailing how it meets ISO 9001 certification = positive example. Categories requiring compatibility information: software/print-scan network hardware/manufacturing hardware (robot control systems)/HVAC+HEPA+clean rooms/engineering test equipment/AV conference room equipment/biotechnology storage lab equipment/security systems/loading dock equipment/retail POS self-service kiosks |
| 3 Content addresses both "Choosers" and "Users" | Multi-level decision-making: engineering leads raise requirements → middle management approves → executives confirm → procurement executes.Choosers (those who make decisions) ≠ Users (those who actually use the product), but the two groups communicate frequently, and users are often the primary researchers who make recommendations upward | Users care about specifications/experience/support, while choosers care about cost/reliability/ROI —both groups must be served; provide users with an "advocacy kit" to help them sell upward; provide choosers with ROI/product lifespan/competitive advantage; service-oriented businesses display executives and client representatives on team pages.Negative example: many B2B websites speak only to decision-makers and ignore actual users |
| 4 Complex pricing presented with real-world scenarios | B2C mostly uses fixed prices, while B2B often uses custom/volume-discounted/negotiated prices. But B2B customers also care about price, which remains a primary consideration | Show exact prices whenever possible; if not possible, provide representative samples or common scenario prices, price ranges, simple calculators(early-stage customers need ranges to apply for budget approval; exact prices can be negotiated later). Chargify provides several scenario-based prices by organization size + "as low as $0.06 per customer" for large enterprises + a "Let's talk" CTA = positive example.Additional benefit: pricing acts as a filter, so sales teams follow up fewer leads that cannot afford the product; if prices are particularly low, also explain why they are low while still allowing on-demand scaling |
| 5 Speak to customer segments without alienating anyone | Serving everyone from small family shops to multinational corporations; products may not suit everyone, so suitability must be proven to each audience | Architecture is often built around customer groups (e.g., "small business zone"), but categories must be clear and mutually exclusive(otherwise small teams within large enterprises with needs similar to small businesses will be confused); Sharp uses industry-vertical navigation + supplements with "by product type" navigation (because industries overlap) = positive example; prioritize needs-based filters rather than purely company size; product pages should avoid overly specific scenario images to accommodate cross-industry use |
Summary: B2B websites = B2C usability foundation + five exclusive tasks: supporting long decision cycles, clarifying integrations, speaking to both choosers and users, making complex pricing concrete, and segmenting audiences in a targeted but mutually exclusive way.
IV. How B2B Builds Trust: Learning from B2C E-Commerce
Why B2B should adopt B2C e-commerce usability standards: ① B2B users are also B2C consumers after work, and bring the same experience expectations; ② good experience directly resolves concerns and builds trust; ③ general e-commerce UX principles also apply. But B2B has two unique constraints:high switching costs (contract termination fees + data migration + loss of access rights) and complex decisions (beyond the product itself, there are services/maintenance/support, creating high cognitive load). Building trust revolves around three things: pricing, sales representative communication, and internal multi-person decision-making.
4.1 Pricing Strategy: Transparency + Guiding with Loss Aversion
- Display prices; if prices are variable, provide common pricing scenarios(starting prices/price ranges). The three sins of hiding prices: increasing user cost to find prices, creating an impression of being "expensive", and triggering doubts about company integrity.
- Clearly explain pricing models(plans/packages/service tiers). Use the Loss Aversion principle— show users "which additional features" come with more expensive plans; when budgets are flexible, this pushes purchases of slightly more expensive options. Crowdcast.io's three-tier comparison table (features in each column arranged in the same order for easy comparison) + Enterprise custom option in the lower left = positive example.
- If customization is available, clearly state what can be customized in advance(state this early in research to manage expectations). A "perfect custom solution" means different things to different customers; overpromising and underdelivering destroys trust. Lookback.io's pricing page lists pricing model FAQs + provides a dedicated email = positive example.
- Use comparison tables to make plan comparison easy: use numbers + checkmarks/× to indicate inclusion. GoToTraining's "most popular plan" recommendation helps users who struggle to choose, isolating key differences (number of attendees 25/50/200);Negative example: using low-contrast text/faded checkmarks for unavailable features harms readability; high-contrast text + distinguishable icons should be used instead.
- Address switching costs head-on: promote services that directly reduce financial/interaction switching costs (paying termination fees on customers' behalf, providing migration assistance), and write this in FAQs or pricing pages to reduce pressure.
4.2 Contacting Sales Representatives: Build Trust Before Asking for Information
Users worry that sales representatives will be pushy, upsell, or overpromise, so they feel high pressure before reaching out.
- Let users obtain product/service information without contacting sales whenever possible: use "How it works" pages + FAQs to answer basic questions. Hiding information and over-reliance on sales erodes trust.
- Explain why you need user information when asking for it(research shows giving reasons improves cooperation), e.g.: "We need your zip code to determine service availability in your area" "To recommend the right solution, we need to ask a few questions about your needs" "For more accurate pricing, please tell us which features matter most to you".
- Provide multiple contact methods: At minimum provide email + phone, then consider web forms, social media, and chat;Use analytics and metrics to decide which channels to support, then set priorities combined with usability research. TechSmith provides chat/phone/email + high-contrast buttons (Contact Sales / Contact Support) + displays customer support forum topics = a positive example.
4.3 Selling to multiple internal stakeholders: Equip the buyer to be an "internal salesperson"
B2B decisions affect many people within an organization and require approval from multiple parties, so buyers must be able to: teach others about the product, defend the decision and answer hypothetical risk questions, track and communicate approvals from all parties, and bring relevant stakeholders into every conversation about changes (budget/solution/contract).
- Communicate features clearly and avoid jargon (or define jargon in place): Start with simple writing + high-level information, then provide details as users go deeper (scrolling/turning pages); on overview pages, provide "another layer of navigation / clear link labels" so people who want to dig deeper can drill down.
- If jargon must be used, define it where it appears(users may search and land directly on deep pages); even for professional audiences, use simple language, precise terminology, and provide explanations for complex concepts.
- Clear expression = being perceived as honest and transparent; conversely, being full of jargon will be seen as "trying to show off without real expertise" or "trying to mislead/hide key information".
- Provide comprehensive information support: Answer "what if" questions, provide easily accessible FAQ/support pages/forums, and offer forms that allow attachments (to make it easy to send requirement lists to sales).
- Prove value with evidence: Diverse case studies, persuasive customer testimonials, product demos (screenshots/videos/live demos),free trials with no credit card required; clearly communicate company values and market differentiation, and show employees and physical premises.
Conclusion: The essence of building trust in B2B = bringing over the B2C e-commerce playbook of "removing doubts, simplifying processes, being transparent and honest", then adding extra elements for "high switching costs + multiple decision-makers". Excellent B2B websites should be simple, clear, easy to understand, human-centered, and empathetic.
V. Overarching theme throughout: Trust and transparency
When you overlay the two sets of notes on corporate sites and B2B sites, the same sentence appears repeatedly —Users are skeptical by default; you must win trust with "verifiable truth". Three sets of evidence corroborate each other:
| Scenario | What happens when you "hide/fake" | How to "show/be real" |
|---|---|---|
| About Us | Clichés + stock photos + buzzword labels → Users go to third parties to fact-check, and inconsistent narratives cost even more credibility | Real photos / plain language / storytelling / balanced recommendations + citations of third-party reviews |
| Contact Us | Hiding phone numbers / only providing forms / forcing registration → Appears "unwilling to be disturbed" and "untrustworthy" | Prominently display the three essentials: phone, email, and address (including in the footer) + mark availability hours and response timeframes |
| Social responsibility | Empty slogans about environmentalism / corporate speak / complex jargon → Seen as greenwashing | Use specific facts and project names (IBM Plastic Bank) + a sincere tone |
| B2B pricing | Hidden prices → Increase price-checking costs + make you seem expensive + raise doubts about integrity | Show prices or provide representative scenarios/ranges/calculators |
| B2B jargon | Pages full of jargon → Seen as "showing off without substance" or "trying to mislead" | Simple language + define terms in place |
Core principle (one sentence): Eighty percent of usability for institutional websites is a "transparency project" — put the things that users will go elsewhere to verify in front of them in advance, honestly, and verifiably.
VI. Intranet social participation and team collaboration: Making employees "dare to speak up and willing to participate"
Modern intranets have evolved from one-way information platforms into interactive collaboration spaces (likes/comments/microblogging/Q&A/discussions/collaboration tools). But people are reluctant to be the first to speak, so you must proactively lower the threshold.
6.1 Six methods to encourage social participation (general)
- Quickly populate content(lower the threshold for newcomers): Pre-populate content during restricted/test launches, invite intranet champions (content creators/governance teams/well-known employees) to lead by example, and use existing content as demonstrations for teaching (more effective than guide documents).
- Lead by example: Leader participation is a bellwether for employee engagement — leaders like and comment, and praise participation in informal conversations or performance reviews.
- Support activities: Use company events (restructurings/all-hands meetings/charity events) as topic hubs and set up dedicated zones; be careful not to tie tools only to specific events (no one will use them after the event ends); when there are no events, create themes (leader Q&As/technology upgrade discussions).
- Broad participation (inclusivity): Accommodate mobile and remote employees (responsive design), and use diverse questions to encourage voices from different backgrounds. Verizon's intranet retains the comment function on mobile (prioritizing full participation even if it affects loading speed).
- Maintain a light tone("Light" ≠ "casual"; it means reducing psychological burden): Set the tone with names (Ikea's "This is Silly" tool name conveys a sense of fun), and monitor and guide early on to avoid going off track. Klick Health uses recorded videos to answer employee questions to simplify knowledge sharing.
- Use employee-generated content to inspire company content: Turn popular employee discussions into polls/follow-up articles, feature interesting projects, turn employee suggestions into improvement plans and publicize them — conveying that "your participation has value".
6.2 Nine tactics for Keysight's "Pulse" intranet incentives (winner of the 2021 Intranet Design Award)
Comments at the bottom of news/executive updates (early in the pandemic the CEO posted a video with his new pet dog which received 100+ comments, prompting other executives to follow suit), employee video sharing (choirs/cooking/holiday greetings, the most popular content in 2020), monthly photo contest "Key Sightings" (1 winner + 9 honorable mentions, driving regular return visits), continuous improvement idea submission "MyInsight" (votable/supplementable, with status tags "New Proposal/Planned for Implementation" + countdown icons), executive Q&A "Ask Ron and the Executives" (archives filterable by topic), global feedback bar (suggestions submitted at the bottom of every page forwarded to content managers), quick polls on the homepage (updated in real time), distributed news story submission (employees submit via forms, refined by the communications team), and contact news authors (every article includes an email icon).
6.3 Collaborating with stakeholders in UX research
Having stakeholders personally participate in research can: reduce future resistance to research, inspire team accountability and empathy for users, and improve design decisions. Practices to encourage participation: promote the value of UX research (clearly explain how it reduces risk and aligns with user expectations), provide participation opportunities (regular UX office hours/design clinics), educate stakeholders (training + real cases, find advocates who can influence others), align research goals (strategy meetings ensure UX goals align with organizational goals), make participation easy (schedule convenient activities within the development cycle, provide clear time commitments and roles), deliver actionable outcomes (screenshots/lightweight reports/high-fidelity prototypes), and create reusable design assets (design patterns + style guides).Three steps to get started: Start with small-scale research (such as two days of user testing, letting stakeholders participate in defining plans/scenarios/recruitment) → Provide observation guidance → Organize design collaboration activities (generate and critique designs together to build a sense of shared ownership).
6.4 Emerging trends in enterprise software UX (why intranets/enterprise tools are worth investing design in)
- Enterprise software is ushering in a UX revolution: The old mindset that "internal systems aren't seen by customers so UX doesn't matter" is wrong — good design directly affects employee satisfaction, retention, and productivity.
- Improving efficiency for knowledge workers: The core value of modern enterprises is created by knowledge workers, but they are held back by clunky tools; in the future, targeted tools will be provided by role (not one-size-fits-all), just as a mechanic cannot use only a hammer to fix every machine.
- Strengthening remote collaboration tools: After the pandemic, hybrid work has become widespread, existing collaboration software is still very basic, and innovative hardware and software such as virtual whiteboards and large-screen collaboration will emerge in the future.
- Effective large-screen design: Do not simply scale up mobile/small-screen designs; the spatial advantage of large screens facilitates quick scanning and information accumulation (financial institutions such as Bloomberg are already mature, while healthcare/education still have room to grow).
- Enterprise-grade software prioritizes UX: Stronger analytics, data processing, and collaboration tools are the main development directions.
Sourced from NNGroup Topics / Corporate Websites + B2B Websites (14 articles total: 10 on corporate sites + 4 on B2B). The two sets of About Us notes are two clips from the same study and have been merged. Related: For the usability self-check checklist, see NNGroup Usability Testing and the Ten Usability Heuristics (complete table of the 10 heuristics · applications for complex applications · user pleasure hierarchy · testing methods: 5-user rule/recruitment/remote testing/task scenarios/step-by-step tasks/attitude vs behavior/4-step analysis/small-sample errors/competitive evaluation); for information architecture and navigation classification, see NNGroup Information Architecture IA (Three IA models · IA vs sitemaps · Flat vs deep hierarchies · Full taxonomy process · Left-side vertical navigation · 5 major pitfalls of privacy policy pages); for content layering and copywriting, see NNGroup Content Strategy and Web Writing (4 stages of content strategy · Content inventory and audit · Content standards/design systems · 3 content management models · 5 scanning patterns of how people read online · Inverted pyramid · 7 methods for concise writing · 5 layouts for long-form content · Microcopy 3I/3C · 4 dimensions of tone · Content testing · Eye tracking); for selectors/user segmentation, see NNGroup User Personas (Essence/three types/scope and hierarchy/creation/comparison with JTBD-prototyping-segmentation/application/maintenance/5 major failures). Images/original files are retained in sources.
Sources and related materials
- NNGroup Content Strategy and Web Writing (4 stages of content strategy · Content inventory and audit · Content standards/design systems · 3 content management models · 5 scanning patterns of how people read online · Inverted pyramid · 7 methods for concise writing · 5 layouts for long-form content · Microcopy 3I/3C · 4 dimensions of tone · Content testing · Eye tracking)
- NNGroup Information Architecture IA (Three IA models · IA vs sitemaps · Flat vs deep hierarchies · Full taxonomy process · Left-side vertical navigation · 5 major pitfalls of privacy policy pages)
- NNGroup User Personas (Essence/three types/scope and hierarchy/creation/comparison with JTBD-prototyping-segmentation/application/maintenance/5 major failures)
- NNGroup Usability Testing and the Ten Usability Heuristics (Complete table of the 10 heuristics · Application to complex applications · User pleasure hierarchy · Testing methods: 5-user rule/recruitment/remote testing/task scenarios/step-by-step tasks/attitude vs behavior/4-step analysis/small-sample errors/competitive evaluation)