More information in the card didn't speed up the choice.
60/61
participants found the product within the 60-second limit
3
real Shoptet templates
61
respondents in the study
01 — WHAT THE DATA SHOWED
01
60 of the 61 participants found the target product within the time limit. Overall completion time did not differ significantly between the templates.
02
The differences appeared inside the product cards. Classic, with the most information, required more fixations when working with the target product than Step and Waltz, and a longer dwell time than Waltz.
03
Waltz received the highest aesthetics rating, followed by Step and then Classic. Each template worked with a different product range, however, so the result cannot be read as a universal ranking of templates.
02 — WHAT WE NEEDED TO FIND OUT
Does the way a product is presented affect finding it and rating the template?
The study compared the real Shoptet templates Classic, Step and Waltz. Each worked with a different product category and a differently complex product card — from a large amount of information in Classic to the simplest listing in Waltz.
03 — HOW THE MEASUREMENT WORKED
61 respondents aged 18–26 took part. Each of them searched for a predetermined product on all three templates and had to open it within 60 seconds. A Tobii X2-60 recorded eye movements at 60 Hz, and the VisAWI questionnaire then measured the perceived aesthetics of the page.
[ WHAT DIFFERED IN THE PRODUCT CARD ]
CLASSIC · HOME GOODS
Most information
Code, rating, shipping, price with and without VAT, and a button right in the listing.
STEP · FASHION
Medium complexity
Sizes, labels and other details supplemented the basic product description.
WALTZ · CONFECTIONERY
Least information
By default only a photo, name and price.
The templates also differed in appearance, layout and product range. The study therefore does not isolate the pure effect of the template itself.
05 — RECOMMENDATION FOR PRACTICE
The study does not isolate the effect of the template itself, so it does not follow that less information is always better. It does show, though, that a larger amount of data in the card did not speed up the choice on its own — so it is worth checking whether every field in the listing genuinely helps the customer recognize and compare the product, and moving less important details into the product detail. When comparing templates, test the same products and the same customer journeys; only then can a difference be attributed to the interface design.
[ THE TAKEAWAY ]
More information doesn't have to mean a faster choice.
What matters is whether the card helps the customer quickly recognize the right product. That can only be verified on real content and specific tasks.
DISCUSS AN E-SHOP TEST →[ GLOSSARY — WHAT THE TERMS IN THIS STUDY MEAN ]
- N (sample)
- The number of people included in the study. In this case N = 61.
- Task scenario
- A specific brief that determines what the participant is meant to achieve on the page.
- Fixation
- A brief stop of the eye in a certain area. It describes visual attention, not automatically comprehension or purchase.
- VisAWI
- A standardized questionnaire focused on the subjectively perceived aesthetics of a web interface.
- Product AOI
- A predefined area of the target product card, for which gaze metrics are evaluated separately.
- Statistically significant difference
- A difference that, according to the chosen test, probably did not arise by chance alone. On its own it does not yet say whether the impact is important for business.
[ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY ]
Which Shoptet templates did the study compare?
Three real Shoptet templates available at the time: Classic with home goods, Step with fashion and Waltz with confectionery.
What task did participants perform?
On each template they had to find and open a predetermined product. The time limit was 60 seconds, and every participant went through the same type of search task on all three templates.
Which template was best?
The study does not name a universal winner. Waltz received the highest visual rating and its simpler product cards required less visual work than the most complex Classic. But the templates had a different product range and content, which limits any direct ranking.
Were people able to find the product?
Yes. 60 of 61 participants succeeded within the time limit and overall completion time did not differ significantly between the templates. The differences showed mainly when working with the information inside the product card.
Does the distribution of attention prove higher conversion?
No. Eye tracking shows where people directed their gaze, not automatically a purchase or revenue. For a business conclusion the result needs to be linked with task success, analytics or a follow-up experiment.
Do the results apply to today's Shoptet templates?
They cannot be transferred automatically. The study worked with three specific templates of the time, one task type and participants aged 18–26. Current templates should be re-tested on the same content and across more customer journeys.
Want to go through the study in more detail?
DETAILED REPORT WITH METHODOLOGY AND RECOMMENDATIONS — FREE PDF