Our Baymard research team has spent 650+ hours usability testing and researching Online Grocery features, layouts, content, and designs — enhancing and expanding our existing research on this industry and bringing our total to 1,700+ hours of Grocery UX research.

The research is based on 70 qualitative user/site usability test sessions following the “Think Aloud” protocol (1:1 remote moderated testing).

This study included a mix of pure grocery sites and mixed grocery/mass merchants for a total of 8 sites.

• Pure grocery sites included: Safeway, ALDI, Kroger, and Stop & Shop.

• Mixed grocery/mass merchants included: Target, Dollar Tree, Walgreens, and CVS.

During Baymard’s testing the users encountered 670+ medium-to-severe Grocery usability issues.

These issues have subsequently been analyzed and distilled into 400+ UX guidelines, all of which are available as part of our Baymard research findings.

The 400+ guidelines cover most aspects of Grocery UX, at both a high level of general user behavior as well as at a more granular level of specific issues users are likely to encounter.

In this article, we give you the top-level highlights of this new research study.

Expanded and Updated Grocery Research

This latest round of large-scale Grocery testing provides the following:

1. A comprehensive review and reverification of all of our existing Grocery research
2. New examples from usability testing highlighting user issues on test sites, as well as test site implementations that were verified to perform well for users
3. New insights into user behavior during online grocery shopping, discussed in particular in 8 new Grocery and Fulfillment guidelines

1) A Comprehensive Review and Reverification of All of Our Existing Grocery Research

”I mean, I genuinely don’t see anywhere to do that on here. Let me go back to the top, I guess…go all the way back to the bottom. Um, no, I don’t know.” This participant on CVS’s mobile site scrolled up and down the cart but could not find any way to specify substitute items (first image). In fact, this feature was only available during checkout (second image) — risking some users abandoning before ever finding it (see our Grocery Substitutions article and guideline #3303.

”If I know that I’ve purchased it in the past, I would go to my cart here.” To add a previous purchase to her cart, this participant on Target’s mobile app navigated to her cart and scrolled to the bottom, swiping through the “Buy again” feature until she found the item she was looking for (see our Past Purchases article and guideline #3285).

This 2026 Grocery research ensures that our existing Grocery research — first conducted in 2022 — remains robust and up-to-date with the latest UX findings.

This large-scale study dedicated 550+ research hours and added 70 qualitative user/site usability test sessions solely to investigating Grocery UX.

As a result, we’ve verified our previous observations and validated the user behavior — and subsequent design recommendations — made in our existing Grocery guidelines.

2) New Grocery UX Test Examples

”Oh, there’s no time slots available, gosh darn it…and it says, ‘Please try again tomorrow’, so you can’t pick a future time slot, it has to be a time slot for today.” This participant on ALDI’s mobile site moved forward from her cart, which displayed no fulfillment details (first image), only to discover that her selected location had no available time slots left (second image) (see guideline #1955).

”I do not see that there is a way to save that item for later.” This participant on Stop & Shop’s mobile site was unable to save an item in his grocery cart for later purchase (see guideline #622).

Along with validating our existing Grocery research, we’ve also updated our Grocery research catalog with hundreds of new examples.

These examples are from the test sessions at the 8 test sites listed above, as well as from our ecommerce UX benchmark (desktop, mobile, and app).

In general, the new examples help illustrate how a UX issue identified in 2022 still exists today — only the interface has undergone heavy changes as a result of new UI design schemes and preferences.

In short, it’s further support for the idea that just because an example from user testing may look dated, it doesn’t necessarily mean the underlying user issue no longer exists.

3) New Insights into Grocery Shopper Behavior

”I instinctively would think that it would be right here with this ‘Change’ button, but all that’s bringing is other pickup locations…it doesn’t appear there’s a way to do that.” This participant on Stop & Shop’s mobile site tapped the “Change” link at the top of the cart, expecting to be able to change from pickup to delivery (first image), only to find that she could only change her pickup time and location — not her selected fulfillment method (second image) (see guideline #3300).

”Honestly, I know that I could probably — if I was looking for a particularly unique item, I could go to ‘order history’…However, I would not do that. That is entirely too many clicks…because then I’d have to remember what order it was in.” This participant on Kroger’s mobile app briefly considered the “Purchase History” page as a way to find previously purchased items but quickly became overwhelmed at the prospect. With such large orders as are typical for groceries, getting a clear overview of what is included with each one is difficult (see guideline #3285 and our Past Purchases article).

Finally, while many user issues and design patterns persist, there are always some genuinely new issues that arise, as well as new approaches to resolving these issues.

As such, we’ve added 8 new Grocery guidelines based on this latest 2026 test data.

These new guidelines reflect the changing landscape of Online Grocery and provide specific design guidance on the complexities of issues such as fulfillment method selection, providing substitutions, and locating commonly repurchased items.

550+ More Hours of Grocery Specific Research

”It only gives you two options, and if you don’t want that option, you don’t get to pick…I don’t like that this is how the substitutions are done. This is my least favorite part of the whole thing. It should have been in the cart, and then after that it should give me suggestions, and then if I don’t like those suggestions, it should allow me to pick what I want. Now I just feel tied into this, and this would truly turn me off from shopping from here. It would make me feel like I couldn’t get what I want if this was out, like I just have to get whatever you suggest. That doesn’t seem like a smart way to do that.” This participant on CVS’s mobile site wanted to opt for substitutions (first image) but found she could only decide between two site-selected alternatives for each item in her cart (second and third images). Wanting different substitutions, she described how this limitation would deter her from shopping at CVS (see guideline #3303).

In conclusion, this latest study both validates and expands our research on Online Grocery UX.

To start exploring our Grocery research, be sure to check out our Grocery guidelines — a few of which are available for free as published articles (see articles on 4 Grocery UX Best Practices, Grocery Substitutions, Past Purchases, and Adding to Cart). If you have access, go to our Groceries UX guideline page.

Additionally, see our Online Grocery UX benchmark of 10 sites and apps, which includes over 7,000 performance ratings, and our Online Grocery page designs, which includes over 6,500+ desktop and mobile Grocery UX worst and best practices.

Getting access: all 400+ Grocery UX guidelines are available today within Baymard. (If you already have access through an account, open the Groceries Study.)

If you want to know how your Grocery desktop site, mobile site, or app performs and compares, then learn more about getting Baymard to conduct a Grocery UX Audit of your site or app.

Post this article on X

Related articles

• Online Grocery UX: 5 High-Level UX Takeaways from 1,100 Hours of Testing Leading Grocery Websites
• 4 “Online Grocery” Ecommerce UX Best Practices
• Online Grocery UX: 3 Ways to Make Setting Grocery Substitution Preferences Easier
• Grocery and Food Delivery Site UX: Allow Users to Add “Past Purchases” to the Cart from the Homepage
• Grocery UX: Dynamically Update the “Add to Cart” Button to a Quantity Selector after Item Added

At Baymard, we’ve just released new Quantitative Insights into people who shop on “Home & Hardware” sites, expanding our understanding of industry-specific ecommerce user preferences and attitudes.

These insights are visual, survey-backed data that highlight user habits and preferences to supplement and support our large-scale UX research findings and benchmarking of the Home & Hardware industry.

The 30+ insights address the home and hardware shopping experience, ranging from need triggers, product comparison behaviors, in-store usage, loyalty programs, purchasing factors, and returns expectations.

In addition, demographic segmentation has been applied for shoppers in professional vs. DIY spaces, as well as how product expertise and item cost impact their responses.

These Quantitative Insights empower you to align stakeholders through objective, survey-backed data, streamline A/B testing with high-impact hypotheses, and discover and solve industry-specific UX challenges.

In this article, we’ll introduce 3 high-level findings that distinguish how users find, evaluate, and decide on a purchase at home and hardware sites:

• Top factors in purchase decisions
• In-store visitations as part of online shopping journey
• Membership to Pro or loyalty programs

Top Factors in Purchase Decisions

Price and brand are the most important factors for users purchasing home and hardware products online, according to our survey with 3,023 respondents (see Quantitative Insight #HH031 for an interactive version of this graph alongside key findings and actionable insights).

Asking 3,023 US adults who have shopped online for home and hardware products in the past 3 months what played the biggest role in their most recent purchase, price and brand are by far the top overall factors (at 53% and 42% respectively).

This indicates that shoppers are making value-conscious decisions but still strongly associate that value with brand trust or recognition.

Next, while user reviews (34%) and compatibility information (24%) are not the initial purchase trigger, they also play a critical role in reinforcing confidence — especially for users deciding between similar products.

Thus, tools that increase user confidence are key differentiators for conversion, particularly when price and brand are comparable.

Other informational factors that play a part are location convenience (26%), speed of receiving an item (25%), warranty and returns (22%), and word of mouth (15%).

With that, home and hardware sites must clearly emphasize prices (see our Product Price Displays Topic Guide) and consider making brands easier to identify in list items and search results (guideline #444).

It’s also crucial to provide critical filtering options — including for price (Price Filters Topic Guide), brand (see the Brand Filters Topic Guide), user rating (guideline #1167), and stock status (guideline #417) — as well as offer support for users searching for compatible products (guideline #341).

In-Store Visitations Are Central to Most Home & Hardware Shoppers’ Purchase Decision

More than half of home and hardware shoppers go to the store to access products before they make a purchase online (see Quantitative Insight #HH016 for an interactive version of this graph alongside key findings and actionable insights).

Notably more than 50% of home and hardware shoppers say they viewed or tested the product in-store before completing their last purchase online.

With that in mind, users will be better served if they can easily identify the closest store with stock availability (guideline #804).

Further, by offering a store locator feature with a map, key store details, and IP geotargeting for autodetection, users will be able to quickly find a nearby store if they wish to see the product or pick it up there (see the In-Store Pickup Topic Guide).

Also of note, while 45% of respondents say they purchased without seeing the product in person, this tendency increases significantly to 65% among respondents aged 60 and older, indicating that younger shoppers are overall more likely to say they visit in-store than older shoppers.

A Majority of Home & Hardware Shoppers Utilize Pro or Loyalty Programs

More than half of home and hardware shoppers say they are part of a loyalty or pro/business program (see Quantitative Insight #HH085 for an interactive version of this graph alongside key findings and actionable insights).

More than half of home and hardware shoppers say they are part of a loyalty or pro/business program, with 34% being part of a DIY/homeowner loyalty program, and 22% reflecting a smaller but meaningful segment of professional users.

Also, a notable 27% are aware of these programs but haven’t joined, and another 13% don’t know these programs exist, suggesting an opportunity for retailers to optimize the messaging, incentives, and discoverability of their programs.

With these findings, it’s important to first understand which of your shoppers are in the professional realm, and which are DIY users likely to engage with one of these programs.

By identifying, segmenting, and prioritizing users who show behavioral signals of potential participation, you can avoid overinvesting in segments unlikely ever to engage meaningfully (see Strategic Brief #LYB21).

From there, ensure that your home and hardware loyalty programs lead with tangible value.

Most users view enrollment as a value exchange, so clearly communicate upfront what the user stands to gain in return for joining (see guidelines #2946 and #2949).

Lastly, reduce any enrollment friction in your pro or loyalty programs.

Work to incorporate loyalty registration directly into your site’s account setup to streamline the process (see the Account Sign-Up Form Topic Guide), and consider letting users earn points retroactively for recent purchases to encourage hesitant users to sign up (see Strategic Brief #LYB42).

33 Quantitative Insights to Inform Home & Hardware UX Improvements

In addition to the 3 insights presented here, all 30 Home & Hardware UX survey insights are available on Baymard along with our Quantitative Insights for general ecommerce on Awareness & Product Discovery, Consideration & Purchase Behavior, Checkout & Post-Purchase, Loyalty (and other industry-specific studies).

These are just 3 of the insights from our Home & Hardware quantitative study.

To get an in-depth understanding of the habits and preferences of home and hardware shoppers, the other 30 insights should be reviewed.

Use these insights along with our Home & Hardware UX guidelines based on observed user behaviour to inform your UX design decisions for your Home & Hardware ecommerce store.

Note that we also offer Quantitative Insights for general ecommerce on Awareness & Product Discovery, Consideration & Purchase Behavior, Checkout & Post-Purchase, and Loyalty many of which are also relevant to home and hardware sites.

Getting access: all 30+ Home & Hardware quantitative insights are available today within Baymard. (If you already have access through an account, open the Home & Hardware quantitative study).

If you want to know how your Home & Hardware desktop and mobile site performs and compares, then learn more about getting Baymard to conduct a Home & Hardware UX audit of your site.

Post this article on X

Related articles

• Introducing a New Baymard Research Focus: Quantitative Insights
• Home & Hardware UX Benchmark: 5,000+ Performance Scores and 4,000+ Best Practice Examples

At Baymard, we’ve just released a new UX benchmark with 9 “Electronics & Office” UX case studies.

This follows from our large-scale user testing and adds to our existing ecommerce UX benchmark.

In this article, we give you a snapshot of the overall UX performance.

9 Electronics & Office UX Case Studies and the Overall Performance

These are the 9 in-depth Electronics & Office UX case studies.

The 9 electronics and office equipment sites have been manually assessed across 500+ research-based UX parameters relevant to Electronics & Office, resulting in 5,000+ weighted UX performance scores and 3,900+ best practice examples from these desktop and mobile sites.

Each of the 5,000+ UX performance scores from the 9 Electronics & Office case studies is summarized in the interactive scatterplot below — showing you how they perform collectively and individually:

{{ scatterplot-graph: size=big + habitat=public + base-sites=collection:electronics-and-office + view-structure-id=gemini-st_yspnx707 }}

The overall UX performance of the electronics and office sites ranges from “poor” to “good” with most sites in the “mediocre” to “decent” range.

Overall, most of the sites demonstrated a generally capable experience; however, they often failed at moments that required orientation, comparison, and reassurance.

Early discovery often suffered from promotional noise, fragmented taxonomies, and missing “view all” or deal-based entry points, which push users into premature narrowing before they fully understand the catalog.

Across lists and product pages, many sites struggled to support side-by-side evaluation of similar products.

Inconsistent attributes, insufficient imagery, and underpowered comparison tools forced extra navigation and manual tracking in an industry where informed comparison is essential.

Checkout flows were generally functional, but often failed to clearly communicate delivery timing, total cost, financing details, or confirmation of completed actions.

These gaps carried into self-service areas, weakening trust during order tracking and ongoing account management.

As this benchmark shows, with only 1 site delivering a “good” or better overall user experience, there is plenty of room for improvement.

A publicly available overview of the research and benchmark can be found on our Electronics & Office UX research overview page.

Getting access: all 5,000+ UX performance scores, 3,900+ best practice examples, and the UX insights from researching the Electronics & Office ecommerce industry are available immediately and in full within Baymard. (If you already have access through an account, open the Electronics & Office UX Benchmark collection.)

If you want to know how your home improvement and hardware desktop site, mobile site, or app performs and compares, then learn more about getting Baymard to conduct a Electronics & Office UX audit of your site or app.

Post this article on X

At Baymard, we’ve just released a new Mobile App UX benchmark with 10 case studies from the Apparel & Accessories and Furniture & Home Decor industries.

This follows from our large-scale user testing research, and adds to our existing ecommerce UX benchmark.

10 New Mobile App UX Case Studies and the Overall Performance

Each of the 10 native mobile apps in the benchmark has been manually benchmarked across 340+ research-based UX parameters relevant to its individual industry.

This provides you with 3,300+ performance scores and 2,500+ new mobile app UX design best practice examples from these apps and markets:

• 7 new Apparel & Accessories app case studies from: ASOS, Macy’s, H&M, Nordstrom, Nike, GAP, and Marks & Spencer

• 3 new Furniture & Home Decor app case studies from: Wayfair, IKEA, and Crate & Barrel

Each of the 10 mobile apps’ 3,300+ UX performance scores are summarized in the interactive scatterplot below — showing you how they perform collectively and individually:

{{ scatterplot-graph: view-structure-id=gemini-st_xneh8pos + habitat=public + size=full-width + base-sites-legend=$30 Major Ecommerce Apps$ }}

A publicly available overview of the benchmark can be found on our ecommerce UX benchmark collection page.

Additionally, these case studies are also now available in their corresponding industry benchmark collections: Apparel & Accessories and Furniture & Home Decor.

Getting Access: all 3,300+ UX performance scores, 2,500+ best practice examples, and the UX insights gained from researching Mobile App UX are available immediately and in full within Baymard.

If you want to know how your desktop site, mobile site, or app performs and compares, then learn more about getting Baymard to conduct a UX audit of your site or app.

Post this article on X

Related articles

• New UX Research Study on Native Mobile Apps (incl. app usage rates)
• Mobile App UX Trends: The Current State of Ecommerce App UX (11 Common Pitfalls & Best Practices)
• New Apparel & Accessories UX Research: 3 High-Level Takeaways from 1,765 Hours of Testing
• New Furniture & Home Decor UX Research: 3 High-Level Takeaways from 2,500 Hours of Testing
• Product Page UX 2026: 10 Pitfalls and Best Practices
• Checkout UX 2025: 10 Pitfalls and Best Practices

Ecommerce UX/UI designers are expected to ship high-converting user experiences at speed, often balancing work across multiple projects that range from full page overhauls to feature tweaks.

Without the time or resources for primary research, designers have to rely on their gut feeling when making design decisions.

This approach has its drawbacks:

1. Slows production: Design approvals stall under subjective options and repeated feedback loops.

2. Reduces certainty: Teams ship unvalidated designs without any evidence that they will actually improve conversions or user experiences.

For many designers, Figma is the place where they do most of their work, but gathering feedback and justifying designs can be challenging.

With Baymard’s UX-Ray Figma Plugin, UX/UI designers can bring objective, research-backed UX best practices for every design decision, right where they do their work.

Each UX insight is backed by Baymard’s 200K+ hours of large-scale user research across 40+ ecommerce industries, shifting the design process from intuition-based to evidence-backed.

Install UX-Ray on Figma for free or learn more about the plugin below.

Why You Should Use UX-Ray for Figma

With the native Figma UX plugin, designers can now eliminate the friction of guesswork, tool switching, and feedback loops.

1. Identify UX Issues in Designs

Scan your designs in Figma and get a prioritized list of issues to resolve.

Ship designs confidently with the UX-Ray Figma plugin by scanning your frames and identifying critical usability issues that can hurt conversion and the user experience.

The UX issues identified are rated and prioritized by severity of impact on a user’s task completion.

You can read a detailed breakdown of the ratings and what they mean below.

2. Secure Faster Stakeholder Buy-in

Validate every design decision with detailed evidence and end subjective discussions.

Shorten feedback loops and end subjective design discussions by backing every decision you make on any UI component to Baymard’s objective UX best practices based on large-scale user research.

Simply put, provide stakeholders with the evidence they need to sign off on your designs.

3. Conduct Quick Competitor Analysis

Analyse competitors instantly to use them as inspiration, but also see where your site can get a head start.

Discover the best-in-class designs from competitors and get inspiration from designs that are actually proven to convert.

Drop competitor screenshots and scan their designs to see what they do well and where they fall short.

How To Use UX-Ray To Instantly Spot & Fix UX Issues In Figma Designs

Step 1: Install the UX-Ray Figma plugin.

Step 2: Open your Figma desktop app and navigate to “Plugins” on the top nav bar, click UX-Ray by Baymard.

Step 3: Select a design frame and click scan.

Step 4: Browse through the list of UX insights.

Step 5: Click on a UX insight to see an explanation of each UI’s component implementation and how to fix it or why it’s good UX.

Step 6: For competitor analysis, add a screenshot of competitor pages, select the frame and click scan.

How to Interpret the Ratings

Identify your design’s biggest UX issues and get actionable feedback on how to fix it.

Each rating has a 95% accuracy rate when compared to Baymard’s human auditors.

We do not allow UX-Ray to publish ratings below the 95% threshold to ensure UX analysis and CRO suggestions do not harm conversions.

Below are the types of ratings you will receive based on the observed user behavior in Baymard’s large-scale testing:

“UX issues” are UX implementations identified that don’t align with Baymard’s research-backed UX Best Practice Guidelines.

We suggest taking action to change these implementations.

There are 4 types of UX issue ratings that vary in severity of observed user friction and task abandonment:

• Very Big Issue: Severe UX issue that leads to task or site abandonment for most to all users.
• Big Issue: Severe UX issue that leads to task or site abandonment for some to most users.
• Medium Issue: Moderate UX issue that needs troubleshooting from some to most users.
• Small Issue: Minor UX issue that briefly interrupts users.

“Good” are UX implementations identified that follow Baymard’s UX Best Practice Guidelines; we suggest keeping these UX implementations as they enable users to complete tasks and adhere to a user’s expectations.

“Unrated” are UX Guidelines that we identified as relevant to your design but have not been automatically rated by UX-Ray.

We suggest manually reviewing these insights and implementing the recommended best practice.

“Not Applicable” are UX Best Practice Guidelines we have that do not apply to the specific scanned design frame.

.

Install UX-Ray’s native Figma plugin to scan and analyze design frames against Baymard’s UX insights database.

Instantly flag usability issues, analyze competitor screenshots, and link any UI component to validated UX best practices.

Now you can secure faster design approvals and shorten feedback loops by bringing evidence to avoid subjective design discussions.

Try UX-Ray for Figma for Free

Post this article on X

Related articles

• AI Heuristic UX Evaluations with a 95% Accuracy Rate (Human-Level Accuracy)
• 2026 Progress: Instant UX Analysis of Your Site Now Across 209 UX Parameters (Still 95% Accuracy Rate)
• UX-Ray 2.0: Research-Backed UX To-Do List in Minutes
• The New Baymard Figma Plugin: Add UX Best Practice Cards to Any Figma Project
• UX-Query - Get Instant Answers to Any UX Question

At Baymard, we’ve just released a new UX benchmark with 10 “Home & Hardware” UX case studies.

This follows from our large-scale user testing and adds to our existing ecommerce UX benchmark.

In this article, we give you a snapshot of the overall UX performance.

10 Home & Hardware UX Case Studies and the Overall Performance

These are the 10 in-depth Home & Hardware UX case studies.

The 10 home improvement and hardware sites have been manually assessed across 500+ research-based UX parameters relevant to Home & Hardware, resulting in 5,000+ weighted UX performance scores and 4,000+ best practice examples from these sites.

Each of the 5,000+ UX performance scores from the 10 Home & Hardware case studies is summarized in the interactive scatterplot below — showing you how they perform collectively and individually:

{{ scatterplot-graph: size=big + habitat=public + base-sites=collection:home-and-hardware + view-structure-id=gemini-st_bo0ca662 }}

The overall UX performance of the home improvement and hardware sites ranges from “mediocre” to “decent”.

Overall, the sites demonstrated a solid baseline experience; however, performance was consistently undermined at moments requiring orientation, comparison, and reassurance.

Early discovery often suffered from unclear category structures and distractions caused by ads and promotions, while product lists and filtering tools did not reliably support efficient comparison across variations, quantities, and specifications.

On product pages, strong content depth was frequently offset by disrupted evaluation flow, missing visual context, insufficient order cost information, and subdued “Add to Cart” buttons.

Checkout and self-service flows generally enabled completion, but often lacked clear order cost information, fulfillment details, and confirmation feedback.

These gaps were especially consequential in an industry defined by project timelines, delivery logistics, and ongoing post-purchase management.

As this benchmark shows, with no sites delivering a “good” or better overall user experience, there is plenty of room for improvement.

A publicly available overview of the research and benchmark can be found on our Home & Hardware UX research overview page.

Getting access: all 5,000+ UX performance scores, 4,000+ best practice examples, and the UX insights from researching the Home & Hardware industry are available immediately and in full within Baymard. (If you already have access through an account, open the Home & Hardware UX Benchmark collection.)

If you want to know how your home improvement and hardware desktop site, mobile site, or app performs and compares, then learn more about getting Baymard to conduct a Home & Hardware UX audit of your site or app.

Post this article on X

At Baymard our research team has spent 3,000+ hours on new large-scale qualitative usability testing and research focusing on Health and Beauty website features, layouts, content, and designs.

This study tested 18 U.S. sites, though several are owned by international companies.

These sites span three categories — Direct Brand, Specialty Beauty Retailers, and Mass Retailers — and include a cross-section of price points from discount to high-end:

• Direct Brand Sites: Avène USA, Bobbi Brown Cosmetics, e.l.f. Cosmetics, Estée Lauder, Glow Recipe, Ilia Beauty, Kiehl’s, MAC Cosmetics, SkinCeuticals, Urban Decay
• Specialty Beauty Retailers: FragranceNet, LovelySkin, Micro Perfumes, Sephora, Stylevana
• Mass Retailers: CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens

This research is based on over 275 qualitative usability test sessions conducted via 1:1 remote moderated testing.

Participants followed the “Think Aloud” protocol while testing sites on both desktop and mobile devices.

During testing, the participants considered and explored makeup, skincare, and fragrance products and encountered 1,200+ medium-to-severe usability issues.

These issues have subsequently been analyzed and distilled into the 490+ UX guidelines found within our Health and Beauty UX research study (which are available as part of our Baymard research findings).

The 490+ guidelines address the health and beauty product-finding experience, ranging from broad user behaviors to the granular usability issues observed in our sessions.

In this article, we’ll introduce 3 high-level UX best practices essential for users’ ability to find, evaluate, and make the decision make a purchase at Health and Beauty sites:

• Provide extensive product visuals
• Provide clear product labeling and product-finding features
• Build user confidence through social proof and reciprocity

Provide Extensive Product Visuals

“I would say this number ‘5’ right here, ‘5’ or ‘6’ would be my face…So ‘Self Love’ will be that,” noted a participant as she identified her blush shade match using an arm swatch image at Sephora (iOS, first image). She then scrolled through the images hoping to find a “Human Model” with a matching skin tone similar to her own, but was disappointed: “I don’t necessarily like that they don’t have a lot of photos with the models having it on their skin! She’s very pretty, but I don’t have as dark a complexion as her. So I would like a few more options with different skin tones to see!” Unable to confidently assess the shade, she abandoned the product: “So I am going to go back and keep looking. I don’t think that would be something that I would add.”

The main hurdle in buying health and beauty products online is that users cannot visit a physical beauty retail space to try testers on their own skin and see how a product’s color, coverage, or texture will look on them.

Instead, users rely on a set of complementary images to piece together a complete picture of how the product will look and perform on their own unique complexion.

Indeed, health and beauty is the second most visually driven “industry” we’ve studied at Baymard, after apparel and accessories.

“Trying to see how it would look on my skin,” complained a participant at Bobbi Brown Cosmetics, who opened the shade finder tool after realizing that none of the foundation stick shades were shown on real skin (iOS, first and second images). Note that on mobile, the lack of a shade overview was even more frustrating because every time she selected a shade she had to scroll up to view it in the image gallery (third image), repeating this for each shade option.

Notably — especially relative to general ecommerce — only having a few “Cut Out” product images will cause some users to abandon.

As one participant complained, “I don’t love the images that they’re providing, because they don’t even have photos of people’s faces.”

”And then it’s also showing different shades, which is also what I like!” A participant at MAC Cosmetics (Android) was enthusiastic about images showing the eye liner shade she was viewing applied on “Human Models” with different skin tones.

”I like the models on this one with the different shades! So I would definitely probably choose one of these”, exclaimed a participant viewing a foundation at MAC Cosmetics (first image). She clicked to get a closer look at the models’ skin tones and selected the best match for herself (second image): “I would go by what would match my skin tone the best — ‘N4’”.

During testing, participants looked for a variety of high-quality image types that included “Applied Makeup” images of the product worn on the intended area of the body (guideline #3171), “Human Model” images featuring each individual shade on a matching skin tone (guideline #3174), and “Arm Swatches” that showcased the entire shade range across multiple complexions for a side-by-side comparison (guideline #3177).

When sites fail to bridge the gap between a digital swatch image and the product’s actual appearance on a real complexion, users face high levels of “shade anxiety”, often leading to site abandonment or a detour to social media for more reliable images — risking that they don’t return to complete the purchase.

Provide Clear Product Labeling and Product-Finding Features

Selecting the right makeup color online is a high-stakes decision because users can, at best, only approximate how a shade will actually look against their own complexion.

“Well! For one thing it doesn’t have the undertone information as far as ‘medium, tan’, if you’re ‘warm’,” remarked a participant at Stylevana (iOS) while looking at the shade options for a foundation. The use of fantasy color names such as “Linen”, “Ginger”, and “Lingerie” didn’t clearly convey the exact shade or undertone color to her. Frustrated by this lack of guidance as well as other issues trying to determine the right shade, she gave up on the product: ”Yeah, I don’t know.” Note that drop-downs should be avoided for selecting shades.

This is made more difficult by the lack of consistent shade naming across brands — for example, a “Medium” foundation in one brand’s lineup might be deeper or warmer than a “Medium” in another, causing users significant uncertainty when selecting a shade.

This challenge is compounded by complexion products where users must select not just a shade level, but also an undertone like “cool”, “neutral”, or “warm” to correctly match their skin tone (see guideline #3180).

“Shopping online for this, it’s just an even bigger kind of an ick from this product because it’s not describing what the shade is,” commented a participant dissatisfied with the shade labels for a complexion product.

”So I’m looking at the name as well as the description. I have a tendency to have a bit of a cooler undertone — cooler to neutral — so anything that has ‘tan’ or anything like that I try to stay away from! Anything that says ‘beige, neutral’ is more up my alley — so like ‘Cool Natural’”, noted a participant as she read through foundation shade descriptions at Bobbi Brown Cosmetics (iOS, first image). She explained how she used the shade description in tandem with the “Human Model” image to narrow in on a match (second image): ”And then I’m looking at the model to see if she looks like my skin type…we’re getting closer, here we go…All right, ‘Neutral Honey’ with ‘Medium dark beige with a balance of pink and yellow undertones for medium dark skin’. I think that this would be perfect for me!”

Clear product naming (for example, in the form of shade descriptors) are essential to help users identify the actual color of each shade.

These plain-language labels provide necessary context that is often missing when brands use alphanumeric codes like “4N1” or “fantasy names” like “Linen” or “Tahoe”.

Indeed, a participant confused about the shade description simply gave up on the product: “This is overwhelming to me right away!”

For complexion products, these descriptors should include both a shade level and an undertone — such as “medium with olive undertones” — to help users distinguish between subtle variations.

”So my shade is ‘Martinique’.” A participant at Ilia Beauty received a recommendation for “Martinique SF11” from the foundation shade-finder feature (first image). She dismissed the screen by tapping on the “X” — one of several ways to exit — and noticed that the shade on the product page was different (second image): ”That’s not the shade y’all gave me.” She began tapping through the shade swatches to find her match and grew frustrated with the effort: ”This is a lot of work to go through each one!”

”Interesting, it’s saying a different shade than I thought. So I’ll press ‘Shop’ with that.” A participant vacillating between 2 shades at MAC Cosmetics was intrigued by the shade-finder recommendation (“NW20”) and clicked the “Shop” button in the overlay to view the recommended shade on the product page (first image) where the matched shade was automatically displayed (second image).

Additionally, to help simplify these selections, users often rely on shade-matching features like shade finders and virtual try-on tools (see guidelines #3186 and #3239).

These tools help users find a shade match or confirm their initial choice.

When they are missing, users may abandon the purchase rather than guess at their shade.

This struggle is especially acute on mobile, where limited screen real estate often separates shade details from product images.

This makes side-by-side comparison very difficult, forcing users into a cycle of scrolling and memorization that adds friction to an already complex decision.

Build User Confidence through Social Proof and Reciprocity

Once a makeup product is selected, users rely on reviews to see how its color and formula perform in real life.

”On this one, I would like to see what type of hair this person has…That would be one thing I’d be concerned about, because I’m not sure what type of hair they have.” Despite a hair serum’s positive reviews, a participant at Stylevana (iOS) was frustrated that reviews didn’t include information on the reviewer’s hair type (first image). Since the site didn’t collect reviewer attributes in its review form, this context was missing (second image; taken by the researcher after testing concluded). The participant explained that in cases like this, she would turn to YouTube: ”This is when I would go on YouTube and search for this product.” Forcing users to seek additional review information off-site risks that they won’t return.

In the health and beauty category, a high star rating is often less influential than the reviewer’s specific beauty profile.

Because a product’s color and texture can look and feel different on everyone, seeing a reviewer’s age, skin type, or eye color allows users to find feedback from people with similar characteristics (see guidelines #3195 and #3192).

“That’s awesome that they give the description of the person and what kind of skin they have, because you can see if it relates to you, if it goes with your skin,” extolled a participant.

Surfacing these specific details allows users to scan for relevant advice from reviewers with similar beauty attributes, enhancing their confidence about the product and increasing the likelihood of purchase.

”Oh, and it says ‘Choose 2 Free Samples’ — free is always good!…I’m being rewarded for spending money. So essentially, I didn’t really spend money!” A participant at LovelySkin (iOS) was gleeful about the complimentary samples offered in her cart, describing them as a reward from the site for her purchase.

The checkout process offers a final chance to leave a lasting impression.

In the health and beauty industry, complimentary samples are an effective way to reward users for their purchase and build stronger loyalty to the site or brand (See guidelines #3251, #3245, and #3242).

“I love free samples!” health and beauty participants frequently exclaimed across testing.

When samples are prominently displayed with clear thumbnails and descriptions, they not only allow users to trial new products risk-free, but transform a routine transaction into a moment of delight that encourages them to return.

Replicate the “In Store” Experience as Much as Possible for Users

“Let me see what they have for the ingredients here…Doesn’t look like there’s any skin-nourishing ingredients in there unless I don’t know what some of these longer words are, which is definitely possible.” A participant was unable to identify any “skin-nourishing” ingredients for a BB cream at Stylevana (iOS) — even though a good dozen, such as “Panthenol (strengthens skin barrier)”, did in fact meet that criteria. She turned instead to the reviews and ultimately decided against adding the product to her cart due to this and other aspects around how the product information was presented: ”I probably wouldn’t add that to the cart.”

For many products, shopping online isn’t fundamentally different from shopping in-person.

For example, a user considering purchasing a computer monitor from a site can use product images, videos, and descriptions (e.g., dimensions information) to approximate the in-store experience — and thus proceed relatively confidently with their purchase.

On Health and Beauty sites, testing showed that the disconnect between shopping online and shopping in person was even greater than it is for other general ecommerce products.

At a physical store, a customer can actually test the product on their body — and get a great sense of whether the product will work for them.

Of course, this experience isn’t possible online — and thus Health and Beauty sites have to be diligent about providing the visuals, information, features, and “perks” that Health and Beauty users will turn to when trying to make a purchase decision.

As our testing shows, this should be a key area to focus on when improving UX design for Health and Beauty sites.

Getting access: all 490+ Health and Beauty UX guidelines are available today within Baymard. (If you already have access through an account, open the Health and Beauty UX study).

If you want to know how your Health and Beauty desktop and mobile site performs and compares, then learn more about getting Baymard to conduct a Health and Beauty UX audit of your site.

Post this article on X

Related articles

• Always Allow Users to Navigate across User Reviews via Reviewer-Submitted Images
• Provide Images of Accessory, Apparel, and Cosmetic Products on a Human Model
• Allow Users to Upload Images with Their Review (34% of Sites Don’t)
• Health & Beauty Sites: New UX Benchmark with 1,500+ Performance Scores and 1,200+ Best Practice Examples

At Baymard, we’ve just released a new UX benchmark with 11 “Toys, Crafts & Hobbies” UX case studies.

This follows from our large-scale user testing and adds to our existing ecommerce UX benchmark.

In this article, we give you a snapshot of the overall UX performance.

11 Toys, Crafts & Hobbies UX Case Studies and the Overall Performance

These are the 11 in-depth Toys, Crafts & Hobbies UX case studies.

The 11 toys, crafts, and hobby sites have been manually assessed across 500+ research-based UX parameters relevant to Toys, Crafts & Hobbies, resulting in 5,500+ weighted UX performance scores and 4,500+ best practice examples from these sites.

Each of the 5,500+ UX performance scores from the 11 Toys, Crafts & Hobbies case studies is summarized in the interactive scatterplot below — showing you how they perform collectively and individually:

{{ scatterplot-graph: size=big + habitat=public + base-sites=collection:toys-and-crafts + view-structure-id=gemini-st_mxg7171s }}

The overall UX performance of the toys, crafts, and hobby sites ranges from “mediocre” to “decent”.

Overall, the Toys, Crafts & Hobbies industry delivered a functional but uneven experience, with most sites providing the core components needed to browse, evaluate, and purchase products, yet frequently falling short in execution at critical decision points.

Systemic weaknesses repeatedly emerged where confidence, comparison, and commitment mattered most, such as refining search results, comparing similar products, understanding delivery timelines, managing carts and accounts, and confirming that actions had been successfully completed.

These gaps often forced additional effort, obscured important information, or introduced uncertainty, particularly for gift-driven purchases, high-consideration items, and post-purchase self-service.

As a result, the industry experience was characterized less by outright failure and more by avoidable friction, where otherwise capable systems did not consistently support efficient, confident decision-making end to end.

As our latest benchmark shows, with no sites delivering a “good” or better overall user experience, there is plenty of room for improvement.

A publicly available overview of the research and benchmark can be found on our Toys, Crafts & Hobbies UX research overview page.

Getting access: all 5,500+ UX performance scores, 4,500+ best practice examples, and the UX insights from researching the Toys, Crafts & Hobbies industry are available immediately and in full within Baymard. (If you already have access through an account, open the Toys, Crafts & Hobbies UX Benchmark collection.)

If you want to know how your toys, crafts, or hobbies desktop site, mobile site, or app performs and compares, then learn more about getting Baymard to conduct a Toys, Crafts & Hobbies UX Audit of your site or app.

Post this article on X

The pressure on UX- and product teams to deliver results faster has never been higher, but the requirement for those results to be rooted in actual user research remains non-negotiable.

At Baymard, we developed UX-Ray to allow UX designers and UX researchers to move rapidly but not recklessly, by providing an instant UX analysis that returns evidence-backed and fully traceable UX insights with a 95% accuracy rate.

Over the last 4 months, we’ve achieved a 5x increase in the depth of instant UX analysis you can perform on your UX designs.

UX Analysis Now Across 209 UX Parameters

As of February 1st, 2026, UX-Ray can now conduct an instant UX analysis of your ecommerce site across 209 distinct UX parameters/heuristics.

This is up from 39 UX parameters in October 2025.

This expansion lets you move from new design frames to a comprehensive, research-backed UX audit in minutes rather than weeks.

See It in Action (Video)

Still with a Documented 95% Accuracy Rate

Speed is irrelevant if the UX insights do not improve UX or conversions.

Positive results hinge on 1) the accuracy of the UX analysis, and 2) the UX insights being fully evidence-based.

Accuracy: UX-Ray still maintains a documented 95% accuracy rate when compared to human UX experts auditing the same site:

• This accuracy rate is continuously tested and retested to ensure the highest standards
• We publish these results directly on our website so stakeholders can verify the documented accuracy for themselves

UX insights being fully evidence-based: A key aspect of UX-Ray is that AI is never used to come up with the UX suggestions themselves or tell you how to improve your site:

• The AI component is strictly limited to mapping your specific UI patterns to Baymard’s existing platform of 700+ UX research guidelines analyzed and developed by human UX experts

• Every UX recommendation is therefore fully traceable and based exclusively on our 200,000+ hours of large-scale UX research, making the results safe for revenue-generating websites

Advanced Use Cases: Prototypes and Competitors

This enhanced coverage isn’t just for live ecommerce sites but you can also:

• Upload images of upcoming designs to get quality assurance before a single line of code is written
• Scan and analyze direct competitors to identify where they are succeeding or failing against research-backed principles

Beyond scanning B2C and B2B ecommerce designs, there’s also partial support for food, travel, SaaS, and telco (full support coming later in 2026)

Try it yourself: Try scanning your own ecommerce site with UX-Ray at baymard.com/product/ux-ray.

Post this article on X

Related articles

• AI Heuristic UX Evaluations with a 95% Accuracy Rate (Human-Level Accuracy)
• UX-Ray 2.0: Research-Backed UX To-Do List in Minutes
• UX-Ray for Figma: Align Your Designs with Research-Backed UX Best Practices
• UX-Ray 1.0 - Get Instant UX Analysis for Any Ecom Site
• The New Baymard Figma Plugin: Add UX Best Practice Cards to Any Figma Project
• Baymard’s New Free Plan — Get Instant Access to Premium UX Research
• UX-Query - Get Instant Answers to Any UX Question

For us at Baymard, 2025 was an exciting year, with thousands of hours of new UX research and benchmarking conducted.

Within the last year, we’ve released the 2 major research studies — Loyalty Program UX and Telco UX Deep-Dive — along with 19 industry-specific benchmarks.

We’ve also launched a brand-new research pillar: Quantitative Insights.

In addition to this, we released UX-Query and UX-Ray to further help ecommerce sites access and apply our UX insights based on over 200,000 hours of Baymard UX research findings.

As the new year begins, we provide an overview of our releases in 2025 and outline the roadmap for 2026.

2 New UX Research Studies in 2025

In 2025 we wrapped up work on 2 new studies: an industry-specific study (telco) and a new core theme study (loyalty).

1) New “Telco” Research Study

Our new Telco UX study included 3,500+ hours of research solely devoted to this industry.

The research included 16 sites focused on US and UK telco providers, including both large mobile networks and MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator) carriers:

• US carriers: T-Mobile, US Cellular, AT&T, Verizon, Optimum, Visible, Mint Mobile, TracFone
• UK carriers: EE, Vodafone UK, Three (3), O2, Sky, GiffGaff, iD Mobile, Tesco Mobile

See the findings from our Telco UX research study or explore our Telco UX articles:

• New Telco UX Research: 3 High-Level Takeaways from 3,500 Hours of Testing
• 17 Common UX Pitfalls Telco Websites Suffer From

2) New “Loyalty & Rewards” Research Study

In late 2025, we wrapped up 1,900+ hours of research on “Loyalty & Rewards” features, layouts, content, and designs.

The research included 17 sites with popular loyalty programs: Sephora, Adidas, Expedia, Starbucks, Target, Ulta Beauty, Bath & Body Works, H&M, DSW, Abercrombie & Fitch, Frontier, Southwest, Hyatt, Chick-fil-A, Crumbl Cookies, Domino’s Pizza, and Kroger.

As a result of our qualitative research findings we’ve now published 12 Loyalty & Rewards UX guidelines.

Also, for this theme we’ve undertaken a large-scale quantitative study, surveying 2,003 US adults who are members of at least one Loyalty program.

Our quantitative research has resulted in 8 Loyalty Strategic Briefs — a new way of providing insight into a UX topic that combines data visualizations with narrative analysis.

See the findings from our Loyalty & Rewards research study or explore the Loyalty & Rewards study launch article.

New Research Focus Area: Quantitative Insights

In 2025, we launched a program to vastly increase and improve our quantitative research insights.

Quantitative Insights are visual, survey-backed data that highlight user habits and preferences across key areas of the ecommerce user experience, from general online shopping preferences to loyalty program expectations.

Each insight is derived from large-scale usability surveys and quantitative research projects, providing a fast, scannable way to understand critical user behaviors.

We’re rolling out new insights every month, with 2 new industry-focused studies coming soon (Home & Hardware and Furniture & Home Decor).

Explore our Quantitative Insights — 18 of these are available on our Free plan — or learn more in the Quantitative Insights launch article.

Baymard’s 10 Most Popular UX Research Articles in 2025

The 10 most popular UX articles for the year are:

1. Checkout UX 2025: 10 Pitfalls and Best Practices
2. AI Heuristic UX Evaluations with a 95% Accuracy Rate (Human-Level Accuracy)
3. Homepage and Category Navigation UX 2025: 67% of Mobile Sites Have Mediocre-to-Poor Performance
4. Product Page UX 2025: 15 Pitfalls and Best Practices
5. Mobile UX Trends 2025: 9 Common Pitfalls & Best Practices
6. Drop-Down Usability: When You Should (and Shouldn’t) Use Them
7. 10 UX Requirements to Follow for a User-Friendly Homepage Carousel Design
8. Product List UX 2025: 8 Common Pitfalls & Best Practices (80% Have Serious Issues)
9. 10 Cyber Monday UX Best Practices
10. The ‘Credit Card Number’ Field Must Allow and Auto-Format Spaces (80% Don’t)

2 New Product Updates 2025

1) UX-Query — Get Instant Answers to Any UX Question

After a year of testing, we released our AI-powered UX search assistant UX-Query in spring 2025.

Just type in your UX question and get insights in seconds — every answer is 100% verified and backed by our Baymard research.

The feature is a great way to:

• Validate your design decisions
• Get research-backed answers instantly in meetings
• Save time on internal testing and desktop research

Try UX-Query with the free plan or learn more in the UX-Query release article

2) UX-Ray 2.0: Research-Backed UX To-Do List in Minutes

In 2025, we also released UX-Ray 2.0, which scans live ecommerce websites (or images of upcoming designs) and provides an instant heuristic evaluation of the site’s UX.

The evaluation is performed across 154 UX heuristics (Baymard UX guidelines) — all based on our 200,000+ hours of large-scale UX research findings.

The unique part? UX-Ray has a documented 95% Accuracy Rate, when compared to how human expert UX auditors would have evaluated the same site.

UX-Ray 2.0 gives you an instant, actionable UX to-do list, empowering your UX team to focus on the areas that matter.

In 2026, we will continue to develop UX-Ray, adding more UX guidelines to site scans, new features, and improving functionality (learn more below).

Learn more about UX-Ray, its accuracy rate, and our test data or try UX-Ray for free now

19 New UX Benchmarks Published

In the last year, we also released 19 new UX benchmarks, adding 50,000+ new best practice and worst practice examples illustrating how leading sites stack up against the 700+ UX guidelines available in Baymard.

You can browse parts of our benchmark dataset for free in our public ecommerce UX benchmark and in the Page Design tool.

These are the new UX benchmarks:

• Travel Accommodations
• Automotive Parts & Specialty
• Vitamins & Supplements
• Sports Gear & Equipment
• Beverages
• European Electronics, Home & Hardware, and Mass Merchant sites
• Eyewear
• Jewelry & Watches
• Footwear
• Educational Reading & Books
• Video Games
• Small catalog Direct-to-Consumer
• Pet Food & Care
• Merchandise & Print-to-Order
• Online Learning
• Flight Booking & Airlines
• SaaS & Digital Subscriptions
• Online Grocery
• Furniture & Home Decor

A Look Ahead of What’s to Come in 2026

Now let’s have a look at the upcoming research, benchmarking, and product updates and releases we have planned for 2026.

Research and Benchmarking

This year we’ll be completing and launching 10 new qualitative UX research studies:

• Core theme retesting: Customer Accounts, Product Details Page, Checkout, and Product Finding
• New Industries: Health & Beauty, Insurance, Events & Shows Ticketing
• Focused deep dives: Groceries & Fulfillment, Complex Product Details Pages, Consumer Electronics

Additionally, we will release new and updated quantitative UX research studies:

• General catalog refresh: Awareness & Product Discovery, Consideration & Purchase Behavior, and Checkout & Post-Purchase
• New cross-geography general catalog study: comparing ecommerce habits and preferences across markets
• New industry studies: Home & Hardware and Furniture & Home Decor, with additional industries to be announced

In the first half of 2026, we’ll also be conducting 12 new UX benchmarks for:

• Platform: Retail Mobile Apps
• Industry benchmarks: Electronics & Office, Toys, Crafts & Hobbies, Home & Hardware, Telco, B2B Electronic Components & Machinery, Health & Beauty, Smoking & Vaping, Food Delivery & Takeout, Mass Merchants, B2B Medical & Pharma, and Internet Service Providers (ISP)

You can see a full breakdown of all releases on our Roadmap & Changelog page.

Product Updates and Releases

On the product side, we are committed to helping you access the research you need in a faster and more personalized way.

Here are some of our product updates & releases to expect in 2026:

UX-Ray Updates:

We’re constantly working on improvements for UX-Ray, which includes UX-Ray rating more heuristics at a 95% Accuracy Rate and updating the interface to make it easier for you to find the relevant UX insights based on your current project.

In fact, we just released the first improvements in January.

UX-Ray can now rate 154 heuristics at a 95% accuracy rate (previously 39), evaluated across 48 different ecommerce websites (previously 45).

You’ll also now be able to see non-rated but highly relevant UX Best Practice Guidelines for your site.

Additionally, UX-Ray now includes a new filtering bar that allows you to surface UX insights based on UI component, page type, business objective and more.

New Native Shopify App:

For the first time, Baymard is creating a Shopify App that connects stores to UX-Ray, allowing you to scan your site and uncover a list of personalized UX insights prioritized by expected conversion impact.

Figma Plug-in Update:

We’re updating our Figma Plug-in to help you design with confidence.

You’ll be able to scan your designs in Figma to surface all relevant UX Best Practice Guidelines, and see which components adhere to them and which need fixing.

UX-Query Updates:

We’re expanding UX-Query’s capabilities and interface, enabling it to reference more than just our UX guidelines.

With the upcoming updates, UX-Query answers will reference additional research content types like Quantitative Insights, best and worst practice examples, and more.

We’re looking forward to another exciting year.

- Christian, Jamie, and the entire Baymard team

Getting access: our research findings are available in the 700+ UX guidelines in Baymard Premium — get access to learn how to create a “State of the Art” ecommerce user experience.

If you want to know how your desktop site, mobile site, or app performs and compares, then learn more about having Baymard conduct a UX Audit of your site or app.

Post this article on X

Related articles

• Baymard Year In Review 2024
• Baymard: 2023 and 2024
• Baymard: 2022 and 2023
• Baymard: 2021 and 2022
• Baymard: 2020 and 2021
• Baymard: 2019 and 2020
• Baymard: 2018 and 2019
• Baymard: 2017 and 2018
• Baymard: 2016 and 2017
• Baymard: 2015 and 2016
• Baymard: 2014 and 2015
• Baymard: 2013 and 2014
• Baymard: 2012 and 2013
• Baymard: 2011 and 2012
• Baymard: 2010 and 2011