Ongoing exploration, ahead of qualitative user research
Why is our product-page navigation menu barely used?
On campsite pages, the menu meant to guide users through the sections (water park, entertainment, accommodation, rates…) shows a very low click-through rate on desktop, and goes almost unnoticed on mobile.
A study with 450 users ruled out the disinterest hypothesis: people care a lot about the section content. Contentsquare named the real culprit — a 27% average scroll rate: most visitors never get far enough down to see the menu at all.
Three directions are under test to address this visibility and placement problem, before committing to qualitative research.
Outcome — Next step: confronting these directions with qualitative user research to validate or invalidate the visual-hierarchy hypothesis.
A component can be well designed, correctly placed in the hierarchy, and still be invisible. That is what this exploration — still ongoing — is about.
It also illustrates a way of working: treating a weak signal in the data as the start of a hypothesis, not as a conclusion.
01 · Observe
A menu built for very dense pages
Homair’s campsite pages are exceptionally content-rich: water park, entertainment, sports facilities, kids’ and teens’ clubs, accommodation types, nearby activities, practical services, price grid. To structure all that, a sticky navigation menu lets users jump straight from one section to another.
On paper, the component is useful and well placed. In practice, the behavioural data tracked in Contentsquare shows an abnormally low click-through rate per section against the expected usage — and near-zero use on mobile.
02 · Measure
Three hypotheses, and one number that settles it
Three hypotheses were on the table:
- user disinterest in the content on offer;
- a visibility failure — the menu blends into the page and isn’t read as a tool;
- a positioning problem — the menu only appears after scrolling, so its exposure depends entirely on the user’s effort.
Contentsquare named the culprit almost immediately: the average scroll rate on a campsite page is only 27%. The vast majority of visitors never get far enough down to discover the menu. The component isn’t being rejected, it isn’t being met.
03 · Rule out
Killing the wrong lead before investing in it
The disinterest hypothesis still had to be checked — the most tempting one, because it’s the most comfortable: if people don’t click, perhaps the content simply doesn’t interest them.
I ran a study on Useberry with a panel of 450 users. The result is unambiguous, and it cuts against that convenience: interest in the content is very high. The water park and the entertainment programme come out far ahead, among new and returning visitors alike. Sports facilities draw moderate interest, kids’ and teens’ clubs less — but no section is ignored.
What this demonstrates — ruling a hypothesis out is worth as much as validating one. Without this study, the temptation would have been to rework the section content — that is, to treat a symptom that didn’t exist.
With disinterest ruled out, every remaining effort could go to the two real factors: visibility and placement.
04 · Explore
Three directions under test
Three directions are being explored in parallel, to isolate the most decisive variable before committing to full qualitative research.
A positioning A/B test first, the most direct one: move the menu much higher up the page, so it is seen without any scrolling effort.
A search field built into the menu next, turning passive navigation into an active tool — the direction that most changes the nature of the component.
Finally, showing the entry price next to the “Rates & availability” CTA, giving the menu transactional value rather than merely utilitarian. Alongside these, finer adjustments: a distinct background colour to detach the menu from the content, a narrower layout to give it more relative presence, and a scroll-triggered entrance animation.
05 · Continue
Next step
These directions will be confronted with qualitative user research before any final call. The goal isn’t to pick the prettiest variant; it’s to validate or invalidate the visual-hierarchy hypothesis through direct observation.
A 27% scroll rate doesn’t tell me what to do, only where to dig. The answer will come from user testing, once the right variable is isolated.