Disney+ UX Teardown: A Critical Review of Design

Disney revealed at the beginning of this month its complete commitment to streaming platforms.

This new direction for the company involves a substantial restructuring of its media and entertainment operations, centering on the creation of content specifically for premiere on its streaming and television channels.

Specifically, the company will consolidate its media operations, advertising and distribution sectors, and the Disney+ department, bringing them all under a unified business segment.

According to Jonathan Shieber of TechCrunch, Disney’s declaration comes after a notable adjustment to its content release plans, responding to current circumstances such as a decline in traditional cinema attendance, challenges in production, and the considerable popularity of the Disney+ streaming service – factors all influenced or hastened by the insufficient national response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Therefore, this is an opportune moment to provide an in-depth analysis of the Disney+ user experience, similar to Extra Crunch’s approach. Collaborating with Peter Ramsey, the founder of Built for Mars and a leading UX specialist, we will examine Disney+'s strengths and areas for improvement, including a streamlined signup process, the effective use of progress indicators, and the necessity of designing for various input methods like trackpads, mice, and touchscreens beyond dedicated apps.

A Focused Experience During Registration

When a user is focused on a particular action – like completing a financial transaction – it’s important not to divert their attention. These situations involve goal-oriented user behavior.

A successful example of this is Disney, who has largely eliminated potential interruptions during the sign-up process. This includes removing the standard header and footer elements to help users maintain concentration on the task at hand.

Peter Ramsey: Absolutely, it’s a remarkably simple optimization. It’s not unusual to encounter sign-up pages featuring Google Adwords, which seems counterproductive – potentially losing a user over a minimal revenue gain. My assumption is that many companies avoid this approach due to the perceived complexity of temporarily concealing various page elements.

The power of percentages

Employ percentages judiciously, only when they effectively convey value. A discount of 80% appears substantial, while 3% may not. Percentages can be a useful tool for amplifying the perceived size of a reduction in price, but they can also diminish its impact. This is due to the common difficulty people experience when attempting to accurately determine discount amounts. Consider the question: “What is 13% off of £78?”

A problematic approach: If a yearly subscription to Disney+ includes an offer of 16% free, this isn’t easily calculated mentally—leading individuals to estimate. These estimations can sometimes be lower than the actual discount value.

A more effective solution: In this scenario, presenting the offer as “60 days free” would be considerably more appealing and require less effort in mental calculation. Sixty days is both readily understandable and allows for easy assessment of its worth.

Therefore, this is a genuinely intricate issue with no straightforward answer—it could be a stimulating topic for discussion. If you are comparing two discounts, a percentage can indeed be the most straightforward way for people to make a comparison.

However, in the case of Disney+, a “16% discount” is purely a financial figure and difficult to translate into a tangible benefit. Conversely, advertising it as “Two months free Disney+” presents a “value” that requires no calculation whatsoever.

It is reasonable to assume that there are also reasons why expressing a discount in actual monetary terms isn’t always the best strategy when aiming to maximize conversions?

Once again, it’s a complex matter. For instance, a 2% discount on a new car might equal £1,000. It’s difficult to reframe this as a benefit—as was done with the “Two months free” Disney+ example—and 2% feels like a very small amount. In such a case, a monetary discount would be preferable; £1000 feels more significant than 2% of £50,000.

Generally, novelty isn't the key to success

Achieving excellent implementation of an idea is often more valuable than striving for a completely original design that is poorly realized.

The outcome: Disney has indeed modeled aspects of its service after Netflix. Amazon Prime Video has also drawn inspiration from Netflix. In fact, these companies likely influence each other’s approaches. However, this is acceptable because Disney has produced a highly polished and effective version of this established model.

We have previously discussed this concept within our UX analyses for Extra Crunch. This instance highlights that leveraging a familiar user experience or flow isn’t just acceptable or advantageous, but also presents a chance to excel in execution. Essentially, prioritizing quality work doesn’t require a pursuit of groundbreaking originality.

That’s accurate, and as an illustration, it would be a significant challenge to develop a platform more user-friendly than Twitter. Successfully replicating – and refining – a Twitter clone would be a complex undertaking.

The ‘I have no idea what this does’ button

Buttons are designed to initiate actions – for example, placing a product into a virtual shopping cart – but if users aren't informed about the outcome of their click, the action might as well not have occurred.

A common issue arises when attempting to add a title to a watchlist. The process requires clicking a (+) button. While functional for those familiar with its purpose, the button lacks clear labeling, forcing users to rely on guesswork. After activation, the “+” symbol simply changes to a checkmark.

A potential solution involves adopting a strategy similar to Netflix. Their buttons explicitly state “Add to watchlist.” Although this requires more space with three words, it ensures clarity for new users.

It’s interesting to see the reappearance of what’s often called “mystery meat” navigation. What motivates designers to employ this approach? Could it be a preference for visual aesthetics over explicit text labeling on buttons?

The phrase “mystery meat” navigation is quite descriptive. From conversations with designers, it appears that aesthetic considerations are frequently the primary driver behind this design choice, as you propose.

If a button’s function isn’t readily apparent, it’s reasonable to assume that users will engage with that feature less frequently. This is particularly significant when the feature in question is a central component of the user experience.

That seems likely. It’s easy to underestimate the power of established habits and how quickly they develop. Consequently, if individuals use a platform like Disney+ for an extended period without ever experimenting with an unlabeled “+” button, they may simply never utilize it.

Trackpad, Mouse, and Touch – Don’t Overlook These Input Methods

It’s important to recognize that, aside from applications designed specifically for a platform, users will engage with your software through diverse means. Some will utilize a mouse with a scroll wheel, while others will rely on a trackpad or direct page clicking and scrolling. Therefore, ensure all your elements are compatible with these various interaction styles.

A common issue: When navigating through episodes within a series on Disney+, it’s surprisingly easy to unintentionally select an option. This occurs because standard touch gestures, such as a two-finger swipe, are not supported.

The solution: Develop your software to accommodate the full range of device inputs, including assistive technologies. Thorough and repeated testing is crucial.

It’s particularly frustrating when a user experience design undermines a well-established and functional element or feature of the underlying device or operating system. This occurs far more frequently than it should. Is this simply due to a lack of effort, or are other factors at play?

I share your sentiment! While a degree of carelessness might be involved, it’s more probable that the product team simply didn’t consider this aspect. Alternatively, they may have acknowledged it but deemed it a low-priority issue for resolution.

Testing repeatedly appears to be the key, but accessibility extends beyond testing and falls outside the focus of this analysis. Could you suggest any resources for accessible web and app design to help product teams learn and implement best practices?

Numerous resources are available on Google; it’s difficult to recommend just one. A challenge with established “standards” is that technological advancements often outpace their ability to adapt, creating a constant delay. This is why exceptional product managers are highly valuable to startups.