UX Writing Case Study: Mamikos
In this article, I will practice what I’ve got from my learning in dibimbing.id bootcamp into research and writing that I have worked on. In this article, I’ll discuss microcopy in the Mamikos app and discuss it starting from In-App microcopy audit, competitor analysis, and conducting A/B testing. I hope this case study gives you valuable insights and inspires others who are interested in UX writing. 🥂
Introduction
At the beginning of this article, I will not explain in detail what UX Writing is, maybe I will only explain a little about what UX Writing is. UX writing is the practice of creating and refining the words and language used in user interfaces to make them clear, concise, and effective in guiding users through an application or website. It involves crafting language that is easy to understand, directing users to take desired actions, and helping users to navigate interfaces smoothly.
UX writers typically work closely with designers, developers, and product managers to create a cohesive user experience. They may write labels for buttons, menu items, and other interface elements, as well as error messages, notifications, and other forms of feedback.
Good UX writing should be concise, clear, and easy to understand. Also, It should be consistent with the brand’s voice and tone, and tailored to the needs of the user. The goal of UX writing is to help users achieve their goals quickly and efficiently while minimizing confusion and frustration.
Background
In this article, I will discuss UX Writing from Mamikos. The word ‘kos’ itself is the same as a boarding house where there are several people living in the same house/building with different rooms. Mamikos was established as a technology company in Yogyakarta. Mamikos starts with being the red line between anak kos and kos owner. To simplify any doubts that make finding boarding houses easier, friendlier, and honest. Therefore at Mamikos, the owners could easily and freely upload and advertise their kos-kosan while the anak kos as the kos-seekers could choose any suitable rumah kos for them to stay and live. Nowadays Mamikos is an App that offers an end-to-end, a complete solution for managing kos, and a complete choice for kos-seekers or a one-stop solution for kos-kosan in Indonesia.
Brand Persona, Tone, and Voice
At first glance, the Mamikos logo looks like a flat owner/mother of many flats in the film Kung Fu Hustle who seems annoying and fierce, but actually, she has a gentle and kind personality. This site is used as a brand persona by Mamikos. The brand persona of Mamikos itself is indeed made the same as the brand name they choose based on the word “Mami” which can be interpreted as a boarding house mother (ibu kos). This is inspired by the figure of caring and kindness that represents the figure of a mother.
Mamikos communicates in a style that is casual and relaxed in the sense that it is not too stiff or formal to its users. Mamikos has a clear and concise tone and voice, emphasizing the importance of conveying relevant information in a way that is straightforward, concise, and easy to understand. In addition, Mamikos also has a supportive and encouraging tone and voice, with the initial commitment of the application to help bring together boarding seekers and owners and achieve their respective goals.
Problem Statement
Mamikos as an end-to-end application that provides kos in Indonesia, they actually use Indonesian in their application. However, one of their problems is that they are not consistent in using Indonesian, there are indeed many other applications that use a mix of Indonesian and English. Mamikos themselves are actually quite consistent but they use English contextually, the rest can be read in the research explanation below.
💡Then in my opinion there are several copies that I think can be improved when observing microcopy in the Mamikos application, including those on the kos search page, kos list page, and empty state.
1. In-App Microcopy Audit for Search Kos Page
On the Search kos page, I see that there are several microcopies that can be corrected so that the copy used in the Mamikos application is consistent with Clear and Concise. Take a look at the copy that I have marked in red.
The first is to change the closest search copy from “Lokasi sekitar saya sekarang” to “Cari di sekitar saya”. The reason for this change is that it considers the clarity of the message to be conveyed and is more concise for the user.
Then change “Pencarian popular” to “Paling sering dicari”. The reason for changing this copy is because the first one might be a mistake in using the word “popular” which should be “populer” in Indonesian. Then the diction “Paling sering dicari” was chosen because in my opinion this is clearer and clearer for users to understand the context of what the options below mean.
2. In-App Microcopy Audit for Kost List Page
The image above is the display that appears on the kos list page when we have searched for an area or a certain area on the kos search page. On this screen I feel there is a copy that can be improved, let’s refer to the tagline of the remaining rooms which I have marked in red.
I will try to change the word left in the sentence “Sisa 2 Kamar” in the tag/information on boarding availability to “2 Kamar Kosong”. This aims at a clear message that users read. The word “Sisa Kamar” seems unclear compared to “Kamar Kosong”. Even if you want to stick with the word “Sisa 2 Kamar” it would be better to use the word “Tersisa”.
Then it must be defined again how many rooms are left that will get the tagline because in some kos cards the list contains “Sisa 3 Kamar”. For example, for the remaining rooms more than 2 will not get the tagline. However, it needs to be looked at again for business interests, whether this “Sisa” tagline is an incentive for users to immediately view and rent, or other reasons.
3. Competitive Analysis for Empty State
Finding competitors who go head to head with Mamikos is not easy, because they don’t really have direct competitors who are exactly the same as them (in terms of the scale of application users, kos providers, and kos seekers). Here I am trying to do a competitor analysis with Rukita, an application platform that is the same as Mamikos which provides a platform for kos seekers. The most striking difference is that Rukita targets the more premium user segment (middle class and above) with limited kos options.
So, I used this competitor analysis to look at the copies in Mamikos and Rukita, especially the copies in the Empty State. After viewing and doing comparisons I can suggest some recommendations microcopy for Empty State Mamikos.
Goals
This writing and research were carried out in order to help users understand what they want to convey from a copy in the Mamikos application. Then make a microcopy contained in the Mamikos application according to and consistent with the Mamikos Tone & Voice. The Mamikos Tone and Voice as already explained are Clear, Concise, Supportive, and Encourage.
Research Methods
A/B Testing
A/B Testing, also known as split testing, is a method of comparing two versions of a digital product to see which performs better. Usually, the creative team divides users into two groups and each is shown a different variant. Half saw version A, the other — B. Such an approach helps determine a more profitable solution. The difference between options A and B can vary from the smallest to the largest.
Interview
This method should be used when we conduct descriptive qualitative research and must formulate a number of questions that we will ask respondents. However, in this study, the authors will only ask a few questions about their opinions regarding these two different copies.
The research method that will be used in this research and in this paper is a mix of A/B testing of the microcopy that has been made and a few questions to ask for their explanation of the two screens showing different microcopies. This was done because considering the limited number of respondents the writer could do a split group for A/B Testing. But these are all just methods aimed at validating the copy to users who use the Mamikos application.
Research
After making observations as well as the In-App Microcopy Audit and Competitor Analysis, now is the time for me to conduct A/B Testing research on Mamikos users. To do this A/B Testing and interview I have asked 6 Mamikos users to become participants and resource persons in this test. Looking at the demographics of the age of Mamikos users via similarweb, it can be seen that 45% of visitors are 18–24 years old and 38% are 25–34 years old. Seeing the needs and business targets of Mamikos, I assume (because I can’t access real data) they are students and workers aged between 18–34 years who need boarding houses/temporary accommodation close to their campus or workplace.
1. A/B Testing Result for Search Page
The scenario here is when a user wants to find a boarding house on the Mamikos application, they will click on search for a kos and will be directed to the kos search page. Here we will test 2 microcopies on Screen A (before) and Screen B (after) that have been made, and find out why the user prefers one of these Screens.
5/6 respondents chose screen B and only 1/6 respondents chose screen A. Here are some reasons and their opinions about the two screens above and why they chose one of them.
“Tulisan “cari di sekitar saya” jelas sih ngasih tau kalo klik tulisan tersebut, kalau saya pengen cari kosan yang memang berada ada disekitar saya. Terus untuk tulisan “Paling sering dicari” juga okelah dibanding “Pencarian popular” buat ngejelasin kampus/tempat mana aja yang sering dicari.” -YA, 27th, Employee
Buat saya “Cari di sekitar saya” terlihat lebih ringkas dan jelas aja ya soalnya dibanding dengan yang sebelumnya, terus kata “Paling sering dicari” juga ngejelasin banget konteks tulisan apa di bawahnya. -DN, 27th, Employee
Here it is clear that the user is more pleased with screen B compared to screen A, some of them argue that the copy of screen B is clearer in explaining the intent or purpose of the copy.
2. A/B Testing Result for Kost List Page
The scenario here is when the user has entered the name of a place or area on kos search page, then they will be redirected to the boarding list page available in that area. Here we will test 2 microcopies on Screen A (before) and Screen B (after) that have been made, and find out why the user prefers one of these screens.
5/6 respondents chose screen A and only 1/6 respondents chose screen B. Here are some reasons and their opinions about the two screens above and why they chose one of them. Here I also ask from the two screens, which one makes the impression more to immediately see the kos room with the tone of each copy, namely “Sisa 1 Kamar” or “1 Kamar Kosong”.
“Screen A lebih ngebuat kita penasaran dibanding screen B soalnya kaya ngasih tau kalo kos ini tuh sisa 1 kamar. Kalau screen B kita kaya cuma dikasih tau kalo masih ada 1 kamar kosong.” -SF, 23th, College Student
“Tulisan “Sisa 1 Kamar” tuh kaya kita dikasih tau kalo ini beneran tinggal 1 aja nih kamar, makanya coba liat atau klik biar ngga kehabisan. Tapi tulisan “1 Kamar Kosong” itu sebenernya sama juga sih ngasih informasi sisa kamar tapi kaya ngga ngedorong atau ga nyiptain sense urgensi aja.” — YR, 23th, College Student
From the explanations of several sources, we can conclude that screen A causes more of a curiosity effect and an effect of fear of running out of kos room compared to screen B. This may also be a consideration from a business perspective, especially on the level of interest and consideration from the user before finally becoming a Mamikos customer.
3. A/B Testing Result for Empty State
There are two empty states here which will be discussed after an In-App Audit is carried out and also an analysis of competitors with the Rukita application. The first scenario is when the user uses several/many filters to search for kos but they don’t find them, then this empty state appears. The second scenario is when the user has not favorite any kos on the Mamikos application, then the user goes to the favorites page, then this empty state appears. The following is a description of the results of the two empty states.
4/6 respondents chose screen B and only 2/6 respondents chose screen B. Here are some reasons and their opinions about the two screens above and why they chose one of these screens.
“Keterangannya bagus ya ngga terlalu bertele-tele dan ngejelasin kenapa halaman ini kosong bukannya berisi kos yang gue pengen.” — AA, 25th, Employee
“Screen B ngasih tau lebih jelas aja sih, kalo gue harus ubah filter lagi buat nemuin kos, dan kos dengan filter yang gue mau itu ngga ada. terus mereka kaya minta maaf gitu kalo kos yang gue pengen tuh belum ada.” -FK, 25th, Employee
From the tests carried out and their explanations about the two screens and why they chose one of the screens above, it can be concluded that the majority of users are happy with the empty state on-screen B. However, it cannot be ignored that some argue that screen B seems long-winded and not too to the point.
6/6 respondents chose screen B and no one chose screen A. Interesting because this is one of several screens that get an absolute choice on one of the screens. Here are some of their reasons and opinions about the two screens above and why they chose one of them.
“Lebih prefer screen B karena selain lebih ngejelasin apa maksud dari ilustrasi dari halaman ini juga ngasih tombol kita buat nyari kos lagi selain dari yang udah direkomen di bawahnya ya.” -FK, 25th, Employee
“Dari segi keterangan sih screen B lebih bagus ya, ngejelasin juga sama ngajak kita nyari kos juga tuh lewan tombol cari kos. Sama ini sih ngga belang kalo screen A kesannya kaya belang gitu, ada pemisah dari penjelasannya sama rekomendasi kos yang buat kita.” -YA, 27th, Employee
From the A/B Testing conducted and their opinion regarding the empty state of this page, it can be concluded that screen B is better at conveying the message to be conveyed. In addition, some respondents were also more pleased with the interface design found on screen B compared to screen A.
Conclusion
At the end of this article, I can conclude that based on A/B Testing and interviews with 6 Mamikos users on the four screens in the Mamikos application, the majority of them chose screen B (After). However, there was also one Testing case in which the majority of users chose screen A (Before) because they considered that the “Sisa 1 Kamar” copy encouraged them to immediately take a closer look at the kos room compared to the “1 Kamar Kosong” copy.
There are still many shortcomings in this research and writing, this is also added because the author cannot collect as many respondents as possible to carry out proper A/B Testing. Then I hope that this writing can also be a learning medium for anyone, especially for those who want to learn UX Writing. This research might be better if I could get additional information about user behavior and long-term plans from Mamikos themselves. This will help further align content from a user as well as a business perspective.
What I’ve Learned
- I am very happy with my learning process in the field of UI/UX, especially since this is my first writing and research on UX Writing. So this is one part of the long process that I’m going to go through.
- I also learned that UX Writing plays a big role in product design and how copy can also influence the user in their next action. This research also made me pay more attention to how other products express themselves through writing.
- Making copy that matches the tone & voice of a consistent brand is also a challenge and requires creativity in making copywriting.
Further References
Thank you for taking the time to read through this article, I would love to hear input and suggestions from all the readers! 👁️ 💭
Also, feel free to contact me! 😉
