I've went out of my way to give feedback to Vanguard about their platform's "lack of beauty", but didn't realize just how much I could've spoken about my problems with navigability and overall lack of desire to stay on their platform as a by product of design choices like this. Did they not want me to learn why I should love to stay invested with them?
Might be part of a broader question: Why do most "incumbent" banks have such painful UX/UI? I'm sure audience, age & size (inversely proportional to modernity & speed) all play a role, but that doesn't mean they aren't incentivized to make changes that would increase their bottom line.
I say incumbent to contrast with companies like Mercury for instance, which I think has done so much to modernize the online interface most business owners would want with their banking portal. Could be an interesting counter-case study.
Thanks for this! Just like Hugo said, my hunch is that they don't want the "Log In" button to compete for attention with elements like the "Get Started" button or "$300 Online statement credit offer". Perhaps they theorised that their existing customers would find the Log In button regardless, because that's why they're visiting the website. Whereas potential new customers may be distracted from getting started by a visually prominent Log In button?
100% And they have 70M customers! So log in is for sure a key behavior for them. Even if just based on support issues for those 70M peopel. And transparently, this has bugged me for 2-3 years...so I don't think it's as strategic as it may seem. It could be, but would be surprised. And...benchmaked other banks and CC providers (Capital One and Discover) and they don't do this. They have two high contrast buttons -- while selling credit cards. :) But for sure agree with your sentiment.
I've went out of my way to give feedback to Vanguard about their platform's "lack of beauty", but didn't realize just how much I could've spoken about my problems with navigability and overall lack of desire to stay on their platform as a by product of design choices like this. Did they not want me to learn why I should love to stay invested with them?
Might be part of a broader question: Why do most "incumbent" banks have such painful UX/UI? I'm sure audience, age & size (inversely proportional to modernity & speed) all play a role, but that doesn't mean they aren't incentivized to make changes that would increase their bottom line.
I say incumbent to contrast with companies like Mercury for instance, which I think has done so much to modernize the online interface most business owners would want with their banking portal. Could be an interesting counter-case study.
Thank you Kirsten, It may be that BoA may want to focus more on the acquisition of new customers therefore the contrast button is “Get Started”.
Thanks for this! Just like Hugo said, my hunch is that they don't want the "Log In" button to compete for attention with elements like the "Get Started" button or "$300 Online statement credit offer". Perhaps they theorised that their existing customers would find the Log In button regardless, because that's why they're visiting the website. Whereas potential new customers may be distracted from getting started by a visually prominent Log In button?
100% And they have 70M customers! So log in is for sure a key behavior for them. Even if just based on support issues for those 70M peopel. And transparently, this has bugged me for 2-3 years...so I don't think it's as strategic as it may seem. It could be, but would be surprised. And...benchmaked other banks and CC providers (Capital One and Discover) and they don't do this. They have two high contrast buttons -- while selling credit cards. :) But for sure agree with your sentiment.