Internet World is the UK’s longest running, best attended and biggest annual event for digital marketing and online business, attracting over 12,000 visitors and more than 300 exhibitors. Internet World set out to determine and deliver the future of IT, digital and online technology to business professionals in the UK. Internet World is now Europe’s largest event for digital business and its 20th yearly event will take place in London Earls Court on the 24 – 26 April 2012

WUP will be presenting the following seminar:

Title: How Orange improved the effectiveness of their mobile site by iterative prototype usability testing with the latest mobile eyetracking device

Speaker Name & Job Title: Dr Sarah Burton Taylor, Director, WUP

Date: Wednesday 25th April

Time: 13.50 – 14.20

Theatre: Mobile

The Masterclass was a joint presentation with Liverpool City Council focusing on the importance of taking a user evidenced approach to web development. This was illustrated by the case study of Liverpool.gov.uk which has recently been radically redeveloped with significant positive outcomes for both customer and council. Read more about how WUP helped in this process by reading the case study.

• Download the WUP presentation – Understanding what your customers really want
• Download the Liverpool CC presentation

Media Pro is a meeting of the brightest marketing minds – planning and preparing for the next generation of marketing integration. Hear speakers from some of the most forward thinking brands and agencies on their latest campaigns and thinking, and meet suppliers of dynamic marketing and media solutions and services in the exhibition.

WUP is exhibiting so come and visit us at our stand E120

WUP is presenting alongside Orange at the Digital theatre on Tuesday 1st November Time: 12.35 – 13.00

Orange is one of the main mobile phone networks and broadband providers in the UK. Orange is redeveloping its portal homepage involving iterative user testing with eyetracking by WUP. Orange has recently redeveloped and launched their website portal, and is currently going through the same process with their mobile site.

Download this article in PDF format

Why go mobile?

Mobile means your customers can access your site anywhere in the world – whilst they are waiting for the bus, getting on a train or simply passing by the time of day. Gone were the days when you had to sit at a desk, tied down by wires to browse the Internet. Mobile Internet has arrived.

According to e-consultancy (2010) mobile internet usage will overtake PC usage by 2013 – which is not in the too distant future. Think back to when the mobile web did not exist, the only way of getting through to your customers was via traditional marketing channels and the Internet (via a computer). Since the mobile web, this has broadened the reach of customers and is also providing an additional channel to increase sales. In 2009 eBay announced that they had generated $380 million in sales through their mobile commerce channel.

It is also vital to consider whether your competitors have gone mobile. If they have, then you may be missing out on those extra sales. However it is important to note that just because your competitors have gone mobile, this may not be necessarily the best approach for you. Ensure that you have a firm mobile strategy in place, rather than rushing the product to market and getting it wrong.

There are two alternatives to having a mobile presence. The first is designing a mobile site and the second is designing a mobile app. There are both benefits and drawbacks of each of these approaches and we will take a look at these here. The key is to consider your target audience and determine how loyal your customers are.

Mobile Sites

Mobile sites are designed specifically for web-capable mobile phones, and of course can only be accessed when there is a connection to the internet. They are often simplified versions of the main website, with fewer graphics and basic UI elements such as drop downs and checkboxes, which are better suited to a small mobile phone screen. There are many examples of mobile sites out there, to name a few – John Lewis, Marks and Spencers, Asos, Tesco Direct, Halfords and Trip Advisor.

In October 2010, only having recently launched their mobile site, Asos had taken 23,000 mobile orders. This clearly shows the power of having a mobile site.

A further example is the John Lewis mobile site. John Lewis currently have 100,000 visits every week from mobile users.

Why have a mobile site (compared with an app)?

The main benefit of having a mobile site over an app, is that it is not ‘mobile device’ specific. As it is not designed for a particular device e.g. iPhone, the site will appeal to and can be accessed by a larger audience – be it users of an iPhone, HTC, LG or Motorola mobile phone. Following on from this, from an organisation’s point of view there is no need to design multiple versions for different platforms, as is the case with apps. This can be both time consuming and costly.

A further benefit is that once your team have agreed on a final design, mobile sites can be launched quickly. They do not need to undergo approval by third parties, or as is the case with iPhone apps, it does not need to be approved by Apple before it can be released.

In addition, as mobile sites do not have to be downloaded directly to the phone and can be accessed by carrying out a general search in the Internet browser, one could argue that more users are likely to come across it as they do not have to download a specific app to be able to use it and purchase from it.

However a possible drawback of having a mobile site is that users have to remember the name of your organisation and/or have it saved in their favourites, as opposed to having it sitting on your desktop as an app would. As e-consultancy pointed out ‘Your users have to remember you exist…If they don’t, and they don’t add your website to their home screen, they’re likely to forget about your website’ (e-consultancy, June 2011)

Apps

Mobile apps are small applications that are downloaded onto your smart phone and with many, once they have been downloaded can be accessed without an internet connection. They are designed specifically for smart phones and for a specific operating system (OS). Two of the more popular operating systems are iOS used for iPhones, and Android used for a range of mobiles such as the HTC range. There are currently over 300,000 apps available on the app store according to Apple (for the iPhone) and they have exceeded 1 billion downloads. These range from apps to help with cooking, fitness, shopping, entertainment, gaming, business, music, navigation; the list is endless. Examples include Amazon, Facebook, BBC News, Interflora, Next, Comet and eBay. As for the Android market, there are just over 84,000 apps available.

Why have an app (compared with a mobile site?)

The main benefit of having an app over a mobile site is that in particular the iOS based devices such as the iPhone, iPad and iPod account for the bulk of the use of mobile phone devices in the UK. In 2010, Apple had 63.7% of the market share of smart phones in the UK and Android had 15.2%. However more recently in 2011, during the first quarter trends have altered. Whilst Apple’s iPhones sales have roughly doubled, their market share has only risen slowly compared with Android’s market share that has risen steeply to 36% (L. Meyer, 2011)

Apps tend to provide a richer experience, compared with mobile sites. More and more apps are using features such as barcode scanning (taking a photograph of a barcode using your smart phone and ordering the product), location based services and interacting with the outdoors e.g. using apps to identify stars in the night sky.

One could also argue that if a customer has gone to the effort of downloading your app, they are more likely to be loyal and use it, as every time they switch on their smart phone, the app will be on their ‘desktop’.

Being on the app store, particularly if your app reaches the top 25 will assist in letting customers know about your app and will boost the number of downloads. Not only will this increase sales (if it is ecommerce) but will raise brand awareness.

As mentioned previously, with many apps once they have been downloaded it is possible to use them without an internet connection. However this does depend on the type of app that is being designed. Of course if there are transactional elements to the app, this will most likely require an internet connection.

Why not have both?

If time and budget are not an issue, why not have both? As long as there is a clear mobile strategy in place, and you have clearly defined your target audience providing both a mobile site and app will reach out to a larger audience, meaning customers from a wide range of mobile devices can access your content and products. Examples of organisations that have both are Amazon, Facebook, eBay and YouTube.

A good example is Trip Advisor. When entering the site on an iPhone, the user is presented with the option to continue onto their mobile site or is cross sold their iPhone app. With the click of a button, the user can download their app. This seems to be a very good approach.

Combining mobile and traditional channels

Whether choosing an app or a mobile site there are a number of ways in which it is possible to combine both mobile and traditional marketing channels. A popular feature is the use of location services; this could be either to find out the users current location, and from this find their nearest store or houses in their local area. This feature is particularly useful and saves time for the user. An example of this is the property app rightmove.

Also becoming increasingly popular is targeted mobile marketing using location services. For example if walking in a particular shopping centre, appropriate promotions and discounts from these shops could be pushed to the user’s phone.

Another is to allow customers to search for a product and reserve it. They can then later collect it at their local store. An example of this is John Lewis’ ‘click and collect’ option. Although excellent in practice, this is not available for all products.

Conclusion

There are benefits and drawbacks of both apps and mobile sites. What is obvious is that if a clear mobile strategy is put in place and the target users have been clearly defined, this is the key to success. If the organisation has a strong brand identity and users are likely to be brand loyal, then an app may be the way to go. As described, Apple in 2010 had 63.7% of the market share of smart phones in the UK and therefore the majority are using the iOS platform. However if thinking about a long term solution, and you want to appeal to a larger audience i.e. all smart phone users, then a mobile site should be produced as this will work on all platforms.

References

Apple, App Store (2011). App statistics.
Charlton, G., (2010) Q & A. Debenhams Harriet Williams on mobile commerce. E-consultancy
Charlton, G., (2010) Asos. Mobile site review. E-consultancy
Charlton, G., (2010) John Lewis launches mobile site. E-consultancy
eBay., (2009) Statistics
Latif, L., (2010). iPhone loses market share
The Inquirer
Meyer, L., (2011) Android shoots past iPhone on OS in market share Android
Robles, P., (2011) Why the Financial Times can circumnavigate Apple, and others can’t
E-consultancy
Wauters, R., (2010). 100,000 Applications in Android market? Not just yet. Android market

What next?

Contact us

T: 01249 444 757 e: info@wupltd.co.uk

Further information

App product information sheet

Articles

10 top tips for a successful app

Top suggestions for a successful app

Virgin holiday brochures app review

Cineworld app review

Met office app review

Hilton app review

Some faceted search tools filter too far. Users may want to select multiple filters for colour, brand or size – if the Tshirt is only £10 I don’t mind whether it is blue or green. Users don’t want to conduct a new search each time.

The way users prioritise filter options may also change in sale time. Price is likely to be far more important. Brand may be less so.

The upshot is that a highly filtered approach can be as time consuming to use in sale time as one which does not filter products, simply because the user may need to conduct multiple searches to find anything they want. Retailers need to decide if it is feasible or desirable to change the way their filters work in sale times when users want to search through lots of options but feel both time pressured and aware that there may be limited stock of their chosen item. Or perhaps the need to easily choose more than one option within a filter field applies all the time, not just during the sales?

Download this article in PDF format

The faceted search is becoming ever more popular as e-commerce sites aim to showcase their multitude of products. The faceted search enables users to customise the way in which they search for a particular item, whether it is an item of clothing or a laptop. Upon selecting a number of criteria (facets) e.g. brand, colour, the search results alter dynamically displaying the relevant items. Users are then able to select/deselect facets with the results altering visually in front of them.

An alternative to the faceted search is the filtered search, although this is somewhat less sophisticated. Users are able to select from a series of filters in order to drill down to the desired product. A common approach to this is the use of drop down lists, radio buttons and checkboxes and can be found across many travel websites.

Why use a faceted search?

The faceted search enables users to take control of the way in which they search for items and allows for dynamic refinement. It allows the user to determine quickly which product meets their needs. It is particularly beneficial for sites that have a large and/or complex product range e.g. computers, where users have a vast number of criteria to contend with.

“The power of faceted search lies in the ability of users to create their own custom navigation by combining various perspectives rather than forcing them through a specific path” (Lemieux 2009)

Pitfalls

Depending on the number of facets, a faceted search can take up a considerable amount of real estate, leaving users to scroll. From a usability perspective, users only “allocate 20% of their attention below the fold” (Nielsen 2010) and are, therefore, not likely to see the facets presented to them below the fold. Issues may also arise when facets are correlated, as opposed to being independent of each other, causing difficulty during implementation, for example “…an article of clothing …comes in both red and blue, and in both large and small sizes – however the smaller instance comes only in red whereas the large instance comes in both colours” (Ben-Yitzhak, Neumann et al. 2008).

Current trends

We undertook an audit of 100 top e-commerce sites to understand the faceted search conventions that were currently being used (sites can be found in the appendix). 34 % of the sites had a faceted search, whilst 52% of sites used a filtered search. The remaining sites used a traditional information architecture and search functionality.

Faceted search across different sectors

60% of retail clothing sites used a faceted search, as opposed to a filter. Facets varied between sites; however, commonly used facets were size, colour, price, brand and occasion. As for retail electronics sites, 44% used a filter and 33% used a faceted search, the remainder had a traditional information architecture. Both the facets and filters used were very specific to the product type e.g. for printers this included colour, printer type and print speed, whereas for laptops this included processor speed, ram, graphics processor and screen size. As for entertainment sites, 75% of these used a filter. This was popular for cinema sites such as the Odeon or Vue, where users were able to select the date, time and film from a series of drop down lists. As for mixed category retail sites, e.g. department stores such as Debenhams, John Lewis and Marks & Spencer, 73% of those sites used a faceted search. This was particularly useful when selecting from a complex product range. All travel sites audited used a filtered search, where users could select typical fields such as destination, departs from, departure dates and number of nights.

Position of faceted search

82 % of sites that contained a faceted search positioned it in the top left of the screen. However, the faceted search tended not to be presented on the homepage, but often 2/3 levels down within the information architecture when selecting a particular product e.g. dress or top. Whereas sites that used a filtered search positioned this up front on the homepage e.g. Thomson flights and Monarch airlines.

Number of facets

The number of facets varied according to how complex the product type was. For example items such as laptops tended to have a huge number of facets (up to 18 facets on the Comet site), whereas products such as bed linen have only a few facets such as colour, price and brand.

Type of facets

Facets tended to be rational, as opposed to emotional. Common facets included price, colours, brand and size, but facets varied between product types. For example, with the Wilkinson retail site, when searching for stationery, the user is presented with the facets price, type and colour; however, when searching for rabbit hutches, the facets were price, type and brand. Similarly on sites such as House of Fraser, due to their diverse range of products, facets varied from brand, colour, price and size within women’s clothing to brand, price and style within home furnishings. Whilst some facets can be used across entire product ranges e.g. price, others vary enormously, for example laptops with screen size (17”, 14”), or fragrance with gender (male/female/unisex).

Facet selection method

68% of faceted searches used hyperlinks as a single method of selection whilst 15% used checkboxes as a single method of selection. Sites that used a filtered search tended to use a combination of drop down lists, check boxes and radio buttons. It appears that where there are a limited number of attributes, for example when booking a holiday e.g. departure/return dates, departure airport/arrival airport and the number of passengers, a filtered search is commonly used.

Displaying-results

65% of faceted searches stated the number of results in each category. This was often presented in brackets next to the facet. Not all of the sites that we audited made it clear to users which facets were currently applied and how to remove those.

Breadcrumbs

64% of all the sites reviewed used breadcrumbs, for example Mothercare, Maplin, Dorothy Perkins and Wickes. The use of breadcrumbs is highly recommended by Nielsen (2007) for a number of reasons:

• Breadcrumbs show people their current location
• Breadcrumbs afford one-click access to higher site levels
• Breadcrumbs never cause problems in user testing
• Breadcrumbs take up very little space on the page

Variations

Some sites are using facets that are more complex and subjective. An interesting variation on the faceted search has been demonstrated with the clothing brand Boden, which incorporates customer feedback (customer reviews and ratings) with the ability to search – users are able to search for and buy products based on customer ratings. Boden is also considering using ‘body type’ as a facet e.g. apple and pear shaped.

The gift site Iwantoneofthose.com (although not within our audit) uses personality type as a facet when searching by gift recipient. For example, it is possible to select between adventurous, geek, party animal, lady who lunches etc.

Another interesting design is the faceted search on the River Island clothes site. This makes use of a fun colour chart and icons to be able to select the occasion the item of clothing is suitable for. However, the icons could be a clearer: it is not until the user selects the icon that they are presented with the label. This could be improved by clearly stating what the icon represents upfront.

Faceted search and usability

In order to develop a useful and meaningful faceted search, firstly it is important to understand the users’ ‘mental model’ – how they go about searching for information. It is necessary to keep refining the criteria until they represent users with a broad range of goals. It is vital that the facets used are the ‘right’ type for the product. For example, when searching for a dress the user may search by colour, brand and size, whereas when searching for a camera, the user may search by brand, zoom and price. If the organisation has a large complex product range, the same facets cannot be applied throughout the site; it may be that common facets such as price and colour can be used across the site, whilst those facets specific to a product will have to be adapted. Also user behaviour can differ depending on the particular product they are searching for.

It is important not to overwhelm users with too many options. Depending on the product range, 4 facets tend to be enough to narrow down the search – price, colour, size and brand. If too many facets are presented, this will not only take up space on the page but may also result in returning zero results if too many facets are applied.

In addition, it is important to consider the ordering of the facets and position those that are most popular higher up the list. For each facet, users also need to know how many results will be returned.

As for the breadth and depth of the faceted search, according to Lemieux (2009) “Faceted search works better with a broader taxonomy that is relatively shallow because that lets users combine more perspectives”.

Allow users to be flexible and provide the ability to alter the selected facets at any stage. It is important to allow users to be able to remove selected facets as easily as they can add them.

By using breadcrumbs alongside the facets, this will not only show where the user is currently, but will also allow them to click to previous levels of the site, making them feel in control.

For users to really benefit from the dynamic nature of the faceted search, it is imperative that the search results page refreshes quickly after each refinement. Failure to do so will leave users frustrated.

As we move into an ever increasingly mobile world, it will be interesting how the faceted search will adapt to work on mobile devices, or if there will be a replacement methodology. According to e-consultancy (2010) mobile internet usage will overtake PC usage by 2013. Whilst a faceted search may work well on a larger tablet or iPad, it is questionable whether this approach will work well on a smart phone due to the small screen size. Conversely, some form of filter/faceted search will be required to reduce the number of search results a user has to view on a small screen.

Conclusion

Faceted search tools have become mainstream and more sophisticated. Some retailers are pushing boundaries to try and integrate more engaging and subjective facets in their search tools. Retailers’ attempts to include customer reviews and recommendations as a component of their search tools are indicative of their drive to link social networking to retail sales. More subjective search facets may require more of a mental leap for users and a more labour intensive meta-tagging process for the retailer. It remains to be seen how successful they will be.

References

Ben-Yitzhak, O, Neumann, A et al., (2008), Beyond basic faceted search, WSDM’08, California, USA.
Charlton, G., (2010) Q & A. Debenhams Harriet Williams on mobile commerce. E consultancy. http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/6793-q-a-debenhams-harriet-williams-on-mobile-commerce
Lemieux, S., (2009), Designing for faceted search http://www.uie.com/articles/faceted_search
Nielsen, J., (2007), Breadcrumb navigation increasingly useful. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/breadcrumbs.html
Nielsen, J., (2010), Scrolling and attention. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/scrolling-attention.html

Appendix
List of top 100 e-commerce sites used for the audit
1. Amazon uk
2. Argos
3. Play.com
4. Amazon.com
5. Tesco.com
6. Marks and Spencer
7. Epson uk
8. Expedia.co.uk
9. Next
10. Asos
11. easyJet
12. RyanAir
13. Thomson Holidays
14. Dell EMEA
15. Tesco Direct
16. B&Q
17. Apple computer
18. HMV.com
19. Littlewoods
20. Sainsburys
21. Topshop
22. lastminute.com
23. Asda
24. River Island
25. Ebuyer
26. Debenhams
27. Ticketmaster UK
28. John Lewis
29. Currys
30. Thomas Cook
31. O2 shop
32. LoveFilm
33. Comet UK
34. Screwfix Direct
35. Travelodge UK
36. Game
37. Homebase
38. PC World
39. Odeon cinemas
40. New Look
41. The TrainLine
42. Cineworld cinemas
43. British Airways
44. Vue Entertainment
45. QVC UK.com
46. Ikea
47. HP
48. Boots
49. Halfords
50. First Choice
51. The Orange Shop
52. TravelRepublic.co.uk
53. Asda Direct
54. Maplin Electronics
55. Flybe.com
56. T-mobile Shop
57. Dorothy Perkins
58. Wickes
59. Carphone Warehouse
60. Vodafone shop
61. See Tickets
62. Jet2
63. M and M Direct
64. National Express
65. InterContinental Hotels Group
66. Apple iPod and iTunes
67. Aldi UK
68. bmibaby
69. Toys R Us UK
70. Mothercare
71. Monsoon
72. Holiday Extras
73. Optical Express
74. On The Beach
75. Teletext Holidays
76. Laura Ashley
77. Dixons Online
78. House of Fraser
79. Miss Selfridge
80. Additions Direct
81. Topman
82. Thomson Airways
83. Opodo UK
84. Focus DIY
85. LEGO Worlds
86. JD Sports
87. Wilkinson Plus
88. Monarch Airlines
89. Premier Inn
90. Sportsdirect.com
91. Boden
92. HolidayLettings.co.uk
93. Virgin Trains
94. Republic
95. Pixmania UK
96. Chain reaction cycles
97. Wiggle
98. Hoseasons Holidays
99. Freemans of London
100. Haven Holidays

Managing expectations when producing an app is vital. By not doing so this could leave users disappointed and could potentially damage your brand.
Take the Sainsbury’s app for example. Do you expect to be able to buy your food shopping on this app? Most people would answer ‘yes’ to this question. So the question is, if you can’t order shopping on this app, what’s it for? It can find your nearest Sainsbury’s, tell you about the latest offers and provide you with Sainsbury’s news. Whilst these features are nice to have, it is questionable whether this is what users expect. User reviews include “Sainsbury’s need to launch an iPhone shopping app, I for one have defected to Tesco” and “Come on Sainsbury’s, keep up with Tesco. This app is useless. We want a Sainsbury’s shopping app, not a guided tour to nowhere”. In their defence, however, the app description does outline what it does in reality: a store locator, information about top deals, Sainsbury’s news and Nectar points information. Despite this though, this app fails to meet users’ expectations.

The same applies to the clothes retailer H & M. Do users expect to be able to view and purchase clothes from this app? In reality, this app showcases some of the H & M collection but in order to purchase an item it involves going physically to the shop. This again leaving users disappointed – “This app isn’t worth the time it took to download it”

Likewise with the Virgin holiday brochure app. Users are able to browse through the holiday brochure and find a holiday, although when wanting to book it this is a whole arduous task in itself. Users are expected to see the small website link positioned at the bottom of each page which directs them to the Virgin site, having lost the specific holiday you were searching for in the first place. The question is do users expect to be able to book their holiday using this app?

State up front in your app description what your app does and doesn’t do. This will help to manage users’ expectations of the app and avoid disappointment.
Present this description in a bullet pointed list. From experience, users do not want to trawl through paragraphs of information; they want the key facts quickly. In addition, avoid using company jargon in these descriptions. Most importantly think about expectations of your app. Users often want to download apps to make their life easier and to access information/buy products here and now.

Defining user goals before creating an app is key. Creating an app just because other organisations have them is not the way to go about it – it’s important to think clearly about who your users are and what they want to achieve from your app. So why is it important to consider user goals? Not considering user goals can leave users frustrated and can lead to app abandonment, loss of a sale or potentially damage your brand. Careful consideration up front with greater focus on the user and their goals is likely to keep users engaged in your app.

There are numerous examples of apps that fail to meet user expectations. Take the Met Office app (v 1.1); user goals are to 1) see the weather forecast in the user’s current location for the next few days 2) find out the weather now in another location and the forecast for the next few days and 3) have the ability to save a number of favourite locations. In reality, users are able to access the weather forecasts but are not able to save a number of favourite locations. It is also unclear why users would want the data icon which provides radar and satellite imagery.

As for the Hilton app (v1.0), our testers wanted to be able to access their existing reservation. However, if a reservation is made via the UK site, it cannot be accessed on this app. The app directs users to their .com site.

Examples in retail include Mango, the Spanish clothes retailer and Very. With the Mango app (v3.1) testers had difficulty in removing items from their basket, leaving users frustrated and not wanting to purchase from the app. With the Very fashion app (v1.2), testers were forced to create an account before purchasing items; again causing great frustration.

Consider who your users are and what they want to achieve from your app. Define user goals up front, during the initial stages of planning and prototyping. Don’t leave this until later in the process. Once the user goals have been defined and you have initial ideas in place, always user test – the earlier the better. This will often save time and money in the long run.

If a user wants to be confident an app will do what it says it will they’ll look for a familiar name and a ‘reputable’ brand. So if you have one of those make sure your app icon reflects that brand. If you are smaller fry your brand needs to appear appropriate to the category of app.

Our testers showed us that there are lots of app icons which don’t clearly say what they do. It’s no use standing out from the crowd just for being whacky. Some icons use clever or obscure imagery and branding. Our testers flicked straight passed those. Getting noticed is important but it has to be for the right reasons. This is not the time for designers to get cryptic, the icon must clearly communicate what the app is and what it does.

That doesn’t mean you can’t apply some great design. The icon needs to be enticing and memorable. The design should reflect the nature and ‘personality’ of the app. But it still needs to be meaningful. There is no point in having a good-looking icon if it doesn’t say what you do. Users go for eye catching and understandable (‘that’s the app for me’) and not for eye catching and cryptic (‘what’s that all about?’).

Our testers needed an app icon to convey the true essence of the app all in one image – what do I really need to know about this app? And it’s good to test this with ‘real’ users to make sure you’ve got it right – app icons which indicate a view of the world from inside the organization and not from a user’s perspective stand out a mile, but for the wrong reasons.

In summary, an app icon with strong branding, simple but good-looking design and that says what it does, will be the most eye-catching and memorable.