This is Signal vs. Noise, a weblog by 37signals about design, business, experience, simplicity, the web, culture, and more. Established 1999 in Chicago. Follow us on Twitter for more information on our products.

Non-stop flights are more expensive. By setting the less expensive option as default it pushes the low cost message of the rest of the site. Yes, in isolation its a stupid question.

When shopping for flights many people are willing to add legs to get the cost down. Although, these days the number of total flights, direct or indirect has shrunk to the point where speeding up searches seems ridiculous.

Well said Elliot!

I was buying a flight from Warsaw to Tokyo via Paris few days ago and I wanted to have a chance to stay in Paris for about half a day just to visit some tourist spots and take some photos since I haven’t been there for a while. Actually I like that ‘I prefer non-stop flights’ option. Sounds weird to you? Do you want me to make two separate trips and spend 50% more money?

@ML: “I’m willing to pay more for non-stop flights.” is a bad idea. Not all non-stop flights are more expensive so who would want to suggest that to users at the beginning of search?

I prefer flights with stops because I have a 2 year old that needs to get some energy out half way across the country.

Instead of “I prefer non-stop flights” that check box should read “Only show me non-stop flights” because thats what checking the box appears to do to your results. So, baffling probably not, but definitely poorly worded.

@Marzo agreed. And for me, I totally understood the “I prefer non-stop flights.” I translate it to mean “Put non-stop flights at the top of the search results.” What is so baffling about that?

@Brad makes the most sense here.

Some people may not prefer a flight with a layover, but they can certainly not care in the interest of saving money (as stated before).

Rewording it as a filter option rather than a preference option makes more sense.

Kayak is a much better website than Orbitz.

Plane seats are so uncomfortable – and sometimes I like watching people at the airport …

I completely understand it – usually it will display all the flights side by side (including non-stop and stopping ones) so you can compare the prices between them all and see if it is much more for a direct flight or if you are saving loads.

Non-direct flights also increase availability so there is sometimes a higher chance of getting somewhere when you want.

Some people also prefer the break in between long flights, as well as to visit some other countries which they can add to their “countries I have visited” list – if it’s a long stop, it’s cool to explore that area a little bit and decide whether to go back for a proper holiday or not!

This could probably be worded differently, yes – but there are so many pros and cons that I think the way they have worded it is probably the best…

The checkbox should be checked by default.

...just another thought, maybe a “more info” link would have been a good way to go about this, to explain the pros and cons a little bit more

It’s a UI decision based on what’s easiest for programmers, with no regard for customer service or marketing.

A better solution is to remove the checkbox entirely. If there are cheaper layover flights, show them on the results page.

In the case where the direct flight is cheapest, there’s no additional detail for the customer. When there’s a cheaper layover, it feels like they’re being helpful and not trying to gouge you.

@ML “I’m willing to pay more for non-stop flights.”

What if I don’t know if I’m “willing” to pay more for non-stop flights? That all depends on the price really. In this case, “I prefer non-stop flights” makes perfect sense to me (given the context).

Preferring non-stop flights doesn’t mean I dislike them when the box isn’t checked, it just mean’s that it’s not a priority to me.

Also, non-stop flights can sometimes be the cheapest, so by making an option that says “I’m willing to pay more” would give your customer the assumption that a non-stop flight is more expensive (by default).

Outside of that, I think we’re all familiar with the checkbox, virtually every booking site has that option, and we all know what it means. No point fixing it if it makes sense to everyone, because if you do, you might just alienate the majority of customers that understood what that option meant.

Don’t assume everyone wants non-stop, or that cost is always higher for non-stop. There are pleny of examples of wacky UI elements out there, but this isn’t one of them.

Not everyone lives in a city that has direct flights to everywhere one might need to go.

Why not remove it all together? Or label it to say “exclude flights that have stop overs”

My boss used to insist on multiple stops so he could get off and go have a smoke.

I know what you mean—I use Orbitz a lot, and it’s never been terribly clear what that checkbox actually does. It would make much more sense to me as a dropdown, e.g. “Not having a layover is worth” with $0, $10, $20, $50, $100, $200, etc.

OR, at the risk of being crass, “To me, my time is worth X per hour” with similar options. That’s really sort of what they’re after. For instance, I’ll gladly pay a bit (or more than a bit) extra for a non-stop 1 or 2 hour trip instead of a 4.5 hour trip with a layover somewhere out of the way. So, to me, “best” options is often but not always the same as “cheapest”. Adding a “my time is worth” option would save a lot of time in manually and mentally filtering and refiltering the options.

I think the point Matt is making is the wording that is used could be better. And not just a little, but alot.

Yes, the current way makes sense to the airline companies + travel agents. But you have to change language for what the consumer is looking at.

With the checkbox say “I’m willing to pay more for non-stop flights.”, you’re answering the question of choice. “I prefer non-stop flights” is true for everyone and is not really a question of choice by how it is worded. Grammar and proper use of language is what makes the difference here.

I think the way it is worded now makes sense – although they could be a bit more helpful by adding “(often these flights are more expensive)” after the word flights.

Merlin Mann may have got to this last April, in the special way that only he can:

http://twitter.com/hotdogsladies/status/781108063

Haha, funny you write about this. Coincidentally, I came across this blog post – http://dustincurtis.com/dear_american_airlines.html – complaining about another travel related website’s crappy interface – American Airlines to be exact.

Would you rather spend 12 hours flying from San Francisco to Milan, or spend six hours each flying San Francisco to New York to Milan? Also consider that airport food is tastier than airplane food.

I was surprised to find that flying with two lap children was far easier with layovers. Let them run around a bit and all that.

My flight from Vancouver to London landed in Calgary for two hours. The annoying bit is that I had no idea the flight was stopping at all. I would have paid more for a direct flight, but I’m pretty sure I checked that option. Wasn’t so stupidly worded on Expedia.

yes, the checkbox really ought to tell us what happens if we check it—but the discussion here sure does show how important it is to listen to your customers before leaping to conclusions about what they all want.

I’m with Daniel Haran. I don’t see a need to prefilter results, so anything like this should just be a filter (like any else) on the results page. Effectively it’s a pivot on “Sort by price” and “Sort by trip length.”

@ChristopherFrancisO’Donnell – There’s a difference between “direct” and “non-stop”. “Direct” usually means the same aircraft will take you from A to B, but will probably stop at least once along the way. “Non-Stop” means it doesn’t stop along the way.

Though I always suggest Kayak as the site to use for travel planning, they have a very similar option. It’s always baffled me, especially on a site that seems to aim to make all of their filters very understandable.

I’d do a little more travel before writing a post like that. They’re simply trying to say “I only want to search flights that are non-stop’, but without causing that “Oh I’m limiting my selections and raising the prices” feeling that you’d get if they worded it that way.

Just today I booked a flight to Helsinki – two layovers from SFO . This was bad, until I realized it meant I could get out and stretch my legs every 5-6 hours, instead of being stuck in a tinbox for 12-14 hours at a time. And I think @Brad has the right take. They can show the non-stops/directs mixed in with the other results, or only the non-stops/directs. So just ask the question directly. And the wording that’s on the button isn’t that bad, all things considered.

Matt clearly does not have children. I will take a stop to get across the country, to not be that guy on the plane.

+1 Bob.

I once chose a 1-stop flight to a non-stop flight, and had a 5-hour layover to boot, so I could leave the airport and go have dinner with some friends. Gotta think outside the box.

This post is below par for this blog.

Sure, the author missed the reason why many, many people would select this, and sure, the copy could be more clear to explain WHY one would select this, but nevertheless, this feels like filler.

This is the silliest thing I’ve ever read on this blog. Was anyone really not bright enough to connect the dots here? “I’m willing to pay more for non-stop flights” is silly overkill.

@Jeff I have to agree, I think this got a little over sensationalized, I knew pretty much right away what that checkbox meant.

Since you posed the question so directly - with all those question marks indicating the sincerity of your disbelief :) - may I add another group of people who might not prefer non-stop flights: People concerned with earning Frequent-Flier Elite status (trust me, there are many more than you think, just check the FlyerTalk forums). There are usually a couple of reasons why they would choose a multi-leg over a non-stop flight:

1. to qualify for elite status based on segments

2. to earn more miles by taking advantage of minimums per segment (eg, 500 miles earned on a 200 mile short hop)

I agree with you though, if Orbitz were really concerned with addressing these edge groups, there are definitely better ways to present this.

I agree with the comment about Kayak. It is a much better site and directs you to the airlines site to make the purchase. The only problem with that is that you don’t get quite as many options because it won’t combine airlines the way Orbitz and Expedia do, but frequent travelers will always prefer buying tickets directly from the airline for the many benefits it provides.

”@Jeff I have to agree, I think this got a little over sensationalized, I knew pretty much right away what that checkbox meant.”

Just because people become accustomed to stupidity in design, doesn’t mean it’s (1) wrong to point it out, or (2) not worth changing.

I actually just met someone this week who told me that she prefers shorter flights, and will purposefully seek out flights with layovers so she can take shorter flights then take a break in between.

It’s an indefensible checkbox with atrocious wording.

Seriously, any other blog on earth and people would be falling over each other to agree with this post, but just because it’s 37Signals everyone wants to take a pop at them.

“Ooh , they’re so f00king arrogant, how dare they expect a successful travel agency to spend more than 3 seconds thinking about a label”

Silly.

I suspect it is also to do with the timing. There might only be one non-stop / direct flight but it is at the worst time of day – for the traveller. Poor Matt, he’s obviously a novice traveller ;-) Actually, fair enough that there isn’t much information about the reasoning.

I agree, the checkbox and wording are very odd. But sometimes I don’t want non-stop …. I’m sure that decision could be made later in the process, like once it’s I have enough information to make a decision (flight time, airline, layover airport etc will all be part of the decision making process).

@ML

People like you are the reason that developers like me get paid so much.

,mikemike

Or perhaps the whole paradigm is just broken and we need to stop catering to the damn CPU and database all the time and design for real, actual people for a change.

See ‘Trip Planning Redux’ by Bret Victor for some clues http://worrydream.com/MagicInk/#demonstration_trip_planning_redux

The problem is primarily cultural. Asking “Why doesn’t Southwest design better software?” is challenging the symptom, not the disease. The real question is, “Does software design exist yet?” Before we can expect better airline websites, we may need to change a worldview.

Maybe that should be “I can afford…” ?

I live in California and go to university in the UK, and when I’m flying between the two on breaks I definitely prefer a layover. It allows me to clear customs when I’m not yet a zombie (at least going east), stretch my legs for a while, have a real meal, pick up fresh content on my iPhone, recharge my MacBook’s batteries, and call my girlfriend on what would otherwise be a lonely day.

You’re copying posts from Mark Cuban now?

LOL guys, I really can’t see what the fuss is here. I thought that checkbox label is as clear as it can be. I check that box and I am shown flights without stopovers. Otherwise, I will be shown all options. That’s all there to it. Correct me if I’m wrong coz this post has made it some rocket science!

klkölköl

I like layovers. There are some airports that I prefer to have one at (SeaTac) because they have better food than the airplane, and I don’t enjoy sitting in an airplane for hours.

Knowing the UX people that work there (I worked as a contractor on their pre-launch team), that checkbox is there because they listened to their users.

I’ve been looking at flights a lot lately and, at least in Canada, flights with layovers are usually more expensive because they have to roll in the extra landing fees for the airports. (Usually Toronto, which is notorious for having high landing fees.)

It is a poorly labeled checkbox for sure. However, it is not always about the money. There are a lot of people out there who can not sit (usually for medical reasons) for 5-6 hours straight, so they require a layover.

I agree with Des on this one. This is just awful design. United has the exact opposite, where you can opt in to connections but the default is direct. I reject the idea that it’s about the ‘low cost perception’ as the user is already on the site and attempting to book their flight. The perception thing is in place to get people ‘in the door.’

WELL SAID , ML! It’s an unnecessary question — one useless and wasted step.

Everyone — and I mean EVERYONE — prefers non-stop flights, but most will trade lower price for slower speed to varying degrees.

Omit the question, and sort/display results in a way that helps users maximize their price/convenience utility.

Go one step further and do it like this:

http://worrydream.com/MagicInk/p/flight_redesign.png

This is like de “Optimize compatibility” option when saving new documents on Adobe Photoshop.

Someone wants to not optimize compatibility os their PSDs?

I actually prefer flights with stops inbetween if they take longer than 8 hours … For example, the flight Munich-Salt Lake City is about 15:00 hours and I don’t want to take this one as a non-stop flight …

We at Kayak have been round the bases several times on this topic. Our discussion touch on all the points made here: who doesn’t prefer non-stop? Why not just say “I’ll pay more for non-stop?” We even talked about a weighting slider at one point, were people put a dollar value handicap on time spent at layovers. (That idea was dropped pretty quickly, since it would be baffling to the 99% of people in the world who aren’t computer dorks like us.)

So we end up with “prefer nonstop” in our typical terse aesthetic, and then use that setting in some query optimization. For example, if you search between cities where the vast majority of users select only non-stop flights (LAX-LAS for example), AND you say you prefer nonstop, we actually will not even try to find multi-segment itineraries, and you’ll get results a lot faster. Try it.

Cheers,

-billo