If Forrester’s Research holds true, 43% of ecommerce visitors are “spear fishers” — they arrive knowing exactly what they want and make a bee-line to your search box (then proceed to convert 2x better than the hopeless browsing segment).
And with 110% of ecommerce traffic coming through mobile (I kid, but most sites are >80%), it makes sense to make your search box oh-so-easy to see in your mobile header.
You may see public A/B cases sharing that an open search field lifts mobile searches by 33% and think this is a sure shot.
Or, you may take my own anecdote that my client’s site showed initial skew towards the open box but regressed to the mean after 30 days, with a dead-even conversion and bounce rate, and pennies’ difference in revenue (in favor of the search icon!)
So some tests win, some are flat. What’s the takeaway?
💡 It’s about the site and the customer. Not all verticals are search-dominant. Some (like fashion) are more about browsing what’s new, or discovering through categories
💡 Showing an exposed box does not mean customers “see” it (or care)
💡 Today, if a user wants to search, they know (generally) where to find it — in your header, whether exposed or an icon (just don’t hide it behind your hamburger!)
💡 Mobile real estate is precious - sometimes a streamlined header is better
💡 If you let a test run to stat sig, you may find the test loses steam. Good, you learned something!
💡With all ecommerce design patterns, test it for yourself. And your mileage may vary
Is this a top testing priority?
Heck yeah. Site search is a major site feature and you should be testing this for yourself.
But be careful — how you design your test variants absolutely determines the outcome of your test. If you choose a sub-optimal design pattern for your test, it may lose, and you’ll forever conclude “this doesn’t work, let’s move on.”
In fact, it’s a great idea to keep iterating and keep testing your mobile header and search experience.
Consider these testing cases:
🧪 If your site currently hides search behind your hamburger, A/B/C test it (in one experiment) against both search icon and open box — this resulted in a 3% conversion and 6% revenue lift for my client (and time-on-site rose by over 60s)
🧪 If your box spans the screen width, and is white-on-white, try it against a contrasting field
🧪 If your box spans the screen width, consider testing a tighter box (for visibility and contrast)
🧪 If you use lengthy hint text, test it against simple “Search.” A Guess The Test case reports a 4.61% conversion lift over a style identical to Barnes & Noble’s, below.
🧪 If you use a color fill, test it against a conventional white field. These can easily be glossed over as they look like buttons or promo bars (aka, banner blindness)
🧪 If you use animated text for the love of all that is good and holy, test it against static “Search” — this tactic is risky as it’s distracting and can be off-putting to users
Advanced testing cases
Once you’ve covered the basics and found your solid winner, you can test more nuanced details and tactics…
🧪 Test colored hint text for that extra pop of visiblity
🧪 Test “value prop” hint text against simple “Search” - such as showing off your department range
🧪 Test submit button color just like CTA buttons, a juicy color could increase clicks
🧪 Test a combo-style to cover both bases — an icon in the top-header and open box in one pattern
Tip: Pair quantitative analytics with qualitative tools like Hotjar/Mouseflow to observe user behavior — most enable you to segment sessions by A/B test variant, provided your testing tool integrates with your screen recording application.
👉 Follow on LinkedIn for daily ideas 💡