Comparative Study on User Experience of ATM Cardless Withdrawal Services

In response to the development of financial technology, the financial industry has already widely used self-service technology to ensure consumers’ convenience when conducting transactions. Banks have then successively applied cardless services to ATMs to provide advanced and convenient transactions for consumers. However, the use of cardless services has not been universalised. Therefore, this research compares the usability of well-known ATM cardless withdrawal services and explores why it has not been universalised. This study evaluates the usability and user experience design of the top three ATMs in Taiwan. The evaluation requires three methods. Firstly, we request users to perform two experimental task operations. The tasks include cardless service applications and cardless cash withdrawals. We also conducted behavioural mapping while users were performing their tasks to obtain usability insight. Next, we use the Single Ease Questionnaire, System Usability Scale, and Net Promoter Score to obtain users' thoughts on user behaviour, usability issues, difficulty, and satisfaction while operating the ATM cardless service interface. Lastly, we conduct a semi-structured interview to obtain insights through user evaluation, advantages and disadvantages of the interface.As a result, we found that Bank A had the best usability performance among the three banks, with a SUS score of 81 (B class) and an NPS score of 30. Furthermore, Bank A provides two entrances in the cardless service application, while Banks B and C only provide one entrance. The results show that various entrances align with the user's cognition of the operation process and can effectively reduce the time of operational tasks and the number of errors. However, in the cash withdrawal task, the information architecture of Bank A's banking app for cardless withdrawal is a layer lesser than Bank B and C. Also, users only need three steps to obtain the cardless withdrawal serial number in Bank A's banking app. In comparison, Bank B need six steps, whereas Bank C need seven steps. Therefore, short information architecture and process can effectively improve usability and users' satisfaction.However, in the cardless services application task, Bank's A application entrance is placed at a level beyond the user's expected cognition, resulting in a gradual decline in user confidence during the operation. In addition, users are unaware that bank cards are required as an authentication tool required for applying cardless services. As a result, most users feel confused whenever they are required to provide their bank card during the application process. Also, users are unable to complete tasks cognitively in the shortest process. Furthermore, all three ATM systems did not provide clear guidance steps at the appropriate time. Finally, even if Bank A's cardless withdrawal has the best performance, most users still prefer traditional password authentication for ATM transactions.The research results help understand users' operation behaviour of ATMs' current cardless service interface as a reference for subsequent design improvements.