I like how stripped down it is. Everything you need, nothing unnecessary. Everything is easy to find, easy to read and easy to understand. And even on garbage internet connections, it runs pretty quick because there isn't a bunch of bullE36 M3 animations and ads.
Every parts website I use daily has gotten prettier, has more information I don't want, and is less useable than the site it replaced.
Why do web designers insist on hiding the checkout button? Do they think I might order four shocks, instead of the two I need if I can't get to the checkout button?
To the original question- I have witnessed Napa counter staff use the Rock Auto page to find part numbers, which they then enter in their Napa system.
I like it for its simplicity *when I know what I'm looking for*.
If I don't quite know what something is called, or if it's not in the section I feel like it should be, it becomes problematic. Or Bob forgot I hit the back button instead of adjusting the drop down menu and lose whatever I was just looking at entirely.
I liked RockAuto's previous design that didn't load everything on to one page. It was a lot snappier.
also there's no pop ups asking to take a survey or enter your email address.
I like the Rockauto site, it is simple/easy, offers useful info beyond just 'here it is buy it', and it is fast. Its info reminds me of NAPA's former site.
IMO, designing a website for "smart" phones is not . . . smart.
I think the fact that pros are using it to get the job done says all that needs to be said about it. The site works great for what it's intended to do. Anything making it prettier would be making it worse.
I like it.
My Son hates it and will order from anybody else just because of the site
It's a situation where form follows function. I don't need a pretty site, you're not marketing to me, I need info, options and prices.
RA's site assumes competence on the part of the user. Generally that's a mistake when doing HCI work, but in this case it works well.
I do whish they'd list warehouses and quantities however.
They need to reallocate funds for website overhaul into some less-cringey CGI or live actors for their commercials.
Agree with everyone else that modern website design is absolute garbage. They're a bloated side-effect of making you the product. Rather than offering you data, they're optimized for extracting your data: where your eyeballs are, how long did you hover, can we make a predictive recommendation, how do we sell your demographic data or cross-market, etc?
P.s. Rockauto needs to offer a marine variant -- marine parts are a PITA to buy online, because there isn't a RockBoat.com
I love RockAuto's site. Yes, it uses the dreaded Windows "endlessly expanding tree" system, but in this case it works. It's much easier than having all that managed through dropdown menus or check boxes or filters that don't ever work right.
The information is clearly organized, easily accessible, and simple to navigate. I don't really care how it looks.
Caveat: I've never looked at the mobile site.
I never research or buy parts on mobile. There are too many parts variants, applications, brands, etc. Trying to simplify that to a mobile experience is ignoring the reality of parts industry.
McMaster Carr's site is efficient because it has to be with all of the zillion widgets they have to catalog.
I give it a B+. I love that there's no fluff. I don't need pretty. I think overall it is great for what it does, but I wish sometimes it would give one more step to narrow down results. Like if I'm looking for a brake caliper I wish I could pick the corner I'm looking for and see just those instead of having all the options for every wheel listed.
Advance Auto is terrible, and if they didn't offer 20% off I would never use it.
Amazon and Ebay are worse than terrible. "Oh, you're looking for a LR brake caliper for a 2009 Accord, here is a set of drilled rotors for a Taurus and 11 pages of valve stem caps with LEDs in them."
Yes i do, and web designers can't stand that rock auto perfected it so long ago and are disgruntled that they won't change it to the latest and most infuriatingly difficult hard to use clickbait ad filled bullE36 M3 they have created
In reply to gearheadmb :
RA's site does that. It's a little hidden on the mobile site but there's a "Narrow Options" button at the top. The filter box is pretty good too.
Rockauto's site is awesome. I love that:
1) I can bookmark any drill-down I want. Want to see parts for a 2003 Nissan sentra? https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/nissan,2003,sentra,2.5l
I don't need to make a berkeleying account and add vehicles to my "garage" or any of that stupid nonsense
2) The search bar is infinitely faster than the vehicle selection interface on any other webpage I've been to. Just type in your car, and done. A couple of seconds.
This:
Is so much better than:
What I don't like:
Most of their parts are trash. They make no effort to help guide the user to the better products. I would PAY MORE for parts if they exposed data like # of returns of a given part, ratings for brands based on part type, etc.
As a former parts slinger, I like RockAuto's site a lot. It feels like a in-store parts catalog terminal, but one that actually makes sense. I don't care that it looks like a Geocities website; I just care that it works and has good info on there. I wouldn't change a thing.
I also LOATHE the Advance and Autozone sites. Advance's used to be good, but about a year or so back they changed it and it's S L O W now. I got so frustrated recently with it that instead of ordering parts with a discount for same day pickup, I just took the hit and went to the store because it was faster than waiting for the damn site to load! Autozone's isn't much better; it has bad vehicle info (just like when I used to work there) but at least they have repair diagrams if you smash the keyboard enough to find them.
Streetwiseguy said:To the original question- I have witnessed Napa counter staff use the Rock Auto page to find part numbers, which they then enter in their Napa system.
That's hilarious, because NAPA's catalog system is probably the best of the professional systems.
I like how all the paper catalogs are online, in "paper" form, AND all of the part numbers are hypertexted, so you can click on the part number in the e-catalog and it takes you to the parts ordering system.
In reply to irish44j :
I generally like it, but have some small useability gripes.
1. I love the tree format. Love. Being able to expand info without losing my place is the killer feature for me.
2. Shipping fees seem to creep fast, and while it explains why once your zip is in, I always seem to have my orders distributed to 5 different origins. While this often still ends up cheaper, and is more honest than 'free shipping', it still feels harder to accept. I admit to spending time adding different brands of part to see if I can get them all from a single shipper, but to no avail. I feel their backend should do some of the work optimizing my shipping costs.
3. Their 'quality' metric is often dubious. Sure, its not their fault Moog keeps cheaping out, but it needs better curation or perhaps should be less prominent if that is impractical.
4. Adding quantities should happen from the catalog page, and not require going to your cart. Cmon, wtf.
5. Updating cart on mobile with shipping info entered recalculates entire shipping each time and is way slow.
Thats my gripes. Overall I like it. Long ago I raised a security concern and it was acknowleged and addressed. That alone impressed me.
Worst online site has to be Oreileys for me. Its my only local auto parts store, and I just drive in rather than suffer that abortion of code.
I love the Rock Auto site for all of the reasons others are saying. I am looking for car parts, not a bunch of flash for other crap I don't need or want.
I didn't try it yesterday, but maybe I should have.. nope... Check that doesn't work. I was looking for a Lug Studs for my Cub Cadet Tank. (cub wants something like 10 bucks a part) The wheel had come loose and destroyed itself and the studs... I took the stud to a couple local FLAPS and none of them could (or had the desire to find a match.) Moments of looking on OReillys website of all places let me filter by Thread size/pitch, and diameter of the knurling. Found the part number in seconds along with quantity in stock and walked right back into the store for purchase.
EDIT:
I swear I didn't see the comment above when typing this... My usually experience more often matches the other guys... but that is because of a good ole boy behind the counter that has more trouble working the computer to charge for the part than he does finding the part I need.. He wasn't in the store yesterday.
I like the RockAuto site because it works. I also like that for most cars/parts you get a pretty big choice on the Brand/Quality/Price you want. The spark plugs I bought for my wife's Accord carried the same exact number as the OEM plugs that I pulled out. The RockAuto website had identified those plugs as "Original/OEM." Exactly what I wanted.
Most websites SUCK because the designers try to make them look pretty and try to "sell" you. If I'm at your website, I'm already sold. I want to order the right parts and get them shipped. I don't want to see fancy graphics.
Rockauto's website is the best/most straightforward website of any car-related parts seller that I've seen.
In reply to ronholm :
Its interesting that even a 'bad' system for general use, can have very useful niche applications. Its neat how each site seems to be defining its own philosophy of 'how it should work. I like the diversity of thought. As much as I gripe sometimes, the options and availabilty of parts is amazing and better now than ever in history. This may be a golden age.
I'm another echo to all the likes. Checkout is simple to compared to most other sites too.
As for Amazon, I can almost always use Google/Bing to find a part on Amazon much quicker and with better results than using Amazon's search.
As someone who does site layout and user experience in exchange for currency, many of you are right on the money.
It works, looks like 1998, but works. They could honestly throw a designer or two at it for a couple weeks and have something functional AND beautiful, if they wanted to. I have a hunch they share the same mentality as those at car-part.com, where I worked for a few years. "Please let me bring the site design into this millenia," I'd say, and be met with frustrated stares and grumbles of "ah but it works well enough and the user wouldn't like it if we changed it because this is what they're used to."
No, it KIND OF WORKS and guess what, even us greasy knuckle-busters appreciate you taking the time to refine your product. Both sites need UX and design polishing. Stagnation never did anyone any favors.
RockAuto's site is a great example of a site that caters to its users and does what they want. As others have said, it just works.
As an academic exercise, I'd love to see the use cases for an update to improve it.
In fact, Web Designers should have to study a site like Rock Auto as part of their training so that they get that form should follow function, and that usability and results are the most important features any website can have.
Rockauto is what happens when you have a UX person do the design instead of a graphics designer. User experience isn't the same as pretty. Sure, you can sometimes have both, but too often the people that design websites (and infotainments systems, and apps, and.... ) don't actually take into account how the person is going to use their system and instead focus on making it pretty.
You'll need to log in to post.
