Journeys & Opportunities

How Users Move and Where They Drop Off

Track feature drop-offs and cross-tool movement patterns to surface the clearest UX and growth opportunities.

CDE Download MetricN/ADownload/export events are not instrumented
Spatial Search → Applied15 usesOf 14,007 EUI visits — 0.11%
RUI Opacity Panel Opens26Panel toggle found by 26 users total
CDE Completion Rate82%297 / 362 uploaders — strong

3 Critical Feature Discovery Gaps

Features that exist but are functionally invisible to users

Critical · CDEN/A

Export / Download Not Measurable

297 users successfully created visualizations, but CDE logs currently do not capture download/export actions. We cannot yet distinguish true non-usage from missing tracking.

Recommendation

Add an explicit download/export analytics event first. Then evaluate discoverability and add a post-render CTA if observed usage is still low.

Critical · EUI15

Spatial Search Rarely Applied

Of 14,007 EUI visits, only 222 (1.58%) opened the spatial search panel — and just 15 ever applied it as an active filter. Users open the feature but don't complete the workflow.

Recommendation

Add an in-panel tooltip explaining what spatial search does and why to apply it. The “Apply Filter” button may need to be more salient — consider auto-applying on config completion.

Critical · RUI26

Opacity Panel Undiscovered

The opacity settings panel toggle was found by only 26 users in the entire dataset.262 total opacity interactions happened — all from those who stumbled on it manually.

Recommendation

Expose opacity controls in the main sidebar as an expanded section, not behind a collapsed toggle. Or add a first-use tooltip pointing to the panel after the user places a tissue block.

EUI Spatial Search — Drop-off Funnel

Of 222 users who opened spatial search, only 15 (7%) ever applied it as a data filter

EUI · Low Adoption

The Entry Problem

Only 1.58% of EUI visitors (222 of 14,007) ever open the spatial search panel. The feature is valuable but not prominent enough to be discovered organically.

The Completion Gap

Of those 222 who open the panel, 104 (47%) configure an organ but only 15 (7%) apply it as a filter. Users explore the feature but don't understand or find the final “Apply” action.

Note on “Explored Results”

323 result views exceed the 104 who configured — likely users re-opening an existing search. Results are browsed but rarely committed to.

CDE User Journey — Where Users Go and Where They Stop

Flow of all 362 users who uploaded data through the CDE workflow

CDE
Entry via landing page (57%)
81% completion rate
Download step is not tracked in current logs

Direct Entry: 64%

233 of 362 uploaders bypassed the landing page entirely — arriving directly at the create page via bookmarks, external links, or navigation. Suggests the landing page is not the primary discovery path.

Config Drop-off: 18%

65 users (18%) abandoned at the configuration step — 5 axis selectors + cell type + parameters. This is the highest-friction step in the workflow. Defaults or smart suggestions could help.

Instrumentation Gap

Download/export interactions are not currently logged in CDE. Add an explicit event to measure whether users stop at visualization or continue to export.

Tool Co-movement Heatmap

Pearson correlation of monthly visits · Jan 2024 – Jan 2026 · KG dampened by 21 months of zeros pre-launch

Pearson r
Correlation:
Strong (≥0.70)
Moderate (0.50–0.69)
Weak (0.25–0.49)
None (<0.25)

Correlation Force Graph

Node size = total visits · edge weight = Pearson r · dashed = weak link · drag nodes to explore

Force Graph
Edge weight = Pearson r (monthly correlation)Node size = total visitsDrag nodes · scroll to zoom

Where Do Users Go Between Tools?

Directed flow of tool-switching sessions · arrow thickness = session count · % label = probability from source tool

User Journeys
Arrow direction = navigation flowEdge width = transition count% label = probability from source toolDrag nodes · scroll to zoom
KG Explorer as Hub

KG Explorer is the dominant destination — 82% of FTU Explorer exits and 80% of CDE exits flow to KG Explorer. It acts as the knowledge layer users return to between tool sessions.

RUI → EUI Pipeline

89% of RUI exits go to EUI — users who register tissue blocks immediately explore spatial context in EUI. This is the clearest sequential workflow in the entire suite.

Bidirectional Loops

KG ↔ CDE and KG ↔ FTU show strong bidirectional loops — users alternate between exploring the knowledge graph and drilling into cell or FTU data. Cross-linking these pairs more tightly would reduce friction in these natural workflows.

Cross-Tool Usage (Session-Level)

Do users move between tools in the same session?

Tool Loyalty

Users strongly prefer staying in one tool per session. All cross-tool pairings have lift < 1 — meaning switching tools is less likely than random chance.

CDEKG Explorer34 sessions
FTU ExplorerKG Explorer32 sessions
CDEFTU Explorer24 sessions
FTU ExplorerCDE24 sessions
EUIKG Explorer18 sessions
EUIFTU Explorer16 sessions

Most cross-tool sessions involve KG Explorer + CDE (34 sessions). Use lightweight cross-links in context rather than aggressive handoff prompts.

Who Actually Uses Multiple Tools?

2,052 users visited 2+ tools across their full history · top combo: CDE + EUI + RUI (554 users)

Real Cross-Tool Usage
The Full Atlas Workflow

The top combo — CDE + EUI + RUI — is the “full atlas” power user workflow: data upload, 3D exploration, and registration in one session. These 554 users are your highest-value audience.

KG Explorer Integrating

KG Explorer already appears in cross-tool combos with EUI and RUI despite launching only in Aug 2025. This confirms it's being adopted as a complementary lookup tool, not a standalone replacement.

Design Implication

Surface contextual links between the top 3 combos in each tool's UI. Even a 5% increase in the multi-tool rate would represent hundreds of higher-engagement sessions per month.

Cross-Tool Growth Opportunities

Derived from monthly co-occurrence patterns — tools that move together share audiences

EUI
FTU Explorer
r = 0.89

Strongest correlation in the dataset. Both spike together during IU workshop events — they share the same workshop-attending researcher audience. Adding an FTU Explorer CTA inside EUI (and vice versa) could increase adoption of both with near-zero engineering cost.

Action: Add “Explore organ FTUs” button in EUI sidebar when a user selects an organ

CDE
RUI
r = 0.67

CDE and RUI share a data-registration researcher audience who work with tissue-level data. CDE users who visualize cell distributions are likely the same users who register tissue blocks in RUI. Cross-linking them could improve both tool stickiness.

Action: Link from CDE visualization to “Register this tissue in RUI” workflow

EUI
CDE
r ≈ 0.00

Near-zero correlation means EUI and CDE attract separate user personas. EUI serves spatial browsers; CDE serves data-upload researchers. Attempting to cross-promote these two would likely see low conversion — focus cross-promotion budget elsewhere.

No action: Different audiences — don't conflate them in onboarding or marketing

KG Explorer
trajectory−45% since Oct

KG Explorer peaked in October 2025 at launch excitement and has declined 45% since. Over its active window it shows r=0.64 correlation with RUI — suggesting its audience overlaps with RUI's power users. Targeted re-engagement of RUI users could reverse the KG decline.

Action: Add KG Explorer surface to RUI sidebar — “Explore the knowledge graph for this structure”

What's Working

Strengths to Protect

82%CDE Completion Rate297 of 362 uploaders successfully visualized their data — the core workflow is solid once users start
63%RUI Keyboard Engagement3,251 keyboard interactions across 5,161 RUI visits — users are invested enough to learn keyboard shortcuts
+58%EUI Permanent Baseline LiftThe Mar 2024 workshop caused a lasting +58% lift in EUI's monthly baseline — events convert to retained users