So i read that when it is time to make the actual online payment you should not take the user to a third party website such as paypal or authorize.net because they become worried about the sudden change.

In fact it is better to keep the design for the payment screen similar to the rest of your check out process.

What i wanted to know was that is it even possible to have a pay pal integration but still keep the user on your own website with the same design? If yes could you guys please give me some examples.

  • 2
    I wonder if there is evidence to back up such a claim? When a site asks me to pay on PayPal, I take it as evidence that this is a small-time operation. However, it also gives me assurance that I am using a safe payment method that doesn't require as much trust in the retailer. Overall, I think paying via the PayPal site is a net positive when dealing with a relatively unknown business. That's just my opinion, though.
    – user31143
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 6:57
  • That is exactly my own concern that is it true that shoppers feel worried when we switch them to a gateway site. Btw can you please answer my second question that if i have a big online store and i want to have pay pal integrated, is it possible to pay via pay pal but keep the user on my own website ?
    – Sam
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 7:47
  • 2
    In my experience (opinion) PayPal in very well recognized so redirecting to them isn't an issue. If you try to link to another third party it may be more problematic. If you could manage to get PayPal integrated without redirecting it would certainly be preferable but I don't think that is possible.
    – DasBeasto
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 14:36
  • Want to bring up the other perspective. A frequent pay pal user is used to the process of being redirected for payment processing. Not having the pay pal "wrapper" may lead to decrease trust.
    – nightning
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 16:23
  • I have it the other way around! I prefer the site where I enter by CC details to be as standard as possible, best if it's a site of a large service (like paypal, gopay etc.) or of a banking institution (like in my country where many e-shops use Erste or KBC).
    – yo'
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 16:48

4 Answers 4


It is certainly is mentioned in practically every set of usability rules going that consistency is important. Nielsen for example has 'consistency and standards' as a key heuristic.

But as noted in the comments if a user is going to paypal for example then it adds a large element of trust that they may not have from a random e-commerce site. This also carries the added bonus of not only is this particular transaction more secure but you don't have to sign up for yet another account where your credit card details are stored. In fact if you can let users use paypal solely without signing up for any account at all then that is a massive usability coup.

I think for a small time operation (i.e. anything sub-amazon) some degree of external site usage is fairly inevitable these days- on some even rather big name company's web sites if you don't pay using paypal and instead use your card directly you will often be taken to a verification page handled by your bank.

A quick google suggests that you can do something with paypal to style it to your liking however: https://www.paypal.com/customize


No matter where you go the user should know where they are, why they are there and to trust they are there.

With large providers such as paypal or worldpay I dont see much of a problem as long as you warn the user before the event.


The reason why the design of your website should be consistent is familiarity, the user can apply his understanding of a part of the website to the rest, making using the website easier, especially for new users.

But. Processing payments is fairly complex, and rolling your own here will be difficult for both you and your users, consistent or not. On the other side many users will already be comfortable with PayPal or Amazon Payments.

Now, some user might not have used a website like PayPal before in which case switching to a different page might be slightly discomforting, but those users probably won't be the kind that order things in your online shop in the first place.

  • Speaking of familiarity, I'm more familiar with filling my CC details in the paypal or gopay forms than in some badly formatted and who-knows-how protected website. I have seen way too many e-shops to trust their security!
    – yo'
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 16:51

In my experience, making user leave your website at any point to a different site/third party is a big no no. Chances of that user coming back are slim. Having checkout process be a part of your website will, as was mentioned here earlier, keep your user at ease. Also it will allow for upsells, during the checkout.

Plus a lot of these 3rd party payment gateways provide really good APIs that will allow you to make it part of your site.

  • But we speak about a user finishing his shopping, being redirected to a payment portal, and being redirected back. I don't see how your 2nd sentence is even slightly relevant here. The user will be taken back once the transaction is processed!
    – yo'
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 16:50
  • oh i misunderstood. i thought it takes you to a different tab and finish transaction there....
    – Stanley VM
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 16:54
  • (No offence intended) You've never bought anything online with a credit card, other than on large sites like amazon or ebay? Almost all smaller e-shops redirect for payment. And for instance here they even redirect 4 times: Once to the payment site, and then to my bank's site, because the transaction is usually 3D secure, which in my case means SMS authorization. Then back to the payment site to finish the transaction and then back to the e-shop.
    – yo'
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 16:56
  • ( non taken, i enjoy a healthy discussion ) i have and i am aware of this. but it does not make it a good experience nonetheless. We used stripe API for one of our startups and it did have a redirect like that, and I was thoroughly annoyed by that factor, especially in a mobile situation. Now paypal has a great magento integration where I dont need to leave my site to complete transaction, and so does authorize.net
    – Stanley VM
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 16:59
  • 1
    i hear what you are saying man, security vs. usability could be an ongoing debate for hours here. alas, until APIs/security improves UX must suffer. And that whole SMS confirmation is definitely a big blow to UX...now it becomes a TASK to buy something and it shouldnt be
    – Stanley VM
    Commented Oct 2, 2015 at 17:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.