"The site did not require a significant redesign. A large part of this project was understanding what should not change as much as what should."
Context
Competitive redesign program by IterateUX — 27 teams presenting to an industry panel
My Role
UX Research Lead, UX Design, Project Management
Methods
5 User Interviews, Moderated Usability Test, Competitive Analysis
Outcome
1st Place out of 27 teams · 3 high-impact design opportunities
The Problem
Adult e-learners were motivated to upskill but dropped off before finishing courses — not from lack of intention, but from cognitive overload and a platform experience that worked against their time constraints.
The challenge was equally one of restraint: redesigning an established platform means knowing what to preserve as much as what to change. Without direct client access, I had to build that boundary from behavioral data and brand analysis.
Research Questions
01 What drives course selection decisions for adult learners?
02 What causes users to abandon courses before completion?
03 Where does the current UI create friction or overwhelm?
Research Approach
I led mixed-methods research to challenge our team's early assumptions about what adult learners actually needed. Five user interviews surfaced behavioral patterns around course selection, motivation, and abandonment. A moderated usability test then confirmed where the existing UI was creating friction.
The research framing was deliberately product-informed rather than preference-driven: I scoped questions around friction points that mattered to users, not features we assumed they'd want. This kept all four designers aligned on a shared evidence base throughout the 5-week sprint.
Research Process
What We Achieved
1st place
out of 27 teams, awarded by an industry panel of design professionals
5 wks
full research-to-submission cycle including interviews, usability testing, and design
3
high-impact design opportunities identified directly from user research
Research Insights
Insight 01
Price, reviews, thumbnail quality, and teacher information were the primary factors users evaluated when choosing a course — yet the UI buried or deprioritized several of these.
"I always check reviews first — but they're hard to find without scrolling."
Insight 02
Users didn't abandon courses from disinterest. Little in-platform motivation and real-world distractions broke their momentum — and the UI offered no re-engagement hooks.
"Life gets busy. I forget where I left off and it's hard to pick back up."
Insight 03
Whether users were returning to a course or searching for a new one, the landing page created an immediate sense of overload — too much information, too little hierarchy.
"There's just so much going on. I never know where to look."
From Research to Design
Insight: Key features are invisible to most users
Design Decisions
Insight: The landing page overwhelmed users on arrival
Design Decisions
homepage Hi-Fidelity
Hero CTA Redesign
Hi-Fi navitation bar redesign
welcome back container redesign
Constraints and Strategy
Redesigning an established platform means knowing what to preserve as much as what to change. Without direct client input, I used brand analysis and behavioral data to define what should not change — then scoped research questions around the friction points that actually mattered to users.
🔒
Resolved with brand analysis and behavioral data to define what should not change. This framing kept the team product-informed rather than preference-driven.
⏲
I led project management alongside research to keep the team sequenced correctly: research insights had to land before any design decisions were made.
⚙️
Power users had workflows built around existing features. The research helped distinguish between features that were broken vs. features that were simply undiscoverable.
✏️
Accessibility standards were implemented within the existing design structure — not bolted on after, but woven into spacing, contrast, and interaction decisions throughout.
Reflections
Research scope under time pressure
Five interviews surfaced strong patterns, but I'd invest in a larger participant pool on a longer timeline. The three themes that emerged were consistent — additional sessions would have given us confidence to push further on some design bets.
Research as alignment tool
The shared evidence base kept four designers moving in the same direction without constant realignment. I'd use this pattern again: build the research first so the team debates the solution, not the problem.
Redesign ≠ rebuild
The biggest lesson: defining what not to change is as strategic as designing what to add. This framing — restraint as a design choice — is one I now apply from the start of any redesign engagement.
