A user-centric upgrade
Anxilla is a B2B start-up with a white-label platform for airlines, that includes a bidding system for passengers to bid on airline upgrades. While it is a cutting-edge solution for the airline industry, the success of the service relies greatly on one thing: Customer satisfaction.
As a designer, my goal was to align the Anxilla’s commercial objectives with passengers' needs through a website redesign.
Interaction design
Heuristic evaluation
Usability testing
Prototyping
timeline
Feb 2024 - May 2024
Project
Client Project
Responsive Web
Tools
Figma
Google Suite
My contribution
THE CHALLENGE
Designing for take-off
Anxilla offers over 50 ancillaries and has launched the most popular type so far, the Economy to Business class upgrade. They plan to scale up and launch new types of ancillaries, such as seat and meal upgrades.
The issue
A customer feedback survey revealed that 1 in 4 users do not find the current interface for the class upgrade user-friendly, suggesting a need for improvement.
STAKEholder alignment
Defining the scope
I first set up a meeting with the client to discuss their priorities. I learned that they had 2 main business needs.
Updating the existing platform to get ready to launch a range of ancillaries, such as seat and meal upgrades.
Responsive & innovative design to showcase to future airline companies, increasing opportunities for partnerships.
MY GOALS
Prioritizing user needs
My goal for this project was not only to capture usability issues, but to learn from user experiences to deliver an intuitive and engaging platform for passengers. It was imperative for me to prioritize the user's perspectives in order to create the new design.
Based on a scan of their website and the existing business needs, I outlined a third goal:
To create a consistent design pattern for all types of upgrades, streamlining the process and reducing cognitive load for passengers.
heuristic evaluation
Learning from design principles
I conducted a heuristic evaluation to identify and classify user pain points, covering all existing and missing features. This helped me determine the most crucial issues to address, which include:
No clear process documentation
No clear instruction about the bidding process or what to expect after bidding.
No visibility of system status
No features to prevent slip ups, there is no clear order to complete steps.
Error prevention and diagnosis
Selections for multiple passengers are not shown throughout the process.
Lack of user feedback
Feedback should be prompt, meaningful and perceivable so that users know their actions were detected.
Benchmark test & IntERVIEWS
Learning directly from users
I used a benchmark test to have clear a clear threshold for future improvements. I assessed how 5 participants completed 3 tasks:
Place a bid on a class upgrade.
Place a bid to add an extra seat.
Place a bid to add a pre-paid meal.
I also asked a set of interview-style questions to gain insight into passengers’ experiences and mental models when booking flights or purchasing upgrades.
THE CHALLENGE
Early insights from users
Benchmark tests revealed that success rates for the 3 user flows were low. These tests also helped me pinpoint specific pain points with each flow.
Placing a bid on a class upgrade.
Placing a bid on an extra seat.
Placing a bid on a meal.
Failed
Succeeded with misclicks
Succeeded
KEY insights
Re-centering around passenger needs
Interviews revealed that Anxilla’s bidding system was unfamiliar to passengers, leading to a lack of confidence and trust, which was compounded by existing distrust in the airline industry.
So, how do we create a positive and transparent platform to foster trust and confidence in the process?
Affinity mapping helped me uncover 3 main insights into user mental models. Empathy mapping helped me map out what participants said, to understand how they wanted the process to feel:
Key insights revealed the process should feel:
Informative & thorough
Participants were far more concerned about what the process would be like if lost the bid. Most participants were risk-averse and did not want to lose their ticket or money. They wanted their concerns to be addressed in order to feel safe to bid.
I would bid if I understood the whole process first and if I knew at what point my money would be taken or returned if I won or lost.
Trustworthy & secure
Many participants had past negative experiences with airline companies, and needed a certain degree of trust and transparency communicated to them in order to feel secure in trying out the new bidding option.
I've had to many negative experiences in the past. The airline industry is just a business and at the end of the day and Im not sure they care.
Enjoyable & effortless
When travelling, participants often feel like they are on vacation from the get-go, and do not want to deal with logistics of the airline. They need the process to feel effortless, in order to tempt them to place a bid on an upgrade.
Whenever I'm travelling, I want to feel relaxed, so I will choose options that make me feel that way. I don't want to go through the hassle.
THE PRODUCT
Focusing on simplicity
The design of the main screen was focused on simplifying the process for the user as much as possible. Before we explore the new features in the next section, take a look at the old website:
THE SOlUTION
The case for micro-interactions
At this stage of the discovery process, all research was pointing in one direction. Micro-interactions play an important role in boosting trust and communicating brand identity. There needed to be a greater amount of micro-interactions to give the system a voice, provide visual feedback and boost user confidence
The features
Throughout the design process, I made sure to focus on incorporating micro-interactions, where necessary.
How we got there
A design pattern to suit all upgrades
Starting from the most complex
Since one of my goals was to create a consistent design pattern, I created a universal user flow that could be tailored for all different types of upgrades (e.g class upgrade, extra seat, meal selection).
I chose to focus on the extra seat upgrade for the user flow, because it was the most complex type of upgrade.
It involves several steps before placing a bid:
Selecting the type of upgrade they would like.
Selecting the location of their own seat in the cabin.
Selecting the location of the extra seats next to them.
Using way-finding techniques
Using my user flows, I identified key steps and decision points, ensuring each was highlighted and apparent in my sketches.
I used way-finding techniques in my sketches, such as headings, banners, and strategic element placement along the top and left-hand side of the page—to ensure that all the steps were logical.
Usability test
Early testing & feedback
I designed the initial prototype in grayscale to streamline the process and gather early user feedback.
Tests were conducted on both mobile and desktop. I included design variatios between the mobile and desktop versions, to determine which was more user-friendly. Feedback focused on three key aspects of usability:
Understanding
Understanding and clarity about the bidding process and what to expect both before and after.
Visibility of status
Users can easily track the upgrade selections that they make for different passengers.
Navigation
Ease of navigation and completion of steps to bid or purchase the upgrade.
Reiteration
Early findings
Drag the arrow to see the different design decisions that were made between mid fidelity and high fidelity screens.
Ease of understanding
Issue:
Users skimmed the how it works section, and later on asked questions.
Solution:
To encourage readers to look at this section more carefully, I reduced the amount of text, provided icons, and cards as anchor points to draw attention.
Ease of navigation
Issue:
When all steps were presented in sequential order, users tended to skim them all and get overwhelmed or accidentally skip steps.
Solution:
Future steps were hidden but clearly labeled, while the active step was highlighted in vibrant green to draw attention.
Hi-fi user test
Comparing metrics
I re-tested the new website specifically for placing a bid on an extra seat, to compare the success rates.
Original website:
Redesigned website:
Failed
Succeeded with misclicks
Succeeded
What users are saying
"I didn't feel like I was being scammed at any point, which for me is an important aspect."
“It was easy to navigate. I can see that there was a lot of thought put into the user’s perspectives.”
concluding thoughts
The question of ethical design
Despite the tests going well and success rates being high, I was met with a recurring sentiment from users:
“I’d be too scared to bid, it seems risky”
Probing further into this sentiment made me realize that users ultimately did not want to risk losing their seat selection through the bidding process. Consider this quick story:
What I learnt
Should the extra seat be tied to the passenger’s own seat selection? This forces passengers to place a bid on both seats together, leading them to potentially lose their seat selection if they lose the bid.
I brought this up to the client, citing the previous story as an example and explaining why this could impact customers. Although they’ve acknowledged the need for a change, they flagged this as a future step.
In the meantime, I’ve learnt that good design needs to go beyond the look and feel of a website. It needs to address real user concerns, ensuring that the functionality not only meets business objectives but also protects and prioritizes the user experience. In Amanda’s case, the design should safeguard her original seat selection, even if she loses the bid, to maintain trust and prevent negative experiences.
Thanks for reading.
© Sharmeena Lalloo. 2024