Graduate UI Design · Academic Team Project

OurJourneyMan

Designing and testing a traceable, dual-sided commission experience for high-stakes decisions between clients and artisans.

Context: 12-week graduate course project for custom furniture commissions
Team: Three-person team · I served as team lead
My role: Artisan low-fidelity flow · Complete client and artisan high-fidelity UI
Evidence: 6 moderated sessions · 6/6 completed core tasks

01 · The challenge

Trust breaks in the invisible middle.

Custom furniture is not a simple checkout. Clients commit to a costly process they cannot fully see, while artisans explain material trade-offs, changing timelines, and approvals through scattered email or chat.

The design opportunity was not to make the process feel instant. It was to make expertise, trade-offs, and decisions visible.

01Clients need to understand what changed, why it matters, and what they are approving.
02Artisans need structure for documenting issues without adding more administrative work.
03Both sides need one continuous record across requests, recommendations, approvals, cost, and timeline.

Current-state breakdownOne commission, scattered across disconnected touchpoints

01 · REQUEST

Client describes the piece

Preferences, references, timing, and budget arrive through a long, unstructured message.

02 · COMPLICATION

Artisan explains a material issue

Photos, recommendations, alternatives, and trade-offs compete inside a message thread.

03 · DECISION

Approval loses its context

The final choice is separated from the evidence, cost, timeline, and project record it changes.

02 · Two-sided journey

One decision, two different jobs.

I mapped the client journey first, then the artisan workflow behind it. The shared scenario was deliberately difficult: an artisan discovers beetle damage in walnut reserved for a client’s dining table.

The client needs a calm comparison and a confident approval path. The artisan needs to document evidence, frame alternatives, explain a recommendation, and show downstream cost and timing effects.

CLIENT · 01

Understand the issue

See evidence and a plain-language explanation before evaluating options.

SHARED · 02

Compare trade-offs

Review source, risk, price, timing, and the artisan’s rationale in one model.

ARTISAN · 03

Record the decision

Turn the approved option into a traceable project update instead of another message thread.

Client discovery screen showing artisans and an active commission — Final prototype · Client first, artisan secondLong screens are framed as tasks—hover or focus to inspect the complete screen.

Client review and submit screen — Final prototype · Client first, artisan secondLong screens are framed as tasks—hover or focus to inspect the complete screen.

Prototype walkthroughs

Two roles, one continuous record.

These high-fidelity walkthroughs show how the same commission moves through two different interfaces. Watch either role independently, or compare them to see how evidence, recommendations, approval, cost, and timing stay connected.

High-fidelity prototype · Client and artisanFrom an initial request to a documented, traceable decision.

CLIENT SIDE

Discover, request, compare, and approve

The client experience keeps evidence, alternatives, price, timing, and approval in one continuous journey.

ARTISAN SIDE

Document, recommend, and update

The artisan experience turns a material complication into a structured recommendation and traceable project update.

03 · Usability evidence

Completion was high, but confidence was uneven.

I moderated six prototype sessions: three participants followed the client journey and three followed the artisan journey. All six completed the core tasks, with average completion times of 10–12 minutes for clients and 12–15 minutes for artisans.

Task completion showed that the structure worked. The observed hesitation showed where the interface still needed to explain responsibility, comparison, and consequence.

Serious issues

The test identified three issues that could materially affect a participant’s understanding or progress.

4/6

Selection model unclear

Four participants were unsure whether artisans selected a material or prepared options for client approval.

Material origin confusion

Three participants needed clearer context for where an alternative material came from.

Impact criteria unclear

Two participants in the artisan flow needed a clearer explanation of how an option affected the project.

Form length concern

Two participants in the client flow found the initial request too long and information-heavy.

PRIORITY 01

Clarify the decision owner

Make it unmistakable that artisans prepare alternatives and clients approve one.

PRIORITY 02

Trace the consequence

Connect recommendation rationale to cost, timing, and the project record.

PRIORITY 03

Reduce first-step load

Break the client request into understandable stages with a visible next step.

04 · Evidence to iteration

Three changes, each tied to observed friction.

These are three independent improvements, not three chronological versions. The visual now isolates only the interface change; the evidence and design response stay readable beside it.

Before: artisan alternatives shown as a supplier-style options list

After: alternatives presented as a consistent client comparison

IMPROVEMENT 01

Choosing vs. proposing

Evidence: P1 and P5 hesitated over whether the artisan should pick one material or prepare several.

Response: Consistent criteria, recommendation rationale, and a Preview & Send step make the artisan’s responsibility explicit.

Before: material issue communicated through one long text report

After: recommendation linked to evidence, cost, and time

IMPROVEMENT 02

Message vs. recommendation

Evidence: P4 wanted stronger reasoning and a clearer explanation of price and duration changes.

Response: The new flow links the material issue, photo evidence, recommended solution, budget adjustment, and timeline shift.

Before: all project-request fields placed in one long form

After: request separated into three progressive steps

IMPROVEMENT 03

Long form vs. guided request

Evidence: P4 and P6 struggled with the amount of information and unclear sequence.

Response: Project essentials, preferences, and review become three visible stages with a clear next action.

05 · Visual direction

One visual language had to work for both sides.

I explored three art directions before committing to the final interface: warm craft, precision workshop, and editorial provenance. This made visual style a product decision—how should the service communicate expertise, traceability, and human craft?

The chosen direction balances the warmth of custom making with the precision needed for evidence, comparison, and approval.

Warm Craft Heritage visual direction — Three style explorationsDifferent balances of warmth, precision, and provenance; click to inspect.

Precision Workshop System visual direction — Three style explorationsDifferent balances of warmth, precision, and provenance; click to inspect.

Outcome and next validation

Designing for trust means giving consequential decisions enough structure.

Leadership

I led a three-person team and maintained continuity across the client and artisan experience.

Evidence-led iteration

I connected usability findings to specific interface improvements instead of presenting research and UI as separate stories.

End-to-end UI ownership

I designed the complete high-fidelity client and artisan interface after developing the artisan low-fidelity flow.

Visual direction

I translated craft, provenance, and decision clarity into one visual language for both sides of the service.

NEXT VALIDATION

A focused follow-up round would test whether the revised selection model and shorter client request reduce hesitation before the system expands to more commission scenarios.