Process

Initial Discovery and User Flow Mapping

The first two weeks were devoted to establishing a research foundation. The team mapped comprehensive user journeys across distinct user types: community members, FIC members, event organizers, donors, and prospective members. We documented key pain points in their current experience and identified where the existing information architecture created friction. This foundational research provided the framework that would guide design decisions throughout the project, ensuring each iteration remained grounded in user needs rather than aesthetic preference.

Below is a small snippet of a much larger CX mapping flow chart for current community members.

Collaborative Workflow and Structured Iteration

The UX design team reviewed work internally each Monday, presented iterations to the client every Wednesday, and conducted team debriefs on Fridays to discuss information hierarchy, page logic, and prioritization. This rhythm created a genuinely iterative process despite time constraints. As many team members were dispersed across the world, managing time differences seemed like a hurdle at first glance, however, timings were communicated and all members maintained respect for timing expectations.

My responsibilities encompassed several key pages and components: the article page, the communiversity page, user navigation systems, settings, and various components across other pages. I also provided feedback to team members while receiving critique on my own work. Beyond the internal design team, the project required ongoing coordination with the client stakeholders and the development team to ensure feasibility and alignment.

Addressing Terminology and Mental Models

A hurdle that the team faced was tackling user confusion established through FIC's existing terminology. The platform allowed members to create "needs and offers" while FIC itself hosted "events." While these represented fundamentally different functionality and user intent, members announcing to the community versus FIC providing curated programming, the shared terminology obscured this distinction.

During our discovery phase, despite weeks of immersion in the system, the design team experienced the same confusion a new user would encounter. This gap between our own understanding and the user experience indicated a significant problem. The UX team advocated for a terminology change, such as "member marketplace", language that would immediately resonate with users familiar with established platforms like Meta or Etsy.

Design Under Constraints

The project proceeded without formal UX research or user testing. Rather than compromise the design process, the team adapted by leveraging the user journeys and pain points established during initial discovery as a framework for decision making. This approach ensured that design decisions remained grounded in documented user needs. Therefore, the communiversity page structure was validated against established user flows. Navigation and settings were designed to solve specific friction points identified early in the project.

The team also developed a practice of internal critique that incorporated multiple perspectives. The UX research team contributed domain knowledge about potential issues. The development team provided feedback on feasibility. Client stakeholders grounded discussions in business objectives. While external user testing was unavailable, this collaborative review process brought guardrails to design validation.

Despite producing designs at high velocity, sometimes completing pages within one or two days, the pace reflected focused strategy rather than expedience. Each decision traced directly to either a documented user need or a business goal.