60-second story
From booking friction to a prioritized PDP redesign
Problem
High usage, but limited progression through the booking funnel. Analytics and Hotjar showed clear friction signals, especially on mobile.
Approach
Google Analytics, Hotjar, exit-intent surveys, usability testing, heuristic evaluation, UX benchmarks and competitive analysis.
Key insight
The product detail page needed to go beyond informing users. It had to actively support them in understanding, comparing and deciding.
Decision
I synthesized 34 individual issues into four priorities. The work shifted from isolated fixes to a broader redesign scope with executive alignment.
Outcome
The whole PDP was redesigned across all device types. The hero area, search module and offer box were later validated in separate A/B tests, which apply to those elements, not to the redesign as a whole.
01 CONTEXT & RESEARCH CHALLENGE
A high-traffic decision point in the booking funnel
Alongside checkout, the PDP was prioritized as a key decision and conversion touchpoint. Google Analytics and Hotjar showed that high usage did not reliably translate into further booking progression, especially on mobile. The challenge was therefore not cosmetic: the team needed to understand what was preventing users from moving forward.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
High traffic and strong interaction, yet limited further progression. Behavioral data showed a clear gap between interest in the offer and movement toward booking.
CRITICAL UNCERTAINTY
We could see where users stalled, but not which underlying barriers were driving the behavior – or which changes would meaningfully support the booking decision.
PRODUCT DECISION
Should we address isolated UI issues or invest in a broader PDP redesign – and which problems were important enough to define that scope?
02 APPROACH: MIXED-METHODS
Four evidence sources converged on a shared decision-making problem
Google Analytics and Hotjar showed where friction occurred. Exit-intent surveys and usability testing provided insights into the reasons. Heuristic evaluation, Baymard benchmarks and competitive analysis helped contextualize the findings. Only through synthesis did these become four prioritized requirements.
01
Behavioral data
Google Analytics
Hotjar Heatmaps
Usage and drop-off signals
02
Reported reasons
Exit-intent surveys
Self-reported drop-off reasons
Price, search and comparison
03
Observed friction
Usability Testing
Interaction cost
Comprehension and orientation
04
External context
Heuristics and Baymard
Competitive analysis
UX and decision-making standards
ORIGINAL PROJECT ARTIFACT (GERMAN) · URLAUBSGURU GMBH
The strength was not in the number of methods, but in their function: triangulating signals, prioritizing issues and translating them into an actionable redesign scope.
03 EVIDENCE → KEY INSIGHT
Users did not just need more information. They needed better support to understand, compare and decide.
01 Behavioral Signals
Google Analytics and Hotjar showed lower funnel progression on mobile and interaction patterns indicating additional friction. On desktop, the search module dominated the first view, pushing decision-relevant content below the fold.
02 Exit-Intent
Exit-intent responses repeatedly cited price transparency and stability, search and filtering, technical barriers, comparability and visual presentation.
03 Usability Testing
Usability testing revealed high interaction cost, unclear feedback around pricing and travel duration and insufficient support for comparison and decision-making.
34
Pain Points
4 Design priorities
I grouped 34 individual issues by their shared effect on understanding, comparing and deciding. The synthesis produced four prioritized requirements and turned a findings list into a concrete redesign scope.
01
First view & hierarchy
Surface decision-relevant information earlier.
02
Comparison & price clarity
Improve comparability and provide clearer support for price perception.
03
Navigation & mobile
Reduce interaction cost and prioritize mobile user guidance.
04
Trust & decision support
Make trust cues and decision support more visible throughout the flow.
04 FROM RESEARCH TO DESIGN
Prioritized evidence became a concrete design rationale
I translated the four requirements into design hypotheses and mid-fidelity concepts. UX/UI Design developed the high-fidelity solution; we iterated continuously with Product and Development to balance research intent, usability and feasibility.
More decision support, less interaction
Increase density, maintain overview
Explicitly support comparison
Strengthen trust & orientation
05 THE SOLUTION
The redesign shifted the PDP toward a more guided decision-support experience
Decision-relevant information moved earlier in the flow; hierarchy, comparability, trust cues and mobile guidance were reworked to reduce avoidable interaction.
Urlaubsguru GmbH
First view reprioritized
Mobile-first user guidance
Comparison & pricing clarified
Trust & orientation more visible
06 RESEARCH-TO-DESIGN CHECK
Were the four prioritized requirements addressed in the redesign?
BEFORE
REDESIGN
BEFORE
REDESIGN
Research-led
prioritized redesign scope
Design outcome, implemented across key sections
The PDP was redesigned across key sections – including the hero/image area, search module, offer box and additional decision-relevant content. The implemented solution addressed the four priorities through revised hierarchy, clearer comparison support, mobile guidance and more visible trust cues.
DELIVERY CONSTRAINT · SHARED PLATFORM
The concept handed to our external technology partner represented the target experience for Urlaubsguru. Implementation had to align with the partner’s existing design system and shared platform constraints, so not every detail could be implemented exactly as proposed. Through close collaboration, the teams iterated toward the strongest feasible solution within those constraints.
07 IMPACT
Each major product change can be traced back to an observed decision barrier
Competitive analysis was one contextual input – not a source to copy. The table connects the observed gaps with the design response across hierarchy, comparison, mobile guidance and trust.
EVIDENCE-TO-DESIGN TRACE
From observed gap to product response
First View & Hierarchy
The search module dominated the entry point; decision-relevant content appeared too late.
Hero/image area and information hierarchy reprioritized.
Price & Comparison
Prices, travel duration and options were harder to assess and compare.
Offer box, pricing logic and comparability structured more clearly.
Navigation & Mobile
Mobile interactions caused additional effort and disrupted the decision flow.
Search module and mobile user guidance implemented with less interaction cost.
Trust & Orientation
Trust signals and orientation were scattered across the page and not consistently visible.
Trust elements and decision aids integrated throughout the PDP.
Structural mapping of observed gaps to design responses. It does not claim market performance, conversion impact or competitive ranking.
08 DESIGN OUTCOME · COMPETITIVE CONTEXT
A redesign with clear added value: better structure, stronger user guidance and closer alignment with strong market standards
The layout comparison showed that the new concept covers core UX and decision-support elements more systematically, bringing the PDP structurally closer to strong market standards.
AFTER THE REDESIGN
Higher information density
Clearer information structure
Stronger trust-building
More emotionally engaging
Improved usability
Note: This visualization shows structural UX and feature coverage within the observed competitive comparison – not measured market performance, conversion or an objective market leadership claim.
09 FROM DESIGN TO DELIVERY
Executive alignment moved the redesign from concept into joint delivery
After iterative refinement with UX/UI and Product, the redesign scope was reviewed with the executive team and moved into joint planning with an external technology partner.
01
Internal alignment
Research, mid-fidelity and high-fidelity reviewed jointly with Product.
02
Executive buy-in
The executive team confirmed scope and priority.
03
Partner readout
Joint readout and handoff to the external technology partner.
04
Feasibility & joint planning
Feasibility, scope, dependencies and implementation were worked through jointly.
05
Phased implementation
All key PDP sections were implemented incrementally.
06
Targeted A/B validation
Hero/image area, search module and offer box were validated separately.
The key outcome: the work did not stop at insight delivery. Research stayed connected to prioritization, design, feasibility, implementation and targeted experimentation.
10 CONTINUED VALIDATION
Validation continued during phased implementation
Selected core elements – including the hero/image area, search module and offer box – were validated through separate A/B tests as part of phased implementation. Each experiment tested a defined element; the results should not be interpreted as the isolated effect of the full redesign.
Research
Synthesis
Design
Build
Experiment
Decision
RELATED CASE
A/B test, Offer box & pricing logic
Targeted validation of a key decision-making module.
RELATED CASE
A/B tests, Image area, price calendar & search module
Separate validation of additional core elements.
Case coming soon
11 OUTCOME & EVIDENCE BOUNDARY
What changed in the product and what this case does not claim
The full PDP was implemented across desktop and mobile. Selected elements were validated separately through A/B tests; this flagship case does not aggregate those experiments into a single effect for the complete redesign.
Product impact
New hero/image area
New search module
Revised navigation and information hierarchy
New offer box
Additional decision-support content
Desktop and mobile implementation
Evidence boundary
Each A/B test evaluated a defined element. This case therefore does not attribute a single conversion effect to the full redesign; element-level results are handled in dedicated experimentation cases where disclosure is permitted.
12 KEY LEARNINGS
Two lessons I carried forward from this project
01
No single method was sufficient; the decision became clear only when evidence converged
Analytics and Hotjar showed where friction occurred. Exit-intent surveys added self-reported reasons. Usability testing exposed concrete interaction problems. The synthesis across these sources made the shared decision barriers visible.
The project reinforced a practice I still use: synthesize across evidence sources before optimizing individual findings.
02
Research had more value because it stayed connected to prioritization, delivery and validation
The work moved from findings to mid-fidelity concepts, high-fidelity iteration with UX/UI, Product alignment, feasibility planning, implementation and targeted A/B validation.
For me, the researcher’s responsibility did not end at insight delivery; it included making the evidence usable for product decisions while keeping ownership boundaries clear.
