Case study
When better UX isn’t the whole answer
We redesigned a telecom’s wireless buyflow to cut decision overload. Research proved the flow worked. But it also revealed the real barrier was somewhere else.
3 min read
TL;DR
A large telecom’s wireless buyflow was overwhelming shoppers: too many tangled decisions about phones, plans, and pricing. We reworked the end-to-end experience to reduce cognitive load. We used techniques like progressive disclosure, a redesigned flow that let people start with either a plan or a device, in-line learn content, and a guided shopping experience for the unsure.
The Challenge
A clearer, more flexible flow would move more people to buy online.
What We Found
The flow worked. But two rounds of research showed the real barrier to online purchase wasn’t navigation. It was content: pricing and promo confusion pushing people back into stores.
Prototype validated and handed off.
The client adopted the work in-house; many of the improvements are now live.
70%+
of buyflow traffic was mobile, on an experience never built mobile-first
2 rounds
moderated end-to-end testing, then unmoderated testing of the guided experience
3 segments
new customers, existing customers, and newcomers
The client took the prototype in-house; many of the recommendations are live in production today.
Context
A large telecom asked us to improve its wireless buyflow. The existing experience had a clear problem: choosing a phone and a plan meant juggling too many decisions at once. Users were deciding on devices, plans, financing, promotions, discounts, and most of it presented all at the same time.
The friction points were well known internally. The flow was rigid and linear. Learning and buying were disconnected. Pricing was hard to parse. And more than 70% of traffic was mobile, on an experience that wasn’t built mobile-first.
The goal: make the flow more cohesive, easier to understand, and easier to complete online.
Screen caps from our initial workshop with the client, where we fleshed out the ask, defined the pain points and explored refining the flow.
Approach
We didn’t fix one thing. We reworked the system around a single idea: reduce the load at every decision point.
Progressive disclosure
Simplify the default view; let people expand for more. Explore at your own pace instead of facing everything at once.
Flexibility over a fixed path
The old flow forced one order. We designed it so shoppers could start with a plan or a device, depending on how they actually think. We moved the “new device vs. bring-your-own” decision to the front.
Learning inside the flow
In-line, progressive content so people could understand plans and financing without leaving what they were doing.
A guided experience for the unsure
A short, quiz-style shopping guide that narrows plan, phone, or both through a few simple questions.
Then we validated it
Two rounds of testing. A moderated end-to-end study of the full flow, and an unmoderated study of the guided experience. Both with representative shoppers across new customers, existing customers, and newcomers.
Select high-fidelity screens from the buy a phone, buy a plan, checkout and guided experience flows that were used for usability testing.
Outcome
The flow worked. Participants found the navigation logical, the plan-or-device flexibility matched how they actually shopped, and the compare feature fit their mental model. The guided experience tested as easy, helpful, and intuitive.
But the research surfaced something more important than a usability score. Even with a clean flow, people still wanted to research online and buy in a store. Their reason: pricing. Plan-versus-financing costs, promo terms, and discount eligibility were confusing enough that shoppers said they’d rather call or visit a store than risk getting it wrong online.
The design had done its job. The research revealed that the biggest barrier to online purchase wasn’t the interface, it was pricing transparency.
The client brought the prototype to its in-house product team. Over time, many of the recommended improvements were made live.
Reflection
The easy version of this project ends at “we made the flow better, and testing proved it.” That version would be true. It just wouldn’t be the whole story.
The more useful finding was the one we didn’t go looking for: a well-designed flow can still lose the sale if the content inside it — the pricing, the promos, the fine print — makes people anxious. Good interaction design surfaced a problem that design alone couldn’t solve. It was a pricing and communication problem wearing a UX costume.
From this project, I’m carrying forward: sometimes the most valuable thing research does isn’t validating your design, it’s showing you a real problem you may not have been hired to fix.