ePortal Redesign

Research + Testing Methods

We used mixed-method research to uncover user behavior and optimize navigation. Activities included card sorting workshops, tree testing, user interviews, and A/B testing across different user types (e.g., Operator vs Explorer). Tree testing via Optimal Workshop validated our updated IA with 101 users.

Card Sorting

User Persona

Tree Testing

Market Analysis + Design Audit

A/B Testing

Hybrid Card Sorting + Analysis

We conducted a hybrid card sorting workshop with internal and external users to validate and refine the navigation categories. This helped uncover how users mentally group tasks and features, guiding a more intuitive information architecture.

User Personas

To better understand our users' goals and pain points, we created personas based on real behaviors and feedback. These profiles guided design decisions and helped us focus on usability for different user types. Over time, we grouped them into two core design personas: The Operator—a routine-driven user who values efficiency, and The Explorer—a task-oriented user who prefers guidance. These personas shaped our final product strategy and ensured the design met a range of needs and tech comfort levels.

Tree Testing

Using an unmoderated tree test, we evaluated the clarity and effectiveness of our proposed navigation structure. With over 100 participants, the results confirmed that users could confidently and efficiently locate key tasks with minimal confusion.

Market Analysis + Design Audit

We assessed five major competitors and found a strong industry trend toward intuitive portals that offer faster workflows and better feedback systems. CCBH serves more counties than any competitor—underscoring the need for scalability and clarity. A design audit helped uncover inconsistencies across homepage, masthead, and navigation components.

Pros:

• Book stays, car, taxis & attractions
• Save stays to view them later
• View previous + upcoming trips
• Does a few things very well

Cons:

• No travel planning features other than for stays

Pros:

• Book stays and experiences
• Create wishlists to save stays for later
• View previous + upcoming stays
• Local hosts & inspiring articles

Cons:

• No travel planning freatures other than for stays

Pros:

• Find flights, hotels & things to eat/do
• Tailored suggestions based on previous searches and trips
• Excellent trip planning features
• Excellent price comparison features

Cons:

• Not a dedicated app, users have to go elsewhere to gook

Pros:

• Book stays, car, taxis & attractions
• Save stays to view them later
• View previous + upcoming trips
• Does a few things very well

Cons:

• No travel planning features other than for stays

Key Takeaways

Our competitors—although smaller in coverage—demonstrate trends we wanted to adopt: clear access to high-frequency features, stronger onboarding, and simplified user journeys. As a result, we prioritized adaptability, clarity, and guided experiences in our redesign.

Prioritize most-used features with quick access

Keep content relevant and avoid homepage clutter

Ensure clear feedback channels are accessible

A/B Testing

We tested two design variations (Version A: The Operator and Version B: The Explorer) to assess usability and user preference. While both performed well, users favored Version A for its intuitive mega-navigation, though Version B offered a cleaner experience for entity switching.

The Operator

The operators are somewhat familiar with ePortal. They are methodical thinkers and value standardization over customization.

The Explorer

The explorer are new users or early adopters of a new feature. They are investigative thinkers and value customization over standardization.

Part 2

Design Strategy

Our design strategy prioritized foundational improvements to ePortal’s navigation, homepage, and masthead, focusing on long-term scalability rather than just minimum viability. Instead of a traditional MVP approach, we divided requirements into phases, working closely with developers and QA to identify what was technically feasible for initial rollout.

The idea

Solution Concept

Now that we concluded our user research—through card sorting, tree testing, and A/B testing—we selected Version A as the foundation for the high-fidelity prototype. This version best balanced usability and efficiency, especially for users with varying levels of tech comfort. The design strategy for Version A focused on:

Feature Requirements

To support these goals, the following platform features were identified as core design priorities:

• Role-adaptive homepage content
• Simplified navigation with grouped tasks
• Reorganized permission management
• Feedback channels and FAQs easily accessible from the homepage
• Scalable layout components for future features (MCO-specific content, onboarding guides, etc.)
• System admin tools with improved labeling and access points
• Visual styling updates to align with our evolving design system

Part 3

Wireframing, Visual Design & Prototyping

Once ideas were aligned with user goals and technical requirements, we moved into the wireframing and prototyping phase. Low-fidelity sketches and early prototypes were shared with internal teams for feedback and iteration before building high-fidelity mockups.

Low-fidelity Wireframes

We began by creating low-fidelity wireframes to explore layouts and task grouping. These wireframes helped validate how users would move through the new navigation and interact with simplified workflows.Key layout explorations included:

1. Homepage layout: Task cards grouped by frequency or permission
2. Navigation structure: Prioritizing predictability over minimalism
3. Masthead & Alerts: Condensing status and help options into clear UI
4. Permissions Interface: Simplified views for admins and internal staff
5. Account Simulation (SysAdmin): Clearer start and end points, smarter defaults

The Final Product

The final design includes a scalable IA, modern visuals, homepage quick links, and support-driven features to improve usability and reduce confusion. These improvements are expected to increase platform efficiency and engagement as new features roll out.

Last Words

Designing for a complex, enterprise-level platform like ePortal meant making deliberate decisions to balance user needs, technical limitations, and business priorities. Some of the key constraints and trade-offs included:While carrying out this exercise I had to make assumptions and trade-offs in order to make progress and stick to the timeline. Here are a few of the constraints and trade-offs that I considered:

• Scope vs. Impact: We prioritized foundational improvements (like navigation and homepage layout) over feature expansion to ensure scalable future growth.
• Design Ideal vs. Technical Feasibility: Some components had to be adjusted or phased due to system constraints and development capacity.
• Speed vs. Accuracy: While deadlines were important, we opted for phased rollouts to allow for proper user testing and iteration.
• Simplicity vs. Power: We had to simplify workflows without stripping functionality for advanced users with complex roles.