Online Print Platform
The first product followed the market leader’s model. User research revealed why it failed first-time buyers — and led to a tested redesign direction.
The safest plan was to follow the leader
The first version exposed professional parameters immediately. It gave customers plenty of control — but little help understanding what to choose.
The first version offered everything required to order print online.
Customers could choose paper, quantity and finishing, compare print shops, upload a file or edit a template. The functionality was there.
But it assumed they already understood what those choices meant.
Anyprint’s new customers were taxi drivers, guesthouse owners, shop owners and beauty professionals ordering materials for their own businesses. They were comfortable using digital products, but had little experience with print terminology or artwork requirements.
The interface had been borrowed from a mature product serving a more experienced audience.
Ours was meeting many of these customers for the first time.
Customers could choose paper, quantity and finishing, compare print shops, upload a file or edit a template. The functionality was there.
But it assumed they already understood what those choices meant.
Anyprint’s new customers were taxi drivers, guesthouse owners, shop owners and beauty professionals ordering materials for their own businesses. They were comfortable using digital products, but had little experience with print terminology or artwork requirements.
The interface had been borrowed from a mature product serving a more experienced audience.
Ours was meeting many of these customers for the first time.
We copied the interface. We could not copy the conditions that made it successful.
Real users stopped where print became professional
The client asked me to find out why the platform was not bringing in enough customers.
- Professional terminology carried most of the meaning.
- The visual reference lived elsewhere on the page.
- Users rarely opened the additional tooltips.
Analytics revealed the main point of loss: 80% of sessions ended on the business card page.
Nothing was technically broken. People opened the product, explored the options and could place an order.
They simply did not continue.
I watched 60 session recordings. After a while, they began to feel strangely similar.
A customer would open the configurator, reach the paper or finishing options — and slow down. They paused, switched repeatedly between parameters and sometimes returned to choices they had already made.
Nothing was technically broken. People opened the product, explored the options and could place an order.
They simply did not continue.
I watched 60 session recordings. After a while, they began to feel strangely similar.
A customer would open the configurator, reach the paper or finishing options — and slow down. They paused, switched repeatedly between parameters and sometimes returned to choices they had already made.
“Spot UV” is a shortcut only if you already know what it means. Most of our customers did not.
On mobile, configuring the product meant losing sight of the image.
The original interface contained photographs. When users switched parameters, the product image changed in a gallery higher on the page.
But their attention was on the labels below. On mobile, that image could already be several screens away.
The original interface contained photographs. When users switched parameters, the product image changed in a gallery higher on the page.
But their attention was on the labels below. On mobile, that image could already be several screens away.
The explanation existed. It was simply missing from the moment of choice.
The research revealed two problems
Analytics showed me where the journey ended. Session recordings showed what happened immediately before it did. CMS data, support requests and reviews explained the questions customers could not answer alone.
The problem was larger than an inconvenient configurator.
The problem was larger than an inconvenient configurator.
1. The product expected expertise
Customers needed help with:
2. The business lacked a reliable path to new customers
87% of traffic came from search. Visitors arrived with a specific task, little knowledge of the brand and few reasons to trust it.
Initial advertising had run only briefly. Meanwhile, established competitors supported their products with search, outdoor advertising, partnerships, loyalty programmes and strong brand recognition.
An interface could remove friction.
It could not create distribution.
Initial advertising had run only briefly. Meanwhile, established competitors supported their products with search, outdoor advertising, partnerships, loyalty programmes and strong brand recognition.
An interface could remove friction.
It could not create distribution.
S
Strengths — reinforce
- Only aggregator in Crimea.
Value prop: “all-in-one” — online ordering, wide product range and ready design templates, high print quality, custom design service. - 24-hour printing
Emphasis on rush jobs, transparent order tracking in the account, SMS status updates. - Free delivery in 6 cities
Call it out in the header, price calculator, and ad creatives.
W
Weaknesses — fix
- Low traffic
Launch search ads and SEO. - Low conversion
Clear step-by-step order calculator; strong product landing pages. - Weak support
Chatbot + fast ticket handling; contextual FAQs at each step.
O
Opportunities — grow
- Increase AOV
Recommendations, curated bundles by niche, pro artwork checks, test micro-runs (≤100 pcs). - Retention
Tiered loyalty, educational content that demystifies print choices. - Social proof
Reviews and real product photos to validate quality.
T
Threats — mitigate
- Federal competitors entering
Double down on speed of production and delivery. - Material price swings
Keep an “economy paper” buffer. - Print defects
Clear refund/reprint policy.
What design could address
The analysis helped separate experience problems from the wider investment required to make the B2C model viable.
Not every customer starts with a print-ready file
The Value Proposition Canvas revealed another problem with the original journey: it treated customers as if they all arrived equally prepared.
They did not.
Some already had a finished design. Some wanted to customise a template. Others had only an idea and needed a professional to create the artwork.
They did not.
Some already had a finished design. Some wanted to customise a template. Others had only an idea and needed a professional to create the artwork.
I turned those states into three visible starting points:
Only after selecting the relevant path did customers move into production settings.
Need:
A designer has already prepared my file.
A designer has already prepared my file.
Response:
Upload it and continue to print settings.
Upload it and continue to print settings.
Need:
I want something unique but do not have an artwork file.
I want something unique but do not have an artwork file.
Response:
Order professional design without leaving the platform.
Order professional design without leaving the platform.
Need:
I want business cards but cannot design them.
I want business cards but cannot design them.
Response:
Start with a ready-made template.
Start with a ready-made template.
The new journey begins with what the customer already has — not with what the printing system needs.
I moved the explanation into the decision
The obvious way to simplify the configurator was to remove options or hide them behind an “Advanced settings” button.
I rejected that approach.
Paper, finishing, quantity and production time affected the physical result, price and available print shops. Removing them would make the interface look simpler while making the service less useful.
The problem was not the existence of choice. It was asking customers to interpret that choice without help.
I rejected that approach.
Paper, finishing, quantity and production time affected the physical result, price and available print shops. Removing them would make the interface look simpler while making the service less useful.
The problem was not the existence of choice. It was asking customers to interpret that choice without help.
- The image sits beside the term it explains.
- Short descriptions translate material properties into plain language.
- Price differences are visible before selection.
- The selected state is unmistakable.
In the redesign, every paper option combined:
The same principle was applied to finishing, corner shape and other production parameters.
Customers could see the option and understand its physical result at the same moment.
Customers could see the option and understand its physical result at the same moment.
The redesign preserved professional choice but stopped requiring professional knowledge.
One order, revealed step by step
The new configurator presented one group of decisions at a time:
A sticky summary kept the selected design, parameters and current price visible throughout the process.
Users no longer had to scan one large calculator or remember choices made several screens earlier.
Users no longer had to scan one large calculator or remember choices made several screens earlier.
Progressive disclosure reduced the amount of information competing for attention without reducing the available options.
Mobile was part of the problem, not a smaller version of it
53% of visits came from smartphones.
Yet the original flow had inherited a desktop-heavy professional model. The template editor was not properly adapted to mobile, while visual references disappeared as customers scrolled through the configurator.
I redesigned the key journey for a narrow screen: one decision, its explanation and the current order state remained connected.
Yet the original flow had inherited a desktop-heavy professional model. The template editor was not properly adapted to mobile, while visual references disappeared as customers scrolled through the configurator.
I redesigned the key journey for a narrow screen: one decision, its explanation and the current order state remained connected.
The mobile layout preserves the sequence and explanations instead of compressing the desktop interface.
Confidence before checkout
The research also revealed doubts that no calculator could answer:
I brought reviews, guarantees, production times, artwork checking and support closer to the moments when those doubts appeared.
Trust was treated as part of the ordering journey, not as marketing content at the bottom of the page.
The structure showed the way. The images helped people decide.
I tested the redesign in two rounds with the same five participants. None had previous experience ordering printed products.
Their task covered the complete journey:
Before:
The sequence was clearer, but specialist language still required explanation.
After:
Each option combined its name, visual result, description and price difference.
The wireframes revealed that improving the sequence was not enough. Participants could move through the steps, but still needed explanations when selecting paper and finishing.
At that stage, the parameter cards contained labels but no illustrations.
For the visual prototype, I placed images directly inside the cards.
In the second round, all five participants completed the journey.
Because the same people participated in both rounds, I treated this as directional evidence rather than proof that illustrations alone caused the improvement.
At that stage, the parameter cards contained labels but no illustrations.
For the visual prototype, I placed images directly inside the cards.
In the second round, all five participants completed the journey.
Because the same people participated in both rounds, I treated this as directional evidence rather than proof that illustrations alone caused the improvement.
The redesign tested well — but the product did not continue
The redesigned concept addressed the main experience barriers found in research. However, the same analysis showed that a viable B2C product required wider investment in fulfilment, packaging, customer support, acquisition, partnerships, and retention.
Once the complete investment became clear, the business changed its priorities and stopped development.
The redesign therefore remained a tested concept. I do not attribute any change in sales or conversion to it. The project’s outcome was a clearer product direction and better evidence for the business decision not to continue investing at that stage.
What this project changed for me
The uncomfortable part was that I had designed the first version too.
I had challenged the decision to follow the market leader, but I still needed real user behaviour to understand exactly where the model failed.
Today, I would question the borrowed pattern before designing it — not because competitor solutions are useless, but because an interface never arrives alone. It brings assumptions about knowledge, trust and distribution with it.
I had challenged the decision to follow the market leader, but I still needed real user behaviour to understand exactly where the model failed.
Today, I would question the borrowed pattern before designing it — not because competitor solutions are useless, but because an interface never arrives alone. It brings assumptions about knowledge, trust and distribution with it.
The redesign could make ordering easier. The research showed why that alone would not be enough.
