top of page
Tablets With Pencil-02.png

Beee: Social feedback platform


Originally conceived as a tool to collect feedback, pivoted into a social platform based on opinions. We wanted to determine if the creative industry would use the product to receive feedback/input on shared work. This case study outlines how we discovered that we had to reposition the product offering based on design thinking and rapid prototyping.



I was responsible for leading the UX design – conducting research, information architecture, personas, wireframes, user flows, and helping shape the design direction along with high-fidelity designs.



We were able to repackage the platform's value proposition into a design optimization tool for designers. The new direction allowed a better utility of the features. On top of that, we explored different interaction possibilities to receive feedback. It resulted in a considerable increase in user engagement and interactions


Background: Creating the Buzz was a spinoff platform based on a simplified version of a master`s degree research project. The platform allowed people to collect “meaningful” opinions on things they shared online.
The end-user could pre-determine the “meaning” by creating criteria and asking others to share their opinions on things they wanted feedback on.

The results were visualized real-time .

The platform was a social media platform for exchanging opinions.


Role: Playing the part

I was the lead designer working on the project alongside developers. I developed the branding and UX/UI.
The stakes were high. It was a chance to put my design and architectural background to good use.
(Design Thinking, UX Process, Personas, Information Architecture (IA), User Flows, Wireframing, UX Design, User Experience (UX), Digital Strategy, UX Strategy, User Research)

The challenge

The platform focused on asking creatives to interact with on-screen information intelligently. As a result, there were two types of users: uploading content and interacting with the content.

Three fundamental questions required clarity:

1. How would creatives and designers interact with the platform?
2. Would they find it useful?
3. How could we create better engagement through exciting ways to interact with information on the platform?

Early insights from the field

We conducted user interviews and usability testing with university design students from the master's program. The users tested two different prototypes(coded and clickable) and shared their immediate feedback:

  1. They wanted the design to be better: one variation was too busy, whereas the other was too dull.

  2. In terms of engagement, they found functionality as a secondary concern.

  3. They found interactions to be lackluster and not up to their expectations.


The Discovery

"Designers didn't want an over-designed platform."

While it seems obvious, we were surprised to discover this as one of the major issues through user testing.

This statement became the north star for the next phase of design iterations.

For designers, it was essential to see the platform as a blank canvas and their work as the main content. The overall aesthetics could not be more dominating than the content.


Deeper Insights


Surveys revealed that “Designers prefer to dish out feedback rather than receiving it until it is from someone they respect.”

80% of the designers showed vulnerability at the start of onboarding -. at the beginning of the process, they were more inclined to give opinions than receive opinions unless the views were coming from people they respected.

The data clearly showed we had to create a system where gamification elements had to be included to overshadow their vulnerability and instead lead clout and drive interaction.


"There is only one good opinion, and that is mine."

One thing was becoming even more evident than before; in a world where we were allowing designers to give feedback on other people's design, it was imperative that

  1. the design of the platform had to be focused on the designers who were giving the feedback,

  2. without making them feel as if their feedback was good or bad,

  3. and making them curious of what other designers thought of their opinions.


"It makes sense only if it makes my design better."

Another valuable insight we obtained was based on the fact that designers started to respond better when we started making it into a design optimization/betterment platform based on feedback. Having a clear direction gave the designers an apparent reason for using the platform, giving meaningful feedback to make other designs better or receiving quality feedback to make their own work better.


"Instant equals not as important."

One of the most important insights we got was the speed of how fast we were showing the data visualizations; the faster they were, the less the designers cared about it. Any qualitative information that popped up immediately was disregarded as not necessary.


Reframing The Problem

Feedback, not opinions drive designers

The main challenge was the platform's value proposition on being an "opinionated" platform where designers were supposed to leave their opinions on things. As a result, we had very different results from user testing; the designers paid no heed to opinions but were much more focused on receiving feedback that could help in optimization or improvements.

By onboarding the users with an inaccurate value proposition, the users were interpreting the platform as a gimmick rather than an insightful tool.


How might we get the designers to give and receive qualitative feedback through the platform?

Our solution was simple: by creating an experience that focused on a (1)community of designers who (2) wanted to improve designs based on the (3) feedback of the community while keeping their individuality intact, 4) while also sharing their feedback on others.


The Repackage
A micro-survey platform for the creatives

Surveys were a regular tool that designers used to collect information. We leveraged existing mental models as it was something familiar to them. By removing the word opinion, which had little qualitative value, and replacing it with the feedback, we were able to shift perception.


How we got there

Simple is powerful

Three primary questions informed our design and UX strategy:


1- How could we remove the most unnecessary design elements from the UI and focus only on the essentials?

2- Make the designer give a damn about receiving and giving feedback?

3- Make more designers interact with shared content in several different ways?


Spatial hierarchy

We created a clear hierarchy of elements. The focus was on easy "quick" share: giving and receiving feedback.
The designers uploaded from a series of preselected criteria elements based on the upload category (product design, music, writing, industrial, etc), further eliminating friction and assisting the primary call to action: uploading content for receiving feedback.


Intuitive and fun interactions

We made interactions smoother and more satisfying based on the feedback received by reducing speeds and animating results.

The engagement increased when we introduced new types of interactions.

For new interactions were designed to receive feedback on shared content; 1) either through sliders, 2)A/B selection, 3)One-in-four, and 4) an “inclination-based” sliding scale.

By introducing multiple ways to gather feedback, we saw the fun factor increase considerably, pushing the usage up with it.


The impact


Through extensive prototyping and user testing, we created a clear value proposition for the users along with a distinctive utilitarian function: it became a community-based tool to optimize and improve designs and products.


User engagement (Increase)



Content uploaded/Designer (Increase)



Return Rate (Increase)


bottom of page