A mobile app designed to replace the fragmented mess of WhatsApp threads, shared Google Docs, and scattered booking links — with one structured space where groups plan, decide, and stay aligned.
The Problem
People don't struggle to find flights or hotels. They struggle to agree. Every group trip runs through the same broken stack: WhatsApp for chasing responses, Google Docs for organizing ideas, Airbnb for searching options — and one person absorbing all the coordination overhead.
The problem isn't information. It's group dynamics.
Group members read messages and don't respond, leaving the organizer in limbo.
Someone always becomes the "trip manager," chasing responses and making final calls alone.
WhatsApp + Google Docs + Airbnb creates fragmented, stressful coordination.
Too many options and no structure leads to paralysis and rushed, unfair decisions.
User Research
I conducted semi-structured interviews with 6 participants aged 21–36 (4 female, 2 male), each with recent group travel experience. Sessions ran 30–45 minutes via Zoom, Google Meet, and in person. I synthesized findings into an affinity diagram, which surfaced 6 recurring themes.
Different expectations about the trip type made every decision emotionally draining. Decisions felt rushed or unfair when not everyone had a voice.
Coordinating availability kept plans in limbo for weeks. People waiting on uncommitted friends felt like the trip was always "almost happening."
Everyone cobbled together WhatsApp + Google Docs + Airbnb. One person inevitably absorbed the organizational burden.
"Read receipts but no reply" was a universal frustration. Repeated follow-ups made planning feel like work, not fun.
When shown two decision models, most participants chose the Nominal Group Technique — even though it takes longer — because it guaranteed everyone could share their opinion.
The ideal experience was described as "simple, organized, and stress-free" with everything in one place — not a marginal improvement to existing tools.
"A decision was made before everyone had a chance to share their opinion — that led to real frustration and a sense of being unheard."
Interview participant, age 28Design Process
The design followed an iterative, test-driven process — each phase informed by what failed in the last one.
Paper sketches explored how group decisions could be structured and how users would initiate trips. Key screens sketched: Login, Home/Explore, Calendar/Availability, and Voting with a "Nudge friend" action.
Wireframes introduced clearer navigation and defined key flows. These were tested with 5 participants using think-aloud protocol and ASQ scoring to validate structure before visual polish.
The final prototype addressed the biggest gaps from mid-fi testing: system feedback, calendar clarity, and a voting flow built on the Nominal Group Technique. Evaluated with 5 participants using SUS + ASQ.
Low-Fidelity
Early sketches focused on the four core screens identified from research: authentication, home/explore, availability syncing, and group voting. The "Nudge friend" button on the voting screen directly addressed the research finding about slow communication.
Mid-Fidelity
Mid-fidelity wireframes introduced navigation hierarchy and defined the three critical user flows. These were tested before any visual design work — the goal was to validate structure, not aesthetics.
"I expected the invite option to appear right after creating the trip."
P5, Mid-fi usability test"Friends' availability should appear immediately on the first calendar screen."
P2, Mid-fi usability testUsability Testing
I ran two rounds of usability testing — first on the mid-fidelity prototype and then on the high-fidelity version. 5 participants each round, aged 23–32, tested via Zoom and in person using scenario-based tasks and think-aloud protocol.
SUS Score
Above average usability threshold (68 = industry average)
"If it works, it looks like it'll be easy to use." — P2
Key Findings
The most consistent problem across both rounds wasn't missing features — it was missing feedback. Users repeatedly didn't know if their actions had registered.
No confirmation messages after trip creation, no visual acknowledgment after sending invites, no "you're done" signal after selecting dates. This issue appeared in Tasks 1, 2, and 3.
Color-coding was ambiguous, the "pick dates" notification looked like an error, and users expected smart auto-fill once a date range was started. This persisted into high-fi testing.
Users understood and wanted group voting. But showing only one hotel option made voting feel pointless. The idea was validated; the prototype wasn't complete enough to test it fairly.
All 5 participants completed Task 1 in both testing rounds, confirming the navigation revisions based on mid-fi testing were effective.
High-Fidelity
The high-fidelity prototype focused on the three critical paths validated through research: onboarding, trip creation, and group decision-making. Visual design used a clear blue/white system to establish hierarchy and make interactive elements unambiguous.
Onboarding flow — Welcome, feature introduction, account creation. Three screens that set context before asking for commitment, directly addressing the research finding that users wanted to understand the app's value before signing up.
Trip creation flow — Home dashboard, trip setup, and success confirmation. The "Trip Successfully created!" toast notification directly addresses the feedback gap identified in mid-fi testing.
Explore the interactive prototype
Click through the full flow in Figma — onboarding, trip creation, availability syncing, and voting.
Reflection
The 10-week scope forced hard trade-offs. Budget tracking — a significant pain point surfaced in interviews — was cut entirely to keep the prototype scope manageable. That's the right call for a first iteration, but it's one of the most important unresolved needs.
The calendar needed a full redesign, not a revision. The mental model mismatch between "entering my availability" and "seeing the group's overlap" wasn't a labeling problem — it was an architectural one. Users wanted to see the group picture first, then confirm their own dates.
The voting feature concept was validated by research but never fully prototyped. A swipe-based interaction (suggested by P1 during testing) would likely perform better — it reduces the decision to a single binary judgment per option, directly addressing decision fatigue.
"WayWeGo is on the right track. The concept resonates and the onboarding flow works. But a group planning tool can't just organize information — it has to actively reduce uncertainty and show people that their input matters."
From the project discussion section