One platform.Two kinds of participant.

A research platform had to serve everyday consumers and paid industry experts from one product. I led the design of the participant experience — the strategy, the structural decisions, and the final interface across desktop and mobile.

Original interface designs by Neel Suman Raj. Branding, colours and selected sample data have been adapted for this portfolio. “Fieldwork” is a presentation alias.

My role

Design lead, participant experience.

I set the experience strategy, made the structural calls this case is built around, and designed the full set of screens for desktop and mobile. I ran the design reviews, held the team to the agreed patterns, and signed off what shipped.

Experience strategy · Adaptive onboarding · Progressive disclosure · Desktop and mobile UI · Design review and sign-off

The problem

Two motivations. One product.

Everyday consumers want to find a relevant task quickly and understand what taking part involves. Industry experts are deciding something different: whether an engagement is worth their time and fits their professional standing.

The obvious answer was two products. I argued against it. Two apps means two roadmaps, two design systems and two places for every future feature to diverge — and most of the journey is identical for both audiences anyway.

Everyday consumers

Make it easy to take part.

Clear opportunities, visible effort and compensation, a direct path to applying.

Industry experts

Make it worth the attention.

Relevant engagements, professional context, verification cues, considered scheduling.

The decision that shaped everything

Share the foundation. Reveal detail on demand.

I chose one journey with progressive disclosure over two parallel products. Discovery, application and follow-through stay identical; professional detail and the extra steps an expert needs surface only where they change what someone does next.

The cost of that call is real: every new feature has to work for the harder of the two audiences, and onboarding has to infer intent rather than ask outright. I took that over the alternative, where the two experiences drift apart within two releases.

Discover relevant research — rebranded original design — **Discover relevant research**A common workspace brings study formats, time commitments and rewards into a comparable view.

Desktop vs mobile

Different devices, different jobs.

These are not one layout at two widths. On desktop the job is comparison, so opportunities sit side by side with format, reward, duration and availability readable at a glance. On mobile the job is decide-and-act, so a single study fills the screen with its next action.

Same content, deliberately different hierarchy — the question someone answers on a phone is not the question they answer at a desk.

Mobile discovery — rebranded original design — **Mobile discovery**A focused study card surfaces the practical details before an application.

Study detail — rebranded original design — **Study detail**A dedicated view expands the commitment, language and booking information.

Qualification

Ask the hard question before the commitment.

I placed the eligibility screener between discovery and application, not inside the application form. Finding out you do not qualify after investing in a form is the worst version of this moment.

One question, one clear continuation. Holding the screener to a single decision was a constraint I enforced in review — it is exactly the kind of screen that quietly grows into a questionnaire.

Study screening — rebranded original design — **Study screening**An example eligibility question with response choices and a clear continuation action.

Expert credibility

Give professional detail its own place.

Verification and professional history could have been threaded through every discovery screen. I kept them in one editable profile instead, with a visible distinction between a profile that is complete and one that is verified.

That keeps the consumer path clean and gives experts one place that is theirs. These are credibility cues in the interface, not claims about how the product implements verification.

Expert profileProfessional context and verification are surfaced without mixing them into every discovery screen.

Follow-through

The journey does not end at apply.

Booking and rewards belong inside the participant experience, not bolted on afterwards. Scheduling pairs dates with real time slots and a timezone note. The wallet separates current balance, earnings and history so the three are never read as one number.

Choose a session — rebranded original design — **Choose a session**Calendar, time slots and a booking action in one view.

Track rewards — rebranded original design — **Track rewards**A dedicated space for balances and activity; transaction details shown here are illustrative.

How I worked

Leading it, and still drawing it.

I led the design team on this and stayed hands-on throughout: planning the experience, designing the screens, running the reviews, and making the final call on what was good enough to ship.

Holding one pattern across two audiences takes enforcement, not just a decision. A fair amount of the work was sending things back — where a screen had drifted from the agreed structure, or where expert detail had leaked into a consumer flow.

What this case does not claim: these screens show the interface work. Onboarding logic and live conditional behaviour are not visible in static exports, and no research sample, conversion lift or launch metric is presented here.

The competitive review and participant research behind these decisions sit under NDA — happy to walk through them in conversation.

Walk through the decisions ↗

MORE WORK