02. BACKGROUND
A technical migration that required a UX rethink
A technical migration uncovered deeper UX problems hidden in the site’s structure. The original business goal: Move all pages to a new CMS and refresh the UI. But the website wasn’t just outdated visually, it was built on years of disconnected decisions. Dozens of departments owned different parts of the site, each with its own priorities and content styles.
We pushed to shift the scope from “move everything over” to “understand what should exist,” which set the foundation for the redesign.
03. AUDIT FINDINGS
A site without structure or ownership
Hundreds of pages existed without clear ownership.
Many pages had <0.1% of total visits.
Some pages were completely unreachable through navigation.
Outdated campaign pages from 3–4 years back were still live.
A large portion of the site wasn’t tracked due to missing analytics tags.
The website had evolved into a digital storage space. Teams used it as a dumping ground for content rather than a structured communication channel. This misalignment between content and user behavior made the redesign much more than visual work.
04. USER RESEARCH
Users felt overwhelmed, and many preferred calling instead of browsing the site. We conducted nearly 50 face‑to‑face interviews with customers. This revealed a major disconnect between what the bank thought users needed and what users actually wanted.
Key Insights:
Users struggled to locate basic information.
The density of text pushed users away instead of helping them.
Many weren’t aware certain pages existed.
Long explanations meant to “help” created more confusion
Users weren’t reading because the content wasn’t designed for them, it was designed to satisfy internal teams.
05. DESIGN APPROACH
Redesigning meant aligning many departments with very different content needs. With dozens of teams owning parts of the site, the redesign required extensive coordination. Each team had different goals, content types, and expectations.
To move forward:
We met with every department to understand their needs.
We identified redundant or outdated pages and proposed retirements or mergers.
We mapped recurring patterns across teams to define reusable blocks.
06. UI STRATEGY
Reusable components allowed us to scale, but only by rejecting one-off requests. Stakeholders wanted custom layouts for their own product pages. Even when they agreed to templates, they frequently requested exceptions.
I defended scalability of the system using the 80/20 principle:
Components were designed to solve the needs of ~80% of pages.
The remaining 20% were edge cases and handled separately.
Trying to cover every exception would quickly recreate the fragmentation we were trying to eliminate.
07. TECHNICAL CONSTRAINS
CMS limitations required adapting designs while preserving structure and clarity. The new CMS turned out to be more restrictive than expected. Several planned interactions weren’t supported, and some layouts had to be simplified.
08. FINAL ARCHITECTURE & TEMPLATES
We created a new architecture from the ground up
A new information architecture, based on real user needs, brought clarity, consistency, and scalability. The final redesign introduced:
A reorganized site structure built around real tasks.
A clear and predictable navigation model.
A simplified mega‑menu aligned with user journeys.
Reusable CMS components that reduced inconsistencies.
A unified design system that all departments could follow.
10. RESULTS
11. LEARNINGS
This project reshaped how I collaborate, prioritize, and design for scale.
To navigate large multidisciplinary teams with conflicting goals.
To rely on data when opinions collide.
To design flexible systems without losing coherence.
To validate technical constraints early and involve engineers upfront.