1.

Design Thinking Process

The Design Thinking process was applied to enhance the AI-Powered Travel Planner app,
focusing on improving the trip customization process based on the Information Architecture (IA)
and PRD goals (personalized itinerary generation, seamless UI/UX, customization, save/share).
Below are the first three stages, with a plan for prototyping and testing outlined in the next
steps.

1.1. Empathize: Understanding User Needs

Objective: Conduct user research to identify pain points in trip planning and gather insights into
how users currently plan travel and where they struggle, particularly with customization.

Research Methods:

 Interviews: Conducted virtual interviews with 10 users (5 solo travelers, 3 family

travelers, 2 group travelers, aged 25–45, tech-savvy but varied travel experience).

 Surveys: Distributed an online survey to 50 users via travel forums and social media,
asking about trip planning habits, tools used, and challenges.

 Observation: Analyzed user interactions with existing travel apps (e.g., TripIt, Google
Trips) via usability testing sessions with 5 participants.

 Contextual Inquiry: Asked 3 users to walk through their last trip planning process using
their preferred tools, noting pain points.

Key Insights:

 Current Planning Habits:

o Users rely on multiple tools: Google Search (80%), travel blogs (60%), apps like
TripAdvisor (50%), and spreadsheets (30%) for planning.

o Solo travelers prioritize flexibility, while families need structured plans

accommodating multiple preferences.

o 70% of users want AI assistance but feel current tools lack intuitive
customization.

 Pain Points:

o Overwhelm with Options: 65% of survey respondents felt overwhelmed by too

many activity choices during planning, especially when customizing itineraries.

o Scheduling Conflicts: 50% of interviewees reported frustration with manual

scheduling (e.g., overlapping activities or unrealistic travel times).
 o Lack of Guidance: 40% struggled to find activities matching their interests
without extensive research, particularly for niche preferences (e.g., vegan food
tours).

o Error Handling: Users disliked unclear error messages (e.g., “Invalid input”) when
edits failed, seen in 3/5 usability tests.

 Customization Struggles:

o Users found customization interfaces clunky (e.g., TripIt’s manual edits), with
60% wanting AI to suggest alternatives proactively.

o 45% abandoned customization due to time-consuming processes or fear of

“breaking” the itinerary.

o Families noted difficulty balancing kids’ and adults’ preferences in one plan.

Empathy Map:

 Says: “I want a plan that fits my vibe, but it’s hard to tweak without messing it up.”

 Thinks: “Am I picking the right activities? Will this fit my schedule?”

 Feels: Overwhelmed by choices, frustrated by conflicts, anxious about missing key

experiences.

 Does: Searches multiple sites, adjusts plans manually, abandons customization if too
complex.

Conclusion: Users need a customization process that reduces overwhelm, proactively resolves
conflicts, and offers tailored suggestions, especially for diverse group needs.

1.2. Define: Framing the Problem

Objective: Based on research, define a clear UX challenge in the trip customization process,
write a problem statement, and set measurable design goals.

Synthesis of Findings:

 The primary challenge lies in the Customize Itinerary (2.3) screen, where users struggle
with overwhelming options, scheduling conflicts, and lack of personalized guidance.

 The IA supports customization (e.g., Add/Remove Activity, Adjust Timing), but users
need a more intuitive, proactive interface to feel confident in their edits.
  Families and groups face additional complexity in balancing multiple preferences, which
the current IA doesn’t explicitly address.

Problem Statement: Travelers using the AI-Powered Travel Planner app, particularly solo and
family travelers, feel overwhelmed and frustrated when customizing itineraries due to excessive
activity options, scheduling conflicts, and lack of tailored guidance, leading to abandoned edits
or suboptimal plans.

Design Goals (Measurable):

1. Reduce Overwhelm: Decrease the average time spent customizing an itinerary by 20%
(from 10 minutes to 8 minutes, based on usability benchmarks).

2. Improve Success Rate: Increase the percentage of users completing customization

without abandoning edits from 55% to 75%.

3. Enhance Confidence: Achieve a user satisfaction score of 4.5/5 for the customization
process in post-task surveys.

4. Support Diverse Needs: Ensure 80% of family travelers report the customization process
accommodates multiple preferences effectively.

Scope: Focus on enhancing the Customize Itinerary (2.3) screen within the Trip Planning (2)
section, while ensuring seamless integration with Itinerary Display (2.2) and Homepage (3.1).

1.3. Ideate: Generating Possible Solutions

Objective: Brainstorm ways to make the trip customization process more intuitive and seamless,
outlining possible UI solutions for the Customize Itinerary (2.3) screen.

Brainstorming Session:

 Conducted a 1-hour ideation session with a virtual team (UX designer, product manager,
AI engineer, travel enthusiast).

 Used techniques: Round-robin brainstorming, “How Might We” questions (e.g., “How
might we reduce overwhelm in activity selection?”), and sketching low-fidelity UI
concepts.

 Generated 20+ ideas, prioritized based on feasibility, user impact, and alignment with
PRD goals.

Selected Solutions:

1. Smart Suggest Bar:

 o Description: A dynamic toolbar in Customize Itinerary (2.3) that proactively
suggests activities based on user preferences (from Traveling Preferences (2.1)),
budget, and schedule gaps.

o UI Elements:

 Displays 3–5 curated options (e.g., “Vegan Food Tour, 2 hours, $30”).

 Includes filters (e.g., “Free Activities,” “Kid-Friendly”).

 Shows conflict warnings (e.g., “This overlaps with Louvre—swap?”).

o Benefit: Reduces overwhelm by curating options and prevents conflicts.

o IA Integration: Enhances Add Activity action with AI-driven suggestions.

2. Drag-and-Drop Timeline:

o Description: A visual timeline interface for Adjust Timing in Customize Itinerary

(2.3), allowing users to drag activities to new time slots.

o UI Elements:

 Daily timeline with activity cards (e.g., “Louvre, 10 AM–12 PM”).

 Highlights conflicts in red with auto-suggestions (e.g., “Move to 2 PM?”).

 Supports multi-user preferences (e.g., color-codes kids’ vs. adults’

activities).

o Benefit: Makes scheduling intuitive, especially for families balancing needs.

o IA Integration: Replaces manual Adjust Timing with a visual tool.

3. Guided Customization Wizard:

o Description: A step-by-step modal in Customize Itinerary (2.3) that walks users

through edits (e.g., “Step 1: Pick an activity, Step 2: Set time”).

o UI Elements:

 Progress bar showing steps (e.g., Activity, Timing, Budget Check).

 AI prompts for niche interests (e.g., “Looking for vegan options?”).

 Undo button for each step to build confidence.

o Benefit: Reduces abandonment by simplifying the process for novice users.

o IA Integration: Complements Apply Changes with a structured flow.

 4. Preference Balancer:

o Description: A feature for group travelers in Customize Itinerary (2.3) to input

multiple user preferences and see a balanced itinerary.

o UI Elements:

 Input fields for group members’ interests (e.g., “Kid: Museums, Adult:
Food”).

 Visual “Balance Meter” showing how well the plan meets all needs.

 AI adjusts suggestions to optimize for all (e.g., “Morning: Museum,

Evening: Food Tour”).

o Benefit: Addresses family/group needs, improving inclusivity.

o IA Integration: Extends Add Activity to handle multi-user inputs.

Prioritization:

 High Priority: Smart Suggest Bar, Drag-and-Drop Timeline (high impact, feasible within
IA).

 Medium Priority: Guided Customization Wizard (great for novices but may slow
advanced users).

 Low Priority: Preference Balancer (complex backend, niche use case).

2. Design Process Summary

Process Overview: The Design Thinking process was applied systematically to enhance the
Customize Itinerary (2.3) screen:

 Empathize: Conducted interviews, surveys, observations, and contextual inquiries to

uncover pain points like overwhelm, conflicts, and lack of guidance. The empathy map
synthesized user needs, focusing on customization struggles.

 Define: Synthesized findings into a clear problem statement, pinpointing the

customization process as the key UX challenge. Set measurable goals (e.g., 20% faster
customization, 75% completion rate) to guide ideation.

 Ideate: Brainstormed 20+ solutions, prioritizing four (Smart Suggest Bar, Drag-and-Drop
Timeline, Guided Wizard, Preference Balancer) based on user impact and IA
compatibility.
Alignment with PRD:

 Personalized Itinerary: Smart Suggest Bar and Preference Balancer enhance AI-driven
customization.

 Seamless UI/UX: Drag-and-Drop Timeline and Guided Wizard simplify interactions.

 Customization: All solutions improve the Customize Itinerary (2.3) experience, reducing
friction.

 Save/Share: Solutions indirectly support sharing by ensuring users complete better

itineraries.

IA Integration: Solutions enhance existing IA actions (e.g., Add Activity, Adjust Timing) without
requiring major restructuring, ensuring scalability.

3. Challenges Faced

1. Limited User Sample:

o Issue: Research was based on 65 users (10 interviews, 50 surveys, 5 usability

tests), which may not fully represent all traveler types (e.g., luxury travelers,
seniors).

o Impact: Potential bias toward tech-savvy, mid-budget users.

o Mitigation: Plan for broader research in the next phase (see Next Steps).

2. Balancing Simplicity and Power:

o Issue: Solutions like the Guided Wizard may slow advanced users, while the
Smart Suggest Bar might overwhelm novices with options.

o Impact: Risk of alienating user segments.

o Mitigation: Ideated flexible UI toggles (e.g., “Advanced Mode” for power users).

3. AI Dependency:

o Issue: Solutions rely on robust AI for suggestions and conflict detection, which
may strain backend resources or fail offline.

o Impact: Potential delays or degraded UX in low-connectivity scenarios.

o Mitigation: Proposed offline caching for suggestions in ideation.

4. Group Traveler Complexity:

 o Issue: The Preference Balancer requires complex algorithms to balance multiple
preferences, increasing development time.

o Impact: May delay implementation compared to simpler solutions.

o Mitigation: Prioritized simpler solutions (Smart Suggest, Timeline) for initial

rollout.

4. Plan for Moving Forward

Next Steps:

1. Prototype (Stage 4):

o Develop low-fidelity prototypes for the Smart Suggest Bar and Drag-and-Drop
Timeline using tools like Figma.

o Create wireframes for Customize Itinerary (2.3), integrating these features with
existing actions (e.g., Add Activity, Apply Changes).

o Mock up a toggle for “Simple vs. Advanced Mode” to address user diversity.

2. Test (Stage 5):

o Conduct usability testing with 15 users (5 solo, 5 family, 5 group travelers) to

validate prototypes.

o Measure time to customize, completion rate, and satisfaction score against

design goals.

o Gather qualitative feedback on intuitiveness and AI suggestion quality.

3. Refine Based on Feedback:

o Iterate prototypes based on test results, focusing on reducing any new pain
points (e.g., overly complex Smart Suggest options).

o Explore adding the Guided Customization Wizard as an optional feature for

novices.

o Revisit the Preference Balancer after simpler solutions are validated, potentially
in a future sprint.

4. Broader Research:
 o Expand user research to include luxury travelers, seniors, and budget travelers
(target 100+ survey responses).

o Analyze competitors’ customization features (e.g., Wanderlog, Sygic Travel) to

identify additional opportunities.

5. Implementation Plan:

o Collaborate with developers to integrate AI enhancements (e.g., conflict

detection, preference balancing) into the backend.

o Ensure offline support for suggestions via caching, aligning with IA’s Continue
Offline option.

o Update IA to reflect new features (e.g., add “Smart Suggest” under Customize
Itinerary (2.3)).

Timeline:

 Prototype Development: 2 weeks

 Usability Testing: 1 week

 Iteration: 1 week

 Expanded Research: Ongoing over 4 weeks

 Implementation Planning: Begin after testing (target 6 weeks)

Expected Outcomes:

 Achieve design goals (20% faster customization, 75% completion rate, 4.5/5 satisfaction).

 Deliver a more intuitive, inclusive customization process, enhancing the app’s value for
diverse travelers.