Pawly
Role
Role
UX Researcher & UI Designer
UX Researcher & UI Designer
Duration
Duration
11 weeks (ongoing)
11 weeks (ongoing)
Tools
Tools
Figma, Claude AI & Google Forms
Figma, Claude AI & Google Forms
Contribution
Contribution
Owned the full process, from research and synthesis through to UI and three rounds of usability testing.
Owned the full process, from research and synthesis through to UI and three rounds of usability testing.
Finding a sitter is easy. Feeling good about it isn't. Pet owners aren't hiring a service, they're trusting someone with family. I set out to design a platform where trust, transparency, and compatibility aren't features bolted on top, but the foundation everything else is built on.
The Problem
Pet owners who see their pets as family aren't making a transaction, they're making a judgment call about trust. Existing platforms give them access to hundreds of sitters but very little to actually feel confident about choosing one. Endless profiles, near-identical listings, and star ratings can't answer the question that matters most: will this person genuinely care for my pet?
The problem isn't availability. It's the absence of confidence.
The Solution
The solution wasn't more features, it was better architecture. If every step in the booking flow answered the same underlying question, "can I trust this person with my pet?", the product would work.
Three principles guided every design decision:
Intentional matching over endless scrolling: surfaces sitters based on genuine compatibility, not just availability.
Credibility built in, not bolted on: verification, experience, and transparency as primary information, not afterthoughts.
Emotional clarity at every step: structured profiles, transparent pricing, and reassurance copy that reduces hesitation before it takes hold.
Research
I ran a survey with 110 respondents and conducted 10 user interviews to understand how pet owners actually make decisions, not just what they say they want, but what drives hesitation.
The data was clear: pet owners weren't comparing options, they were evaluating risk.
85% cited trustworthiness and background checks as their top priority
Only 39% felt highly comfortable hiring through an app
77% feared fake reviews, despite relying on them to decide
Three themes emerged from the research that shaped every subsequent design decision: verification needs to be structural not social, visibility during care matters as much as the booking itself, and when the stakes feel personal, price becomes almost irrelevant. From the interviews and survey data, one primary persona emerged:
Sofia, 32, dog owner: books pet care 4-6 times a year, always feels some level of anxiety doing it. She doesn't need more options. She needs to feel certain about one.
Competitor Analysis
I analyzed Rover, Pawshake, PetBacker, and Gudog, the four dominant platforms in the market.
All four are well-optimized for scale, availability, and price comparison. But discovery is list-based, compatibility is left to interpretation, and credibility leans almost entirely on star ratings.
These platforms solve access. They don't resolve hesitation.
That gap, particularly in a category with high emotional stakes, is where Pawly operates.
Design Decisions
The decision came back to one question: at what point does a user stop feeling uncertain and start feeling confident? That became the filter for every screen.
Three decisions shaped the product most:
Compatibility before availability: research showed that if users felt a sitter wasn't compatible with their pet, they wouldn't book regardless of availability or price. Leading with pet needs rather than a full sitter list meant matches felt relevant from the first interaction, not after scrolling through dozens of irrelevant profiles.
Trust signals as primary content: 85% of respondents said trustworthiness was their top priority, yet most platforms bury verification information deep in profiles. Moving badges, experience, and completed bookings to the top of every sitter card was a direct response to what users said they needed to feel safe.
A guided flow over an open profile: rather than leaving users to navigate a full profile and decide on their own, each step in the booking flow is structured to answer one specific concern before the next appears. The goal was to transmit trust progressively, so that by the time a user confirms a booking, the decision feels earned rather than reluctant.
Testing & Iterations
I ran three rounds of usability testing with 10 users total. One pattern was consistent across all rounds: the right information existed in the product, but it wasn't surfacing at the right moment.
Three iterations came directly from what users did, not just what they said:
Restructuring sitter profiles, 7 out of 10 users skipped important profile information because it was dense and unstructured. I made years of experience, pet types, and care philosophy mandatory fields during sitter onboarding, and gave each its own dedicated section on the profile. Information users needed to feel confident became impossible to miss.
Transparent pricing at confirmation, 9 out of 10 users couldn't easily locate cancellation policies and booking fees. Moving this information to the confirmation screen, clearly laid out and easy to read, removed a source of last-minute hesitation that could have killed the booking.
Consolidated onboarding with visible progress, 7 out of 10 users felt uncertain about how many steps remained during profile creation. Consolidating onboarding for both pet owners and sitters into a single guided flow with a clear step indicator made the process feel manageable rather than open-ended.
Impact
Pawly started as a concept project, and it's still in development. But the outcomes from testing were concrete."
After three rounds of iteration, none of the issues identified in earlier rounds resurfaced. The flow that had caused the most friction, profile creation, saw the most significant improvement, with 9 out of 10 users completing it without issues.
8 out of 10 users said they would use the app.
Users consistently described the experience as easy to navigate and easy to understand. More importantly, they perceived the value of the platform, not just what it did, but why it existed. For a product built entirely around trust, that signal matters.
Reflection
Pawly reinforced something I now carry into every project: designing for emotional security requires more than clean interfaces or feature parity. It demands structured reassurance, transparent systems, and intentional decision architecture.
In any marketplace where confidence is the real currency, product strategy and UX design aren't separate disciplines. They're the same work.
Pawly
Role
Role
UX Researcher & UI Designer
UX Researcher & UI Designer
Duration
Duration
11 weeks (ongoing)
11 weeks (ongoing)
Tools
Tools
Figma, Claude AI & Google Forms
Figma, Claude AI & Google Forms
Contribution
Contribution
Owned the full process, from research and synthesis through to UI and three rounds of usability testing.
Owned the full process, from research and synthesis through to UI and three rounds of usability testing.
Finding a sitter is easy. Feeling good about it isn't. Pet owners aren't hiring a service, they're trusting someone with family. I set out to design a platform where trust, transparency, and compatibility aren't features bolted on top, but the foundation everything else is built on.
The Problem
Pet owners who see their pets as family aren't making a transaction, they're making a judgment call about trust. Existing platforms give them access to hundreds of sitters but very little to actually feel confident about choosing one. Endless profiles, near-identical listings, and star ratings can't answer the question that matters most: will this person genuinely care for my pet?
The problem isn't availability. It's the absence of confidence.
The Solution
The solution wasn't more features, it was better architecture. If every step in the booking flow answered the same underlying question, "can I trust this person with my pet?", the product would work.
Three principles guided every design decision:
Intentional matching over endless scrolling: surfaces sitters based on genuine compatibility, not just availability.
Credibility built in, not bolted on: verification, experience, and transparency as primary information, not afterthoughts.
Emotional clarity at every step: structured profiles, transparent pricing, and reassurance copy that reduces hesitation before it takes hold.
Research
I ran a survey with 110 respondents and conducted 10 user interviews to understand how pet owners actually make decisions, not just what they say they want, but what drives hesitation.
The data was clear: pet owners weren't comparing options, they were evaluating risk.
85% cited trustworthiness and background checks as their top priority
Only 39% felt highly comfortable hiring through an app
77% feared fake reviews, despite relying on them to decide
Three themes emerged from the research that shaped every subsequent design decision: verification needs to be structural not social, visibility during care matters as much as the booking itself, and when the stakes feel personal, price becomes almost irrelevant. From the interviews and survey data, one primary persona emerged:
Sofia, 32, dog owner: books pet care 4-6 times a year, always feels some level of anxiety doing it. She doesn't need more options. She needs to feel certain about one.
Competitor Analysis
I analyzed Rover, Pawshake, PetBacker, and Gudog, the four dominant platforms in the market.
All four are well-optimized for scale, availability, and price comparison. But discovery is list-based, compatibility is left to interpretation, and credibility leans almost entirely on star ratings.
These platforms solve access. They don't resolve hesitation.
That gap, particularly in a category with high emotional stakes, is where Pawly operates.
Design Decisions
The decision came back to one question: at what point does a user stop feeling uncertain and start feeling confident? That became the filter for every screen.
Three decisions shaped the product most:
Compatibility before availability: research showed that if users felt a sitter wasn't compatible with their pet, they wouldn't book regardless of availability or price. Leading with pet needs rather than a full sitter list meant matches felt relevant from the first interaction, not after scrolling through dozens of irrelevant profiles.
Trust signals as primary content: 85% of respondents said trustworthiness was their top priority, yet most platforms bury verification information deep in profiles. Moving badges, experience, and completed bookings to the top of every sitter card was a direct response to what users said they needed to feel safe.
A guided flow over an open profile: rather than leaving users to navigate a full profile and decide on their own, each step in the booking flow is structured to answer one specific concern before the next appears. The goal was to transmit trust progressively, so that by the time a user confirms a booking, the decision feels earned rather than reluctant.
Testing & Iterations
I ran three rounds of usability testing with 10 users total. One pattern was consistent across all rounds: the right information existed in the product, but it wasn't surfacing at the right moment.
Three iterations came directly from what users did, not just what they said:
Restructuring sitter profiles, 7 out of 10 users skipped important profile information because it was dense and unstructured. I made years of experience, pet types, and care philosophy mandatory fields during sitter onboarding, and gave each its own dedicated section on the profile. Information users needed to feel confident became impossible to miss.
Transparent pricing at confirmation, 9 out of 10 users couldn't easily locate cancellation policies and booking fees. Moving this information to the confirmation screen, clearly laid out and easy to read, removed a source of last-minute hesitation that could have killed the booking.
Consolidated onboarding with visible progress, 7 out of 10 users felt uncertain about how many steps remained during profile creation. Consolidating onboarding for both pet owners and sitters into a single guided flow with a clear step indicator made the process feel manageable rather than open-ended.
Impact
Pawly started as a concept project, and it's still in development. But the outcomes from testing were concrete."
After three rounds of iteration, none of the issues identified in earlier rounds resurfaced. The flow that had caused the most friction, profile creation, saw the most significant improvement, with 9 out of 10 users completing it without issues.
8 out of 10 users said they would use the app.
Users consistently described the experience as easy to navigate and easy to understand. More importantly, they perceived the value of the platform, not just what it did, but why it existed. For a product built entirely around trust, that signal matters.
Reflection
Pawly reinforced something I now carry into every project: designing for emotional security requires more than clean interfaces or feature parity. It demands structured reassurance, transparent systems, and intentional decision architecture.
In any marketplace where confidence is the real currency, product strategy and UX design aren't separate disciplines. They're the same work.
Pawly
Role
Role
UX Researcher & UI Designer
UX Researcher & UI Designer
Duration
Duration
11 weeks (ongoing)
11 weeks (ongoing)
Tools
Tools
Figma, Claude AI & Google Forms
Figma, Claude AI & Google Forms
Contribution
Contribution
Owned the full process, from research and synthesis through to UI and three rounds of usability testing.
Owned the full process, from research and synthesis through to UI and three rounds of usability testing.
Finding a sitter is easy. Feeling good about it isn't. Pet owners aren't hiring a service, they're trusting someone with family. I set out to design a platform where trust, transparency, and compatibility aren't features bolted on top, but the foundation everything else is built on.
The Problem
Pet owners who see their pets as family aren't making a transaction, they're making a judgment call about trust. Existing platforms give them access to hundreds of sitters but very little to actually feel confident about choosing one. Endless profiles, near-identical listings, and star ratings can't answer the question that matters most: will this person genuinely care for my pet?
The problem isn't availability. It's the absence of confidence.
The Solution
The solution wasn't more features, it was better architecture. If every step in the booking flow answered the same underlying question, "can I trust this person with my pet?", the product would work.
Three principles guided every design decision:
Intentional matching over endless scrolling: surfaces sitters based on genuine compatibility, not just availability.
Credibility built in, not bolted on: verification, experience, and transparency as primary information, not afterthoughts.
Emotional clarity at every step: structured profiles, transparent pricing, and reassurance copy that reduces hesitation before it takes hold.
Research
I ran a survey with 110 respondents and conducted 10 user interviews to understand how pet owners actually make decisions, not just what they say they want, but what drives hesitation.
The data was clear: pet owners weren't comparing options, they were evaluating risk.
85% cited trustworthiness and background checks as their top priority
Only 39% felt highly comfortable hiring through an app
77% feared fake reviews, despite relying on them to decide
Three themes emerged from the research that shaped every subsequent design decision: verification needs to be structural not social, visibility during care matters as much as the booking itself, and when the stakes feel personal, price becomes almost irrelevant. From the interviews and survey data, one primary persona emerged:
Sofia, 32, dog owner: books pet care 4-6 times a year, always feels some level of anxiety doing it. She doesn't need more options. She needs to feel certain about one.
Competitor Analysis
I analyzed Rover, Pawshake, PetBacker, and Gudog, the four dominant platforms in the market.
All four are well-optimized for scale, availability, and price comparison. But discovery is list-based, compatibility is left to interpretation, and credibility leans almost entirely on star ratings.
These platforms solve access. They don't resolve hesitation.
That gap, particularly in a category with high emotional stakes, is where Pawly operates.
Design Decisions
The decision came back to one question: at what point does a user stop feeling uncertain and start feeling confident? That became the filter for every screen.
Three decisions shaped the product most:
Compatibility before availability: research showed that if users felt a sitter wasn't compatible with their pet, they wouldn't book regardless of availability or price. Leading with pet needs rather than a full sitter list meant matches felt relevant from the first interaction, not after scrolling through dozens of irrelevant profiles.
Trust signals as primary content: 85% of respondents said trustworthiness was their top priority, yet most platforms bury verification information deep in profiles. Moving badges, experience, and completed bookings to the top of every sitter card was a direct response to what users said they needed to feel safe.
A guided flow over an open profile: rather than leaving users to navigate a full profile and decide on their own, each step in the booking flow is structured to answer one specific concern before the next appears. The goal was to transmit trust progressively, so that by the time a user confirms a booking, the decision feels earned rather than reluctant.
Testing & Iterations
I ran three rounds of usability testing with 10 users total. One pattern was consistent across all rounds: the right information existed in the product, but it wasn't surfacing at the right moment.
Three iterations came directly from what users did, not just what they said:
Restructuring sitter profiles, 7 out of 10 users skipped important profile information because it was dense and unstructured. I made years of experience, pet types, and care philosophy mandatory fields during sitter onboarding, and gave each its own dedicated section on the profile. Information users needed to feel confident became impossible to miss.
Transparent pricing at confirmation, 9 out of 10 users couldn't easily locate cancellation policies and booking fees. Moving this information to the confirmation screen, clearly laid out and easy to read, removed a source of last-minute hesitation that could have killed the booking.
Consolidated onboarding with visible progress, 7 out of 10 users felt uncertain about how many steps remained during profile creation. Consolidating onboarding for both pet owners and sitters into a single guided flow with a clear step indicator made the process feel manageable rather than open-ended.
Impact
Pawly started as a concept project, and it's still in development. But the outcomes from testing were concrete."
After three rounds of iteration, none of the issues identified in earlier rounds resurfaced. The flow that had caused the most friction, profile creation, saw the most significant improvement, with 9 out of 10 users completing it without issues.
8 out of 10 users said they would use the app.
Users consistently described the experience as easy to navigate and easy to understand. More importantly, they perceived the value of the platform, not just what it did, but why it existed. For a product built entirely around trust, that signal matters.
Reflection
Pawly reinforced something I now carry into every project: designing for emotional security requires more than clean interfaces or feature parity. It demands structured reassurance, transparent systems, and intentional decision architecture.
In any marketplace where confidence is the real currency, product strategy and UX design aren't separate disciplines. They're the same work.