Self-initiated project
My role: UX designer
Methods used: competitive analysis, user interviews, persona development, sketching, wireframing, user testing, mockups
Tools used: Pen and paper, Adobe XD
Project duration: 6 months
Identifying the Problem, Setting the Goal
Today’s flight search tools make it easy to see the cheapest available options, which is especially useful for budget-conscious travelers. But when cheap flights come at the expense of lengthy travel times with inconvenient connections, they're often not the “best” choices. If time is money and money is time, I would argue the two factors should be considered equally. However, most flight search products don’t assist users in comparing and evaluating both as well as they could.
My goal for this project: guide travelers toward flights that make the most of their money and time. To focus my efforts I limited the scope to creating search result screens for a conceptual iPhone-based app and gave myself a working timeframe of six months.
Analyzing the Major Players
To get started, I reviewed the search results screens of three leading flight search services, noting how they help travelers evaluate their options.
Google Flights
In Google Flights, I found the selection of “best” options (highlighted above the others) to be helpful. It’s not overly clear how these are selected but one might assume flights that balance time and cost are promoted to the top.
However, on mobile devices, total travel time is one of the smallest interface items, making it difficult to see how it compares with cost. In the example above, manual calculation identifies the cheapest option (first search result) is 3h 35m longer than the fastest option (third result).
In the example above, would users be more inclined to choose the second or third options, costing $126 more than the first, if it was more clear they would save over two hours of travel time?
Expedia
With so many details to compare, flight search results can become saturated with text-based elements. Given that, I appreciate how Expedia breaks the monotony with a blue bar visualizing flight segment and connection length.
By default, Expedia sorts search results by price, which is helpful for price-conscious travelers. However, there seems to be a missed opportunity for Expedia to guide users towards options that balance their time and money.
In this example, ordering flights by price places a 10-hour option beside a 20-hour option.
Kayak
Toward the top of screen, Kayak’s mobile interface conveniently lets users toggle between the cheapest, best, and quickest options. But comparing total travel times between the options is difficult as it’s largely deemphasized.
I appreciate Kayak’s attempt to get users through the booking process quickly. However, seeing outbound and inbound flights together can be a cognitive strain, requiring users to simultaneously think about their schedules on different days.
Kayak’s desktop interface takes the helpful approach of displaying cost and time data for each filter category: cheapest, best, and quickest. However, manual calculation is still needed to pinpoint the exact time/cost tradeoffs between options.
Comparing Platforms
Across a variety of factors and features, I compared how the design of these three platforms guide users in evaluating the cost and duration balance of their flight options.
While the price vs. duration component is not ignored on these platforms, more could be done to guide users as they choose what flight option is best for them.
Hey Travelers, What’s Important?
Curious to hear from others, I connected with six individuals from across the U.S. and Canada who travel often for business and leisure. I led open-ended discussions with each of them, initiated by the question: “What factors are most important when selecting a flight to book?”
While leisure-focused travelers favored finding the lowest-cost option, business travelers were more likely to seek options that balanced cost and total travel time with priority given to options that fit their appointment schedules and airline allegiance.
But as time and money are important to most travelers, all interviewed participants agreed it was important to find flights that were quick and cost-effective.
Given these insights, I developed two user personas to keep in mind as I continued the design process.
John Morris (38)
Lives in New York, NY
Entrepreneur and business owner
Travels for work 2-3x/month within the U.S. and 1-2x/month internationally
Needs a way to quickly find flights that save time and money to make travel more efficient while being mindful of company expenses
Mary Sider (40)
Lives in Cleveland, Ohio
Account manager for an advertising agency
Travels for leisure 2-3x/year to a mix of domestic and international destinations
Doesn’t have much paid time off and needs to find the shortest and cheapest flights to maximize vacations
Sketch, Assess, Repeat
With clarity on the problem, inspiration from existing travel products, and a concept of the target user, I began sketching interface ideas on paper before wireframing the best ones digitally.
I began sketching interface concepts, in pursuit of solutions that showcased the cost and time data points.
Crafting the Interface
My initial thought was to present users with two search results screens. The first would provide an overview or summary of the best, cheapest, and fastest options. This would allowing users to easily focus on and compare the cost and time of each.
The second search result screen would present a list of options for the user’s selected category. Calculations towards top of this screen would indicate how much time and/or money their selection would save when compared to other options. A feature like this clarifies how “best” options are selected and empowers users to choose options that make the most of their resources.
Following this thought process, I crafted two potential interface solutions.
Interface Solution One
The thought behind the first interface solution was simple, make price and time relatively the same size and weight so they seem equally important. Strategically positioning price and time on opposite sides of the detail blocks created a way to quickly compare cost and time by scanning the left and right “columns” of data.
Interface Solution Two
Inspired by Expedia, interface solution two uses a bar graph element to visualize the total travel time of each option, making it easy to see how one option compares to another.
Feedback Please
Eager for feedback, I presented the two interface solutions to a select group.
To my surprise, it took users longer than expected to understand the bar graph of the second design. They noted how the variable placement of the time figure made comparing options difficult.
Users were quick to favor the first interface solution, noting the consistent placement of the cost and time elements made comparing options easy. However, users found the first search results screen unnecessary since the second search results also provided a way to compare and toggle between the cheapest, best, and fastest options.
Landing the Plane
With this feedback in mind, I removed the first search result screen and continued designing Solution One while fleshing out aspects of the visual style.
I named this app concept “Book Balanced” and created mockups for the screens seen above: travel details, search results, departing details, and trip summary.
Final Thoughts
In the 21st century, travelers have limited resources to accomplish their ambitious and varied business and leisure travel goals. Through this design, they will be able to think critically about options that maximize their budget and time.
*Self-initiated design project