Ray-Ban / Mobile discovery
A clearer starting point for mobile shoppers
A mobile homepage audit connected uneven category visibility with practical design proposals for the homepage, navigation and product carousel.
- Contribution
- I owned research, Figma design and handoff. Dedicated data analysts partnered on analysis and client presentation.
- Context
- Client work at Contentsquare
May 2021 · Mobile web - Evidence status
- Audit and design proposals; no verified post-launch uplift
At a glance
- Problem
- Most shoppers were on mobile, and category visibility was uneven: Men was seen noticeably more than Women.
- My contribution
- Research, Figma design and handoff, with dedicated analysts partnering on analysis and client presentation.
- What changed
- Design proposals for the homepage, menu and product carousel, making the way into the products easier to see.
- Evidence available
- A mobile homepage audit underpins the proposals. They are proposals, not a shipped interface, and no post-launch uplift is claimed.
Audited homepage / original
Homepage / Figma proposal
01 / The context
Most people were on mobile. Finding products was harder than it needed to be.
Mobile made up the large majority of traffic in the audit. We focused on how people used the homepage and how they got from there into the products.
My job was to turn what the data showed into a design direction. The mobile and desktop conversion rates were just background. They came from different groups of people, so they don’t show any design improvement.
02 / The finding
Category visibility was uneven
The Men category was getting seen noticeably more than Women. Once people clicked through, they converted at about the same rate either way.
So Women was getting seen less, but people who did click behaved the same. That was worth looking into. Those rates only describe people who clicked, though. They don’t prove that showing Women more would get the same conversion from extra visitors. The exact figures come from a client analytics deck and haven’t been independently cleared for public disclosure, so they’re not published here.
03 / The design
Make the way into the products easier to see
I did the research and the Figma design, and worked with dedicated analysts on the analysis and the client presentation. On the homepage, I put Men and Women side by side near the top, with plainer category buttons and Shop Prescription underneath.
In the menu, I added Men and Women tabs and a Homepage link, so people could tell where they were. In the product carousel, I let part of the next product peek in and tidied up the labels and spacing, so it was obvious there was more to swipe through.
Each screen answers something specific we saw in the data. They’re proposals to test, not proof that visibility, usability or conversion got better.
Navigation / Figma proposal
Carousel / Figma proposal
04 / The outcome
A design direction based on what the data showed, ready to test
I handed the designs over. The deck I have covers the audit and the Figma proposals. It doesn’t show whether they were built, or any results after launch.
The next step would be to test whether shoppers can find the right category, notice there are more products in the carousel and understand where each link goes. After that, a live test could measure category clicks and conversion, while checking nothing else on the site got worse.
What I’m showing here is how I went from what people were doing to a specific change on screen. The original audit included revenue estimates to show what might be possible, but they’re estimates, not results, so I’ve left them out.
Measurement limitation
No measured post-redesign uplift is established. All revenue scenarios in the source deck are projections, not realised revenue or ROI, and are omitted from the public result claims.
Sources and measurement
Slide 5: audit window. Slide 6: mobile traffic share. Slide 29: category exposure and conversion after click. Slide 36: homepage proposal. Slide 18: menu proposal. Slide 42: carousel proposal. The original exposure map, the exact audit figures and the revenue models on slides 31 and 48 are withheld: they come from a client analytics deck and have not been independently cleared for public disclosure. The original presentation is not linked for the same reason. No controlled post-redesign comparison is supplied.
Client name and design screenshots confirmed by Matt Christie. Original analytics graphics, exact audit figures and the source presentation are withheld pending independent clearance for public disclosure.