This Design Hated Its Users So I Made It Care

This UX case study dissects a live website suffering not from technical debt, but from a deeper rot: a culture of neglect, masked as artistic license.

Behind every broken flow and frustrating interface was a justification; until I tore it down and rebuilt it to serve users with care.

Design Problem

The core issue wasn’t a lack of design; it was a surplus of misguided intent. The site embodied what I call aesthetic exceptionalism; a belief that artistic vision justifies disregarding usability.

This resulted in a product that alienated users, especially those who rely on clarity, structure, and accessibility to engage meaningfully.

Design decisions prioritized symbolism over function. Navigation elements were obfuscated in the name of minimalism. Typography sacrificed legibility for visual flair. Interactive elements lacked feedback, breaking the basic contract of interface communication. What looked avant-garde was, in practice, user-hostile.

The problem wasn't chaos; it was control. The creator(s) imposed meaning, demanding interpretation instead of supporting interaction. It wasn’t designed to be used; it was designed to be admired from a distance.

Symptoms and Observations

• Inconsistent navigation patterns that broke user expectations
• Important actions (like finding course materials) buried behind unclear affordances
• Poor color contrast and layout that hindered accessibility
• Lack of responsiveness and mobile usability
• Ambiguous language and visual metaphors with no onboarding or contextual clues

UX goals

• Restore user trust by making the interface predictable, responsive, and clear
• Preserve the artistic voice without letting it sabotage usability
• Create an experience that feels intentional and navigable
• Reframe creativity as a form of care, not control
• Align the site’s identity with the university’s values; make the design reflect the academic rigor and prestige of the institution