Collaborated closely with product manager and product team of 4 engineers. Also consulted design decisions with the UX team.
Workshop facilitation, Information architecture, Prototyping, Usability testing, Interaction and Visual design
Shipped "Environments" feature with user-validated design. Feature successfully adopted by enterprise customers.
Kentico Kontent is a content management platform with a headless CMS at heart. As a B2B SaaS, it enables companies to work with content in one place and distribute it to all their channels (websites, apps etc.).
The main audience of this project were developers integrating Kontent into their digital channels. They are an important user segment as they can become advocates for the product in companies.
The problem was that developers working with Kontent had to make any changes on the production instance of the system. That was potentially dangerous as it could affect live content.
We knew that developing new functionality to a website or changing an existing one often required updating the content models in Kentico Kontent and that could result in breaking the website. Developers also needed to run separate instances of the websites: typically one for development, one for testing and a live one.
Environments would enable them to do that by creating a safe space for testing and migrating those changes that work without problems.
Lack of this feature was also among common reasons for losing potential customers to competitors. Solving this need would help the product be more competitive.
Why was there a clear solution from the beginning? There had been some discovery about this problem in the past but the solution never got into delivery. This time, the product team wanted to make it happen.
One of the product managers reached to the team he needed a designer for this project. I took this opportunity to get involved.
My responsibility was to design the management of environments in the product and validate it with users.
I worked primarily with the product manager and product team dedicated to this initiative, but I also consulted my design decisions with the UX team.
I started my design process with understanding the problem. In this case, it was also important to know what kind of product risk we were primarily dealing with.
There were previous efforts to build this feature so I didn’t start from scratch. I reviewed usability testing results of a previous design carefully to determine what to focus on when iterating on it.
I learned that developers had a hard time understanding the hierarchy of “projects > environments” in the UI and also some key functionality (such as deleting environments).
As this was a highly technical topic, I dived into reading about development workflows and I also discussed with the team to understand the problem space better. Since the product manager has previously conducted some research among our users-developers on this, I studied it to understand their needs and circumstances.
The main need was clear: to be able to develop changes and test them safely. Developers mainly feared breaking something in the live website or app.
We knew that developers didn’t spend nearly as much time in our product as content editors. They would seldom go there, so the UI had to be intuitive for them.
An important part of that was establishing a mental model of the functionality. But we needed also to establish a model of the underlying technical solution which might’ve posed constraints on the design.
The value risk was fairly low here. The problems and needs were clear from previous research. Results of past usability tests showed that the biggest risk would be usability. The focus of my work was on addressing that risk.
I involved the product team in the design process by facilitating a workshop to learn about technical constraints. We explored what the underlying technical model could look like. Which entities (e.g. users, content models etc.) would be on which level (figure 1 below).
This helped me see what kind of technical constraints I would have to work with. Establishing the model was also important for designing the navigation.
During the same workshop, I led an ideation session for coming up with ideas for the navigation (figure 2 below).
Figure 1 (Left): Technical model draft; Figure 2 (Right): Navigation sketches
Armed with ideas from the ideation workshop, I started working on the interaction design of the whole feature. I started with defining the main use cases:
It became clear that easy access to the environment management was necessary. A project dropdown already existed in the UI and the navigation ideas usually centred around either incorporating environments into the existing dropdown or into a separate one.
I made the decision to use a separate dropdown for environments as my hypothesis was it would better support the mental model of “projects > environments” and also provide space for a quick access button to environment management.
I explored several avenues for the placement of the environments management section. One of them was the main menu (figure 3), but it would introduce too much complexity into the navigation.
Ultimately I decided to place the management into settings (figure 4). It would help establish the hierarchy even further by showing which entities are set up on the project level and which on the environment level. Another reason for this decision was that development-related settings were already there.
Figure 3: Navigation to Environments in the main menu
Figure 4: Navigation to Environments in the Settings section
It was important to distinguish between settings on the project level and on the environment level. I solved this by clearly separating the Settings menu to Project settings and Environment settings.
The last question mark was the naming of environments. We knew there would one by default that couldn’t be changed (at least in the first release of the feature).
There were several possibilities for the name: live, production or master. Initially, I decided for “master” as it’s a familiar term for developers and therefore seemed like a good fit, but usability testing would prove me wrong later.
Other environments could be freely named as users would see fit.
As my role was to validate the design with users before releasing it, I started organising a round of usability testing.
I formed hypotheses we wanted to test:
With the help of our researcher, I designed test scenarios. Based on them I prototyped the solution, but I limited the prototype only to what was necessary to test my hypotheses.
Figure 5: Detail of the navigation dropdown in the prototype
My tool of choice was Axure as it enabled me to work with variables. The prototype had to change the environment name in the navigation elements pictured above (as it would in a real product) so that users wouldn’t be needlessly confused during testing.
Check out the whole prototype. (note: the prototype has been iterated since the usability testing based on the insights)
I recruited developers from our respondent pool and conducted remote usability testing sessions with them. I also made sure that there was one engineer from the team present for each session, to build more empathy in the team.
The whole study gave us several important insights:
There were a couple of other smaller insights into how the UI could be improved to be more intuitive. More importantly, though, we received good overall feedback and validated that the interaction design as a whole worked with only minor changes necessary.
I gathered the team to share the testing results with them. I wanted to create a shared understanding of the changes I was about to make to the design. The aim was also to strengthen the idea of how important user feedback is during the design process.
Iteration is an important part of the design process. With insights from the usability testing, I worked on improving the design. Most of the changes involved writing a clearer and more concise copy which I worked on with a technical writer to perfect.
I also submitted the whole solution for a design review from the UX team to identify any other possible issues.
In the end, we iterated on several things in the design:
Then, the design was ready to be groomed with the development team.
Figure 6: Environments management section after a few iterations
The team and I gathered for a whole afternoon to examine the design from a technical perspective. We discovered potential difficulties and identified several ways of implementing the feature. They were all tied to the underlying technical model.
We agreed on an implementation that would allow the earliest possible delivery without compromising the interaction design we worked so carefully towards.
We also defined several ways of evolving the functionality in future releases. One of them was the colour coding of environments – while users found it interesting during the testing, we decided it was not necessary in the ETP (earliest testable product) version.
I documented the whole solution in a handoff document for the team describing all the interaction details with including links to visuals in Zeplin. I made sure to capture all the different states of screens in the design.
Figure 7: Preview of the handoff document with the detailed solution description
However, I didn’t rely only on a document. I made sure to be in contact with the team during development to address any questions or concerns that were arising.
This was a really technical design challenge and it was a lot of work, but we ended up with a design that was:
The first point was especially important as this was a highly requested capability in the product and we wanted it to deliver it to the customers as soon as possible.
It took us about two months to go through the design process. In the meantime, the team worked on some technical pre-requisites for this feature. Then in May 2020, we shipped environments to our customers.
As the release date neared, I also participated in a webinar where our head of marketing, product manager and me introduced the feature to our customers.
Since the release, several enterprise customers adopted this feature. It greatly improves the developer experience of Kentico Kontent and makes the product more competitive.
One customer said this about environments:
“We’ve been using Kontent environments and migration scripts on our agency website to make, test, and deploy large changes to the underlying content model. Our team of content strategists and developers are happy to be out of production, and to leave that to the marketing folks creating content. Instead, the team can experiment in a safe Kontent environment that’s connected to a separate non-production build.”
– Michael Kinkaid, CTO, Reason One
Read a blog post about Environments by Michael Kinkaid, Kentico Kontent’s customer.
Developers have good design ideas. Especially when it’s about a feature that’s highly technical and complex like this one was.
Having a shared first-hand experience during the usability testing makes communication around the whole design much easier.
While confirming some hypotheses, it revealed several gaps in the design. I could’ve easily said I fixed all the issues that arose during the testing of the previous design.
However, by testing the new design again I still gathered some important insights.