hinge
project overview
details
Scope — Revise an existing feature and introduce a new feature into Hinge’s iOS mobile app
My Roles — Project Manager, UX Research Lead, Usability Testing Lead, UX/UI Design
Team Size — 4
Duration — 2 weeks
tl;dr
“I feel hesitant about not really knowing if someone is who they say they are.” This quote from a user interview summarizes my team’s inspiration for the features we introduced: 1) a revised user authentication process that includes face verification, and 2) “Personality Patches” to display deeper sides of user personalities. We wanted to solve for catfishing and shallow profiles while upholding Hinge’s core value of authenticity and primary business goal of creating more great dates.
Our approach to this project was to maintain Hinge’s existing branding and integrate the new features using strong onboarding and tooltips. All design decisions were made at the intersection of user interview insights, brand research, competitive research, and usability testing. Users ultimately rated the new features favorably for both ease of use and value added.
Recommended next steps based on usability testing and industry standards are: 1) to consider integrating more in-depth personality tests for users who want to go deeper, 2) build additional face verification functionality for users who want to redo/delete their verification, 3) make the “verified only” option more prominent on the dating preferences screen, and 4) create a fully-accessible version of face verification.
research
brand research
We began by conducting brand research using Hinge’s app, website, and employee handbook, which familiarized us with their main objective: to get users off of the app and out on great dates. We then created a design system to ensure we could replicate the strong branding and clean UI that we noticed users raving about in Google Reviews.
Our brand research also uncovered that Hinge doesn’t like to compare itself to competitors; historically, as they became more similar to their competitors, growth slowed. However, since our goal was to revamp an existing feature and introduce a brand new one, we did want to get a feel for the competitive landscape by conducting competitive analysis. Our reasoning was that combining areas of opportunity with targeted user research would help us define stronger problem areas.
So, we created a feature inventory to compare features offered by competitors (eHarmony, Match.com, and Tinder) versus Hinge and came up with a short list of opportunity areas. The most important to note for this case study are ice breakers (the ability to connect with other users over something you have in common) and face verification (to authenticate user identities and prevent bots/catfish).
user interviews
Next, we interviewed 8 users in Hinge’s target demographic to learn about their emotions and experiences while using dating apps. I took the lead on assembling our research study plan and set the following learning goals for our remote, moderated user interviews:
Users’ most commonly-used dating apps and resources
What users enjoy about using dating apps (generally)
What users are frustrated by when using dating apps (generally)
What dating app features users enjoy
What dating app features users find frustrating
We emerged with many valuable themes from our affinity mapping exercise ranging from appreciation of voice and video features, to frustration over missed connections, and enjoyment of location-setting preferences. However, two main themes stuck out:
Authenticity - users are afraid of getting “catfished” and don’t like how others can portray themselves differently than how they actually are
Personality - users want to be able to quickly determine someone’s personality through in-app features
synthesis
meet nadia
With qualitative research complete, we assembled a persona that summarizes the top-level user needs and frustrations we observed during user interviews.
nadia’s journey
Keeping Nadia’s needs and frustrations in mind, we took her on a journey via retrospective journey map that shows her actions, thoughts, and feelings while using the current version of Hinge.
From nervousness related to trying another dating app, to hopefulness over Hinge’s tagline and prompt system, to discouragement over shallow profiles, Nadia’s journey is a bumpy one. It all comes crashing down at the end, though, when she discovers she’s been catfished. As we’re sure Nadia was asking herself, we asked ourselves as a team, “how could this have been prevented?”
problem statement and how might we’s
First, we distilled our insights into a problem statement to serve as a guidepost for our thought process:
Then, we asked ourselves key “how might we” questions pertaining to the two themes we identified:
Authenticity
How might we make sure Hinge users are real people?
How might we filter out fake accounts, bots, and catfish?
Personality
How might we introduce more personality indicators into users’ profiles?
How might we incentivize users to complete more thoughtful and descriptive profiles?
our north star
Before jumping into potential solutions, we wanted to make sure that whatever we dreamed up would align with Hinge’s business goals. Returning to the Hinge handbook, we learned that the company measures success by one single metric when making feature decisions: “Will it lead to more great dates?” We therefore let Hinge’s business goal of “more great dates” serve as our North Star.
proposed solutions
From our North Star, we triangulated areas where brand research, competitive analysis, and user interviews intersected to decide upon our proposed solutions.
ideation
design studio
Armed with our proposed solutions, we held a design studio to rapidly ideate what those solutions might look like. We each sketched what we thought each task flow might look like, compared and critiqued, and decided which elements to keep, add, or discard.
wireframing and prototyping
With all of our features nailed down, we developed mid-fi wireframes and prototypes for face verification and personality patches, focusing on how onboarding, tooltips, and basic functionality would work. The prototyped version demonstrates two key user flows:
Face verification - Starting the face verification process from the home page notification, stopping for tooltips along the way, completing the process, finding the face verification badge on your own profile, modifying your preferences to show users who are verified only, and finding where you would confirm if another user’s profile is verified.
Personality patches - Starting a personality patch from the home page notification, completing a Myers-Briggs patch and adding it to your profile, finding a personality patch on another user’s profile, and connecting with that user from the personality patch.
testing
usability test plan
Like the research plan, I also took the lead on creating our usability test plan. I set the following learning objectives for two rounds of remote, moderated usability tests:
Flows: Are the flows for the two new features easy for users to navigate?
Design: Does the UI and information/visual hierarchy allow users to successfully complete key tasks related to the two new features?
Value: What value do users gain from the introduction of these two new features?
For each round of testing, I observed 5 unique users while they completed key tasks on our interactive prototype.
insights and iterations (round 1)
-
Open the Hinge app from your phone
From the home page, start the face verification process
Find more information about how to get a good face scan
Complete the face verification process
Go to your profile and find your face verification badge
Modify your preferences to show users who are verified only
Find where you can confirm if Hayden’s profile is verified
-
From the home page, navigate to where you would find the new feature “patches,” then begin the process
Start and complete a Myers Briggs patch (INTP)
Add the Myers Briggs patch to your profile
Find a personality patch on Hayden’s profile
Find more information about Hayden’s Myers Briggs patch
Connect with Hayden from their Myers Briggs patch
After conducting the first round of usability tests, I synthesized the information into a monstrous spreadsheet (enter at your own risk) and emerged with key insights and iteration ideas. In addition to resolving accessibility concerns related to visibility, contrast, and the size of selectable areas, we made a few substantive changes to the app’s copy. Since writing near and dear to my heart, I’ll expound on the three main copy changes we made.
#1
40% of users were unclear on the purpose of face verification and what the face scan would be compared against. To remedy this, we added copy explaining that the face scan is compared to the user’s uploaded profile photos.
#2
40% of users were unclear on the purpose/value of the Myers-Briggs personality patch. To remedy this, we added more robust copy that explains the history, purpose, and value of Myers-Briggs.
#3
40% of users thought the tooltip language for getting a good face scan was confusing or at least non-standard. Admittedly, I had initially tried to imbue the tooltips with cheeky, clever language to play into Hinge’s brand tone. I learned that cheekiness is better saved for occasions when users aren’t looking for help. I rewrote the tooltip copy so the headings are much more utilitarian, but maintained some of the playful brand tone in the body text. This simple ordering switch was effective since users didn’t report any further issues in our second round of testing.
insights and iterations (round 2)
After the second round of usability testing, we did need to revisit some issues from Round 1 that resurfaced or needed to be addressed further. For example, adjusting the size of some selectable areas that we had missed.
Additionally, we recategorized a lower-priority issue from Round 1 since it surfaced again in Round 2. Users were having difficulty differentiating between the new feature notification for face verification versus the notification for personality patches. To resolve this, we gave face verification its own color scheme (a trust-evoking blue) in the high-fidelity prototype.
We did encounter two new issues during Round 2 that we resolved as follows:
#1
40% of users thought the “learn more” link under a personality patch description would begin the test. We changed the selectable area, removed the “learn more” link, and changed the flow so users are first routed through the informational screen and then presented with a separate button to start the test.
#2
40% of users had difficulty locating the Personality Patches section on other users’ profiles. We decided to explicitly label the patches section. Although Hinge doesn’t label any other profile sections, it was clear that users need help identifying the section at least initially. The labeling could be phased out later once users have built familiarity with the iconography.
successes
While we got a lot of useful feedback during usability testing about what could be improved, we also saw immediate success with the introduction of these features. Encouragingly, users rated the new features favorably for ease of use and value provided.
The following quotes from users also support our testing hypotheses that users will find value in 1) face verification for ensuring their matches are authentic, and 2) personality patches to match with others based on more meaningful traits.
“In a world full of bots, filters, and meme accounts, it’s a great help to make people feel like they’re looking at authentic people.”
“I think the very act of putting the patches on your profile might be more important sometimes than the content of the patches.”
delivery
next steps
Overall, my team feels confident in our decision-making as a result of our brand understanding, research methodology, data-driven iterations, and positive user feedback results. With two new features to help users authenticate their identity and connect on deeper level, we feel we have delivered on Hinge’s goal to get users on “more great dates.”
That said, there is always more we’d like to do! With more time, we would:
Incorporate more in-depth personality tests for those who want to go even deeper
Build additional face verification functionality (e.g., redoing or deleting a face scan, or troubleshooting mismatches between a face scan and profile pictures)
Rework the dating preferences screen to give verification preferences more prominence
Build a fully-accessible version of face verification for those with visual or physical disabilities
For now, I am very pleased to share the latest prototype.
latest prototype
thank you!
To you, reader, for making it this far!
Also, endless appreciation and acknowledgement for my teammates who made this project possible: Bach Nguyen, Lina Kim, and David Cardenas.