Skip to content
SecondEyes.design

What a review actually looks like.

Three sample reviews, written the way real ones are: the screen, the notes each reviewer made without seeing the other’s, where the two disagreed, and the single verdict that came out of it.

The checkout asks for commitment three times before it ever shows a total.

Traffic is fine and carts are filling. Something between the cart and the payment screen is losing people, and the team disagrees about what.

The products below are invented and the findings written for them. We have no real case studies published yet — when clients allow it, these get replaced by anonymised real ones.

Pasarnia

Grocery delivery · Malaysia
9:41
CheckoutStep 2 of 3

Deliver to

12-3A, Jalan Kerinchi Kiri 4
59200 Kuala Lumpur

Create your account

More options ›

Delivery slot

Wed 12 Feb, 09:00–11:00

42 slots

3 itemsRM58 · 12.00 MYR saved

Promo code

Apply
Continue to payment

Checkout — step 2 of 3

Tier
End-to-end product review
Turnaround
2 working days
Scope
Cart → checkout → payment, iOS and Android web

BriefTraffic is fine and carts are filling. Something between the cart and the payment screen is losing people, and the team disagrees about what.

01Bothhigh

The order total never appears before payment

Delivery fee, service fee and the slot surcharge are all applied on step 3. A shopper who budgeted RM60 first sees RM73.40 with their card already out.

FixShow a live running total in the sticky bar from step 1, itemised on tap. Nothing else on this list moves the number as much.

02Bhigh

Guest checkout is hidden under “More options”

Account creation is presented as the only path. The guest route exists but sits behind a tertiary link that reads as a settings menu.

FixLead with guest checkout and offer the account at the confirmation screen, once the purchase is already done.

03Ahigh

Primary button fails contrast on the sticky bar

The mint fill against white text measures 1.9:1. In daylight on a phone it reads as a disabled control, which is precisely the moment it needs to read as the way forward.

FixDarken the fill until it clears 4.5:1, or invert to dark-on-mint. This is a token change, not a redesign.

04Bmed

The promo field outranks the thing you came to do

A full-width, focused promo input sits directly above the primary action. Shoppers without a code read it as a step they are failing; shoppers with one leave to go find it.

FixCollapse it to a single line of text under the total, expanding on tap.

+ 19 further findings in the full report.

Sample — not a real client

Tally

23findings
  • 6 high
  • 11 med
  • 6 low

14 of 23 were raised independently by both reviewers.

Where they disagreed

  • The 42-option slot picker

    AScored High — called it the second-biggest drop risk after the total.

    BScored Low — argued regular shoppers pick the same slot every week.

    Reconciled to Med. B's point holds for returning shoppers, A's holds for first orders, and first orders are the ones being lost.

  • Account creation

    ARead it as a conversion problem.

    BRead it as a trust problem — the form asks for a phone number with no stated reason.

    Kept as one High finding with both readings attached, because the fix differs depending on which is true and the team can test that cheaply.

Reconciled verdict

The checkout asks for commitment three times before it ever shows a total.

Fix the order of the checkout before touching anything visual. Both reviewers independently put the hidden total first; every other finding is smaller than that one.

Read the full sample report

It is not an onboarding problem. The job dispatchers do all day is three clicks behind a dashboard they never look at.

Support tickets are climbing and dispatchers keep asking for training. The team thinks it is an onboarding problem.

Hantar Ops

Fleet operations SaaS
ops.hantar.internal / overview
OverviewExportAssignRerouteNotifyPrint

Jobs today

1,284

On time

91.2%

Exceptions

37

Avg. handover

6m 40s

Depot: KL-1State: allWindow: todayDriver: any
JobDestinationDriverETASt.
HT-40318Shah AlamR. Kumar11:40
HT-40319KlangS. Ismail12:05
HT-40320PuchongA. Tan12:20
HT-40321SubangM. Faiz12:44
HT-40322CherasN. Devi13:02
HT-40323KepongJ. Lim13:15

+ 9 more columns

Dispatcher console — overview

Tier
End-to-end product review
Turnaround
2 working days
Scope
Dispatcher console — daily exception-handling flow

BriefSupport tickets are climbing and dispatchers keep asking for training. The team thinks it is an onboarding problem.

01Bothhigh

The default screen is not the screen anyone works in

Dispatchers spend the day resolving failed deliveries. That queue is three clicks deep; the landing screen is a KPI dashboard whose numbers are read weekly, by someone else.

FixLand on the exception queue. Move the KPI dashboard to its own route for the people who actually use it.

02Ahigh

Fourteen columns, none sortable, no sticky header

At the second screenful the column headings are gone, so dispatchers count cells across to work out which field they are reading.

FixSticky header, sort on the four fields that carry decisions, and let the rest live behind a column picker.

03Bhigh

Delivery status is carried by colour alone

Amber and red dots are the only difference between “late” and “failed”. Those two states have completely different responses, and roughly one dispatcher in twelve cannot reliably tell them apart.

FixAdd a short text state beside the dot. Colour becomes reinforcement rather than the whole message.

04Amed

Filters reset on every navigation

Opening a job and coming back drops the filter set. Dispatchers rebuild the same four filters dozens of times a shift.

FixPut filter state in the URL. It also makes shift handover a pasted link instead of a spoken list.

+ 27 further findings in the full report.

Sample — not a real client

Tally

31findings
  • 8 high
  • 14 med
  • 9 low

19 of 31 were raised independently by both reviewers.

Where they disagreed

  • The KPI dashboard

    AWanted it deleted outright.

    BWanted it kept — ops managers do read it, just not daily.

    Kept, moved off the landing route. The finding is about what loads first, not about whether the dashboard deserves to exist.

Reconciled verdict

It is not an onboarding problem. The job dispatchers do all day is three clicks behind a dashboard they never look at.

Make the exception queue the landing screen and the ticket volume changes on its own. Training is being asked to compensate for information architecture.

Read the full sample report

The craft is not the problem. Every case study ends at the final screen and never says what happened next.

Forty applications, two replies. The work looks good and nobody will say what is wrong with it.

A junior product designer's portfolio

Job-seeking designer
portfolio.site / onboarding-rework

Reworking the onboarding

A study in colour, type and motion for a fintech onboarding flow.

DiscoverDefineIdeateDesignTest

Sign-up, v3

Sign-up, v3

The final direction simplified the flow into three steps and introduced a progress indicator, which tested well internally with the team.

Next project ›

Case study — “Reworking the onboarding”

Tier
Portfolio review
Turnaround
1 working day
Scope
Three case studies, reviewed as a hiring designer would read them

BriefForty applications, two replies. The work looks good and nobody will say what is wrong with it.

01Bothhigh

No case study says what happened after launch

All three end on a final-design shot. A hiring designer reads that as work that was never shipped, or shipped and never measured — and cannot tell which.

FixOne honest closing line per study. “Shipped in March; support tickets about step 2 dropped by roughly half” beats a hero shot. If it never shipped, say so and say why.

02Bhigh

The first screenful is a mood board

Colour swatches and type specimens occupy the opening viewport. The problem statement is below the fold in every study.

FixOpen with the problem, who had it, and your role, in three lines. Move the visual exploration to the middle, where it supports rather than delays.

03Amed

The process diagram is the same in all three studies

Discover → Define → Ideate → Design → Test, unchanged, with no evidence any of it happened. It reads as coursework rather than as an account of the project.

FixDelete the diagram. Replace it with the one decision you got wrong first and what changed your mind — that is what interviewers actually probe.

04Amed

Eleven screens shown, two explained

The screen grid is doing the work of a portfolio, but nine of the eleven carry no caption, so the reader cannot tell which decisions were yours.

FixCut to four screens. Caption each with the decision it represents.

+ 13 further findings in the full report.

Sample — not a real client

Tally

17findings
  • 4 high
  • 8 med
  • 5 low

9 of 17 were raised independently by both reviewers.

Where they disagreed

  • The mood board opening

    AScored Med — thought it read as visual confidence.

    BScored High — argued a hiring designer gives a case study six seconds and this spends all six.

    Reconciled to High. A agreed after re-reading the portfolio on the six-second budget rather than in full.

Reconciled verdict

The craft is not the problem. Every case study ends at the final screen and never says what happened next.

You are being read for six seconds and those six seconds are spent on a mood board. Lead with the problem and close with the outcome, and the same work starts landing interviews.

Read the full sample report