Worked Example: Three Pricing-Page Findings and Their Fixes
A fictional scheduling-service pricing page illustrates how evidence, consequence, and uncertainty lead to different priorities and resolution conditions.
By Design Audit Team · Updated
Scope of the example
The task is to compare three plans and understand the billing commitment before selecting one. This fictional example covers the plan cards and a mobile promotional banner. It is not a customer report, and no measurements, captures, or commercial outcomes are claimed.
Finding 1: a banner covers plan selection
Observation: in the narrow-screen example, a fixed banner covers the final plan’s selection button. Evidence needed: the viewport, scroll position, banner state, and steps showing whether the control can still be reached.
Next action: engineering reproduces the obstruction before assigning a confirmed blocker. If it prevents selection without an alternative, address it before the content inconsistencies below. Resolution means the control is reachable and operable with the banner open, including nearby viewport sizes.
Finding 2: a monthly-equivalent price hides an annual commitment
Observation: the example card displays “$12/mo” while its annual-payment explanation appears after the selection buttons. The concern is the information available before commitment, not a measured rate of misunderstanding.
Proposed change: if those are the actual terms, write “$12 per month, billed as $144 annually” beside the price. Content and product owners confirm that the explanation matches the next step. Resolution means the amount and payment commitment are clear before selection; these fictional prices do not describe Design Audit plans.
Finding 3: different labels describe the same allowance
Observation: one card says “appointments” and another says “bookings.” First ask the product owner whether they represent the same allowance. If they differ, explain the distinction; if they do not, standardize the term and unit.
This is a comparison problem rather than a confirmed interaction blocker. The content owner can resolve it once the underlying meaning is established. Applying one term without that check risks hiding a real product difference.
Why this order of work?
Severity describes the consequence; reach describes where it occurs; confidence describes the evidence supporting it. The banner needs reproduction, the commitment needs accurate disclosure, and the labels need a product clarification. Those are different next actions, even before the team estimates effort.
Keep confirmed fixes, investigations, and accepted deferrals separate. For repeated findings, group only those with a demonstrated shared cause. After a change, revisit the specific resolution condition rather than treating an improved aggregate score as proof of a better customer outcome.