Supporting small restaurants through thoughtful POS design

Supporting small restaurants through thoughtful POS design

01. OVERVIEW

This case study showcases my redesign of a POS system to replace prebuilt solutions that no longer met merchant needs and business goals. I focused on streamlining key workflows and improving usability for staff with varying tech literacy at small, often immigrant-owned restaurants. The new system reflected the company’s refreshed brand and created room for future growth.

02. MY ROLE

Beyond design limits

Beyond design limits

Beyond design limits

At uP, I was part of a small product team redesigning our in-house POS system, uServe. With just three designers supporting multiple product areas, my role often stretched beyond typical UX/UI. I led the design for uServe from start to finish, working closely with PMs, developers, sales teams, and the C-suite to solve real merchant challenges and deliver a more intuitive and scalable product.

03. CHALLENGES

Outgrowing prebuilt limits

Outgrowing prebuilt limits

Outgrowing prebuilt limits

Challenge #1

uServe was originally a white-labeled POS system with limited flexibility. The prebuilt design didn’t reflect how real staff worked, especially in small, immigrant-owned restaurants. My challenge was to rethink the experience while working within existing hardware and operational constraints.

Solution

Through research and collaboration with internal teams, we uncovered key friction points in the original system and prioritized improvements around speed, clarity, and usability. By building on familiar structures, we delivered a more scalable, merchant-centered product.

Balancing progress with familiarity

Balancing progress with familiarity

Balancing progress with familiarity

Challenge #2

As uServe rebranded and shifted toward a more product-led identity, the design needed to feel modern and intentional. Our users are immigrant-owned restaurant staff who relied on muscle memory to stay efficient. The challenge was to make meaningful improvements without disrupting established workflows.

Solution

I focused on upgrading the experience without starting from scratch. We modernized the interface, integrated the company’s new branding, and clarified key flows, while keeping core patterns intact. By balancing new design with old habits, we delivered an experience that felt both refreshed and comfortably familiar.

04. RESEARCH

Learning about the merchants

Learning about the merchants

Learning about the merchants

To better understand uServe’s merchant base, we worked with sales teams to learn about the merchants they support and the challenges they see. We reviewed data from 3,200+ accounts to identify key user segments and product opportunities.

Key insights

Key insights

Minority-owned businesses face language barriers.

Minority-owned businesses face language barriers.

uServe’s merchants are diverse small business owners, most of whom do not speak English as their first language

uServe merchants rely on fast turnover.

uServe merchants rely on fast turnover.

Unlike experience-based dining, uServe merchants rely on fast turnover and affordable menu items.

Opportunities

Opportunities

This data highlights the importance of a system that addresses language barriers and accessibility.

For the merchants, efficiency is not just a convenience but a necessity to stay competitive and profitable.

Onsite user research

Onsite user research

Onsite user research

We conducted onsite user research in NYC to observe and speak with owners and staff to understand their realities.

Pain points

Pain points

Crowded UI

Overwhelming colors and dense text made it hard for staff to find what they needed quickly.

Difficult order tracking

Cluttered screens made it hard to track orders, especially for staff who rely on visual cues.

Inflexible order editing

The rigid process made editing orders prone to mistakes and slowdowns.

Unclear status indicators

Staff couldn’t easily tell an order’s status, which slowed coordination.

How UX pain points emerge

How UX pain points emerge

How UX pain points emerge

After interviews and onsite observation, we mapped how staff interacted with the system to pinpoint workflow slowdowns and uncover opportunities for improvement.

Key insights

Key insights

Modifying orders

Extra taps or unclear options when modifying an order can slow staff down and cause mistakes and stress, especially during peak hours.

Tracking orders

Status tracking was hard to scan or buried in the interface. When staff juggle multiple tasks, unclear order states can cause miscommunication.

Opportunities

Opportunities

Simplify modification steps and frequently used actions to support faster edits under pressure.

Use clearer visual indicators and consistent UX language to help staff instantly understand order progress.

Choosing the right flow for uServe

Choosing the right flow for uServe

Choosing the right flow for uServe

Early on, the executive team pushed to align uServe’s flow with industry leaders like Square and Toast. While we benchmarked their systems and noted their workflows began with table selection, this didn’t reflect how uServe merchants operate day to day.

Key insights

A better fit than industry norms

Our merchants move fast. Orders may be placed before seating is finalized, or without it entirely. A simple, flexible flow fits how they actually work better.

User habits

Merchants already rely on an existing structure that works well enough in fast-paced environments. overhauling the structure risks causing confusion.

Decision

Modernize without disrupting

We chose to improve what worked instead of replacing it. By keeping the overall flow intact, we focused our design effort on clarity, speed, and better UI.

05. DESIGN CRITIQUE

Evaluating the previous design

Evaluating the previous design

Evaluating the previous design

In the critique session, we evaluated the old system in terms of usability, visual hierarchy, and navigation.

Key Insights

Key Insights

User-centered strengths

The original layout used large, colorful buttons. While unpolished, it made key actions easy to find, especially for staff with limited tech fluency.

Emerging limitations

As uServe scaled, the layout became cluttered. Without hierarchy, key tasks got buried, slowing staff down. It also no longer reflected the product-led, modern brand we were evolving into.

Decision

Decision

Redesign the layout for clarity and structure

We chose to rework the interface layout to introduce better organization, clearer task prioritization, and visual hierarchy, without losing the simplicity that worked well for our core users.

06. WIREFRAMING

Creating 70+ wireframes

Creating 70+ wireframes

Creating 70+ wireframes

In the wireframing phase, we created over 70 screens to cover key flows, edge cases, and structural improvements across the system.

07. DESIGN ENHANCEMENT

Custom icons

Custom icons

Custom icons

While uServe relied on Material Design for consistency, the icon set lacked POS-specific actions like “void order” and “merge tables.” These gaps made it harder for staff to quickly identify key tasks.

To solve this, we designed a custom icon set to enhance clarity, support non-native English speakers, and reduce misclicks in high-pressure moments.

Decluttering the interface

Decluttering the interface

Problem

The old system was cluttered with too many buttons, inconsistent colors, and had no clear structure. Staff had to return to the home page just to switch tasks.

Solution

We redesigned the experience around a persistent sidebar to organize features by usage context. This made navigation faster and more organized. We also applied color more intentionally to reduce visual noise.

Order types restructured

Order types restructured

Order types restructured

Problem

Order type selection was mixed in with unrelated actions on the home screen, blurring a key workflow. While staff could choose dine-in, takeout, or delivery, the scattered layout made it harder to focus.

Solution

We grouped all service types under a dedicated Menu section, giving order creation a clear starting point.
This made the workflow more focused and structured.

Introducing a real-time dashboard

Introducing a real-time dashboard

Introducing a real-time dashboard

We added a lightweight real-time dashboard to give staff a quick view of how the day is going.

Problem

Problem

There was no quick way to check daily performance. Sales numbers and product performance weren’t visible on the POS, so staff had to use a separate back-office tool, often inconvenient or inaccessible.

Solution

We added a real-time dashboard so staff can quickly glance at key stats like total orders, sales, or prep time without leaving the POS. It keeps everyone aligned and informed, without breaking their workflow.

Key features

Sales snapshot: overview of key stats

Sales snapshot: overview of key stats

Product performance: see what’s selling

Product performance: see what’s selling

Week / month summary: track longer-term trends

Week / month summary: track longer-term trends

Print / export: share or review stats offline

Print / export: share or review stats offline

Making order creation faster and more intuitive

Making order creation faster and more intuitive

Making order creation faster and more intuitive

We redesigned the order summary panel with a clear, receipt-style layout to help staff place orders quickly and accurately.

Problem

We observed that placing an order was a key step where staff often paused to double-check details. The dense list-style layout, inconsistent formatting, and competing color accents made it harder to verify items and quantities at a glance.

Solution

We introduced a modular, receipt-style layout that mirrors how staff are used to seeing orders. Details like quantities, modifiers, prices, discounts, and totals are grouped and clearly displayed. This reduced visual noise, improved clarity, and helped staff feel more confident at checkout.

Key improvements

• Modular layout that mimics receipts

• Modular layout that mimics receipts

• Easier price verification at a glance

• Easier price verification at a glance

• Discount and total visibility without switching tabs

• Discount and total visibility without switching tabs

• Reduced visual noise and cleaner hierarchy

• Reduced visual noise and cleaner hierarchy

Splitting actions for clarity

Splitting actions for clarity

Splitting actions for clarity

We restructured the right-side panel into two tabs, Check and Actions, to reduce clutter while keeping advanced tools easily accessible.

The Check tab focuses on items, prices, and totals, while the Actions tab houses tools like void, comp, and merge. This separation keeps the interface focused and clean, while still allowing staff to access important functions quickly. Paired with icons, the design enables faster recognition and smoother task flow.

Improving flexibility with dual order views

Improving flexibility with dual order views

We introduced both list view and card view to better support different staff preferences and work styles.

Problem

Staff had different needs when managing orders. While some preferred a compact list for quick scanning, others, especially those juggling multiple in-progress orders, needed more context visible. The single-format layout didn’t adapt well across roles.

Solution

Inspired by kitchen display systems (KDS), we introduced a card view to the front-of-house POS. It shows detailed info like items and quantities up front, reducing the need to open each order. Staff can now toggle between list and card views depending on their preference and role.

Key improvements

• List view for high-level scanning

• Card view for rich order context

• Flexible toggle supports different needs

• Fewer taps, faster order management

08. USER TESTING

Refining design through user testing

Refining design through user testing

To evaluate how intuitive the order creation and management flow felt to users, we conducted think-aloud usability tests with 6 restaurant staff. The goal was to uncover moments of confusion, hesitation, or inefficiencies that may not be obvious through design reviews alone.

Tested scenarios

• Starting a new dine-in order and optionally assigning a table

• Adding and modifying menu items

• Sending the order to the kitchen

• Tracking its progress

• Completing payment and closing the order

Insight 1

Key insights

01. Skipping table assignment felt unfamiliar

While most participants appreciated being able to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” To address possible confusion, we iterated on the order creation popup window.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Skipping table assignment felt unfamiliar.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Staff hesitated when table selection wasn’t required, assuming it was mandatory. This revealed a mismatch between user expectations and system behavior.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Refinement

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

We added an “optional” label and set the default to “None" to make it clear that table selection is optional.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

UX psychology

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Defaulting to “None” and labeling it as “optional” reduced uncertainty. This small change aligned the UI with user expectations, building confidence without sacrificing flexibility.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Tested design

Refined design

Insight 2

Key insights

01. Skipping table assignment felt unfamiliar

While most participants appreciated being able to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” To address possible confusion, we iterated on the order creation popup window.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Staff wanted clear visual cues for menu categories.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

A manager shared that at his previous restaurant, they used distinct colors for each menu category, which helped staff navigate the menu faster. Our early versions lacked this clarity.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Refinement

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

We used full-color category blocks for faster recognition. After testing three versions, staff favored the third: bold, color-filled buttons that made scanning easier. While one earlier version followed contrast guidelines more strictly, it wasn’t as intuitive for staff.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

UX psychology

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Using bold, full-color blocks leverages pre-attentive processing, allowing users to recognize categories instantly by color rather than reading text. This reduces cognitive load and speeds up task completion.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Insight 3

Key insights

01. Skipping table assignment felt unfamiliar

While most participants appreciated being able to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” To address possible confusion, we iterated on the order creation popup window.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Too many order status steps slowed staff down.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

A key feature introduced in the redesign was a set of order status indicators, quick one-tap buttons that let staff update the status of an order. While staff appreciated the new feature, testing revealed that separating “Order placed” and “Cooking” didn’t add value. It introduced extra work without improving clarity.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Refinement

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

We simplified the status flow from four to three steps. By merging “Order placed” and “Cooking” into a single “In progress” state, we reduced friction and made updates easier and faster.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

UX psychology

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

Fewer steps reduce decision fatigue. Fewer steps helped staff act more confidently under pressure, improving speed and accuracy during busy hours.

Users mentioned that

  • Skipping the table assignment felt unfamiliar
    While most participants appreciated the ability to skip assigning a table, one participant expressed concern: “I thought I had to pick a table first. Isn’t that required?” This feedback confirmed the need for better visual cues or guidance to reassure users that table assignment is optional.

  • Terminology mismatches
    Words like “Complete” and “Close” caused hesitation or second-guessing. One cashier asked, “Does ‘Complete’ mean it’s ready or it’s paid?” These insights led to clearer button labeling in future iterations. Participants paused when they saw terms like “Send” and “Complete,” unsure of what would happen next. One server asked, “Does send mean print the order? Or does it go to the kitchen?” These moments of hesitation revealed how important clear UX writing is, especially for multilingual users.

  • Switchable order views appreciated
    When toggling between the list view and card view on the Order Management page, one participant immediately noted: “I like this—it depends on what I’m doing.” Another added that the card view made it easier to recognize active orders during rush hours. This validated our decision to offer both options for different workflows.

09. REFLECTION

Designing for the realities of everyday workflows

Designing for the realities of everyday workflows

This project wasn’t just about refining UI, it was about showing up, watching staff in action, and understanding how design affects their split-second decisions.

Winning moments

  • Onsite observation: Shadowing staff onsite helped us identify pain points that wouldn’t surface in remote interviews.

  • Optimized for real workflows: We redesigned key flows to better reflect how staff work, fast, mentally mapped, and under pressure, while keeping flexibility for different restaurant setups without forcing a rigid structure.

  • Consistency builds confidence: Even as we modernized the system, keeping familiar interaction patterns helped staff feel grounded.

Lessons learned

  • Sometimes breaking the rules works: Not every UX rule fits every context. When user preference diverged from convention, we believe that real usability > theory.

  • Simplicity builds confidence: Reducing friction and cognitive load had a greater impact than adding new features.

  • Stakeholder management: Working with a small team meant we had to make focused decisions. We listened to input from engineers, PMs, sales, and leadership, then balanced feedback carefully without losing design clarity.