top of page
DocHub
Website Redesign
Role
UI Designer, UX Researcher
Scope
Web Design, User Research, Stakeholder Collaboration
Our DocHub Website Redesign makes editing, signing, and sharing documents seamless with a clean interface and intuitive workflows that keep productivity moving.
Timeline
Q1 2025
Team
Enrico Del Rosario, Kimberly Villanueva, Mica Martinez
.png)
Problem
Organizational leads rely on digital tools such as DocHub to streamline the document signage process with clients. However, DocHub’s interface is error-prone, allowing clients to submit documents without filling out all required fields. This creates an inefficient back-and-forth cycle where clients must resend incomplete documents, leading to delays. As a result, these inefficiencies have a negative impact on communication, client retention, and slow down the process of finalizing documents.
Mission
To create a seamless and user-friendly document signage experience by enhancing usability, clarity, and completion efficiency.
Discovery Phase
Brainstorming
Our team first started by brainstorming ideas for different stakeholders to interview, aiming to identify obstacles they faced within software they use while running their businesses. After careful deliberation, we had landed on two stakeholders to conduct interviews on:
-
Kay Linayao - Co-Founder and COO of MotleyData
-
Vanessa Andrada - Owner of Studio FX
The research was conducted using semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions, allowing participants to share their experiences in detail. Topics included:
-
Daily Routines: Understanding how tasks are managed and prioritized.
-
Tool Usage: Identifying commonly used tools and their limitations.
-
Workflow Challenges: Exploring communication, collaboration, and tool integration pain points.
This approach ensured an understanding of the participants’ workflows and challenges, enabling insights to inform design solutions.
Key Insights from Stakeholder Interviews
-
DocHub does not show the client of the stakeholder the full finalized contract and does not include all highlighted signage
-
Users specified challenges with finalizing contracts through DocHub
-
DocHub does not flag when clients fail to sign all fields during the signing process
-
Stakeholders often have to reach out to their clients after receiving an incomplete document
Goals
Based on these insights, we were able to define our problem statement and develop goals for our redesign. We concluded that business managers and their clients need an efficient, more intuitive document workflow that ensures all required fields are signed without unnecessary delays. To address this need, we set the following goals:
-
Accelerate contract processing by reducing back-and-forth communication.
-
Streamline document editing with smart detection of required signature fields.
-
Improve usability by automatically highlighting fields that need to be signed.
Competitive Audit
After defining problems that we would like to solve through our redesign, we compared DocHub against its competitors to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement. We conducted a competitive audit with the following competitors:
-
PandaDoc
-
Adobe Acrobat
-
DocuSign
-
Smallpdf
In our competitive audit, we concluded that creating a one-click signage feature can eliminate recurring communication issues DocHub users have with clients, This change would improve DocHub's signage process, reduce inefficiencies, and ensure DocHub remains relevant within its competitors.
Ideation Phase
UX Flows
We created two UX flows in Figma to construct low-fidelity prototypes out of. The first UX Flow was created with the document sender in mind. This flow shows the steps the sender would take in order to set up a document to be sent and signed by a recipient. The second UX Flow was created with the recipient in mind, giving users feedback to reduce errors made in the singing process.
Personas
In order to start designing, we had to define who we were designing for and what needs we would be solving for different user groups. These personas are similarly based on our interviewed stakeholders, indicating a brief background of the persona, their needs as a user, their overall frustrations, how they are as a person, the skills they possess (along with their proficiency), and things that interest them.
Usability Testing Methods
User tests were conducted on:
-
A creative director of a marketing agency
-
A cofounder of a data startup
These users were chosen since they primarily use document signing apps for their careers. In order to test these users, we used a combination of both user observations and user interviews which gave us data on how the users interacted with the prototypes and how they felt about them.
Design Phase
UI Sketches
To refine DocHub’s interface, we sketched solutions based on our UX flows and frequently used screens. Our goal was to improve existing layouts while exploring new ways to improve usability. Some sketches had small refinements, like repositioning elements for clarity, while others introduced major changes to streamline the user experience.
Using insights from our Competitive Audit, we addressed common pain points by incorporating better feedback mechanisms and more intuitive features. However, generating meaningful improvements proved challenging and we had to think critically about each change to ensure it added real value.
By focusing on usability and drawing inspiration from well-designed platforms, our sketches became a foundation for the final redesign, reinforcing how even small adjustments can significantly improve the user experience.
Low-Fidelity Prototypes
The next step after creating sketches for our redesign was creating the Lo-Fi Prototypes for them. These prototypes were created in Figma and cover both UX Flows 1 and 2.
Prototype A
Prototype B
Testing Phase
Key Insights from User Testing
Prototype A
Prototype B
-
What Users Liked
-
Clear document status sections (e.g., “Needs Action,” “Waiting On”)
-
Logical workflow and easy navigation
-
Auto Detect for signature fields saved time
-
Preferred clearer distinctions for status labels (e.g., bold or red text)
-
-
What Users Struggled With
-
Generic text was confusing; preferred real document templates
-
No clear indication of clickable elements or interactive features
-
Unclear signing section—users weren’t sure if they saw an example or a real signature
-
Some users didn’t immediately recognize they were viewing documents
-
Dashboard layout felt too wide, resembling a mobile design on a web browser
-
Oversized hamburger menu with large text felt disproportionate
-
Distrust in AI detection—users preferred manual review before sending documents
-
Concerns about one-click sign leading to accidental or uninformed signing
-
-
What Users Liked
-
The “Shared With You” section was useful, but users suggested renaming it to “Finalized” or “Completed”
-
Previously hidden features were better highlighted in this version
-
Layout was generally acceptable but could be larger for better visibility
-
-
What Users Struggled With
-
“Create New” and “New Document” felt redundant
-
“Sign & Send” vs. “Send & Receive” was unclear
-
Confusion around “Create template for now” option
-
“Client Name” section’s purpose was unclear
-
Sidebar felt too large and unnecessary
-
Expected the top-left home button or logo to return to the dashboard
-
Uncertainty about creating a document without first uploading one
-
The second upload screen felt unnecessary
-
Wanted clearer role distinctions (e.g., “Needs to Sign” vs. “Receives a Copy”)
-
Needed a more intuitive way to add/remove recipients
-
Unclear what they were customizing when editing document fields
-
When comparing Prototype A and Prototype B, most participants preferred Prototype B but suggested improvements. Prototype B was favored for its more intuitive dashboard layout, better-integrated search functionality, and useful Recent Documents section. However, Prototype A had advantages, such as clearer document action sections (“Needs Action” and “Waiting On”) and a more compact dashboard layout. Overall, users appreciated Prototype B’s organization but preferred Prototype A’s clarity in document statuses and action items.
High-Fidelity Prototype
After concluding our user tests, we decided to revise our low-fidelity prototypes and proceed with creating our high-fidelity prototypes, keeping in mind the feedback we had received from our users.
For our high-fidelity prototype, we refined UX Flow 1 based on stakeholder feedback. The original screens lacked clarity and visual appeal, so we improved text readability and made signs more intuitive, addressing confusion on the dashboard. We also enhanced functionality by replacing the previous clients sidebar with a navigation panel for easier access to key features.
User testing confirmed UX Flow 1 as the preferred choice. Stakeholders, primarily business owners using DocHub for client signatures, found it more efficient. Moving forward with this flow allowed us to streamline the signing process, improving usability for both stakeholders and clients.
Revision Phase
High Fidelity Prototype Improvements
After completing our high-fidelity prototype, we tested it with a broader user group. Since we had already gathered feedback from stakeholders and experienced users, we saw value in evaluating our near-final DocHub redesign with general users. This group, consisting of infrequent DocHub users, provided fresh insights into usability and accessibility.
Additionally, we received feedback from an experienced UI/UX designer who assists in a Cognitive Science Design class at UC San Diego. Their expertise helped us refine key design details and enhance the overall user experience.
Final DocHub Redesign
Thank you for your time!
If you have any questions, feel free to reach out and contact me.
Check out my other projects!
bottom of page