Role
Product Design
Team
Internal Tools
Timeline
4 weeks
Methods
Interviews, audit
Participants
4 internal users
Review changes
Understanding the Problem
Zuul Criteria had grown into a long, hard-to-scan rule editor. Users could technically configure offers, but they had to hunt across disconnected fields, compare long lists manually, and reread settings before feeling safe enough to save.
01
Findability
Key settings were buried across a long page, making it difficult to locate the right rule quickly.
02
Scannability
Labels, controls, and values competed for attention, forcing users to parse every line instead of scanning sections.
03
Long-list management
Large include and exclude lists were difficult to review, edit, and compare without making mistakes.
04
Confidence before saving
Users lacked a clear review moment, so saving changes felt dependent on memory and manual double-checking.
Research Snapshot
Account Manager
Owns offer setup and needs quick confirmation before saving.
Account Manager
Reviews criteria across multiple client and affiliate contexts.
Site Analyst
Audits targeting logic and looks for configuration risk.
Site Analyst
Manages dense exception lists and validates downstream impact.
4/4
users wanted a clearer review moment before saving
3/4
users struggled most with long include/exclude lists
2/4
users relied on memory to understand what changed
1/4
user felt the current grouping matched their mental model
Key Insight
Design Goals
01
Make criteria easy to find
Research signal: users described searching through the page as the first source of friction.
02
Create a scannable section model
Research signal: users grouped criteria mentally, but the interface did not reinforce those groups.
03
Support long-list review and editing
Research signal: three of four users called out include and exclude lists as the hardest area to manage.
04
Increase confidence before saving
Research signal: every participant wanted a clearer summary of what was configured and what changed.
05
Make the pattern consistent across criteria
Research signal: inconsistent control patterns increased rereading and slowed down edits.
Final Structure
The redesign organized the tool into seven sections that mapped to how teams talked about criteria during setup and review.
Summary
Purpose: review configured criteria at a glance. Why it matters: creates a confidence checkpoint before save.
Users
Purpose: define who is eligible. Why it matters: separates audience rules from offer and quality logic.
Attributes
Purpose: manage include and exclude attributes. Why it matters: improves long-list scanning and editing.
Pre-Ping
Purpose: configure checks before offer routing. Why it matters: makes upstream eligibility conditions visible.
Affiliate Quality Score
Purpose: group quality scoring logic. Why it matters: prevents specialized controls from getting lost in generic fields.
Analysis
Purpose: expose review and diagnostic criteria. Why it matters: supports analysts checking downstream implications.
Caps
Purpose: manage volume and pacing limits. Why it matters: keeps operational constraints separate from eligibility rules.
Design Improvements
Five changes carried the redesign: clearer grouping, a stronger summary review, consistent include/exclude controls, bulk list support, and a more deliberate visual hierarchy.
Old
Related settings appeared as a long continuous form, making users hunt for the right field.
Updated
Criteria are grouped into clear sections, so users can jump to the right mental category first.
Old
Saving required users to remember what they changed and re-check individual sections manually.
Updated
The Summary section brings the configured logic together for faster review and higher confidence.
Old
Include and exclude patterns changed by section, increasing cognitive load and error risk.
Updated
Consistent controls make each rule family easier to understand, compare, and modify.
Old
Long values were reviewed one by one, making large updates slow and fragile.
Updated
Bulk list support gives analysts a safer way to manage large sets without losing context.
Old
Controls had similar visual weight, making the hierarchy feel flat and harder to parse.
Updated
Section titles, spacing, cards, and blue emphasis guide attention from overview to detail.
Outcome
Findability — Seven sections gave users a predictable way to locate rules.
Scannability — Clear hierarchy made dense settings easier to review quickly.
Review confidence — Summary-first review reduced reliance on memory.
Efficiency — Bulk list support improved long-list management workflows.
Consistency — Reusable include/exclude patterns made criteria easier to compare.
4
participants
2
roles interviewed
7
final sections
4/4
wanted review
3/4
list pain
2/4
memory checks
5
core improvements