The Overview
Medzen Academy was 0→ 1 product. The business goal was to turn learners into paying customers and build a sustainable learning platform.
The Problem
The core problem sat between what learners needed and the business goals.
Learners can’t confidently choose and continue the right learning because they lack clear guidance, visible value, and a connected learning experience, which can create barriers to enrolment, lesson completion, and course completion.
What I Did
I led a design team to shape Medzen Academy into a connected learning experience. I drove the product direction and final design decisions, guided two designers from research to the final Website and LMS, and used Claude Code to build and refine the product.
The Outcome
All metrics are based on participant responses and observed behaviour during the prototype testing.
Based on testing 9 key user flows with multiple participants across the Medzen website and LMS.
The Stakes
Understanding the business goals, learner challenges, and constraints that shaped the direction.
Business Problem
Medzen Academy is a new medical and research education platform that needs to lift paid conversion and earn trust. In our survey of 39 learners, 19/39 would buy only if a course directly improves their career growth, so the product has to show career value properly.
User Problem
A career-focused learner lands on a course catalog deciding what’s worth paying for. 18/39 respondents say they feel overwhelmed by too many course options, and they can’t tell which course will help their career, so they leave without buying. Those who do enroll often lack the motivation to finish, so they drop out before completing the course.
Constraints
3 - person team, 16 - week deadline, no design system. Built the brand design (incl logo design) first, then set the tokens and components.
What We Realized
What learners told us, and what it meant for the design
Too many options, too little guidance.
18 of 39 (46.2%) said too many course options hold them back, and 15 of 39 (38.5%) struggle to compare courses. [In interviews, 5 of 5 asked for recommendations or a path tailored to their goal.]
Learners pay for outcomes, and outcomes build trust.
19 of 39 (48.7%) would pay only if a course clearly improves their career. 30 of 39 (76.9%) said clear outcomes would make them trust a course enough to enroll, and 16 of 39 (41%) named lack of trust in the instructor or platform as a barrier.
Learners want an engaging, interactive experience.
20 of 39 (51.3%) preferred practice-based formats like MCQs and case-based questions over passive learning, and 7 of 39 (17.9%) would pay for mentorship or doubt support.
The problem wasn't a lack of educational content,The problem was a guidance and connected learning experience.
Tap the image to view large
Principles
Three rules we used to decide every design call.
Guide, don’t list.
(Finding 1: too many options)Show learners the courses that match their goal and lead them toward the skill they want, instead of a long catalogue to sort through.
Applied in: Guided learning journey and personalized experience
Lead with the career outcome.
(Finding 2: learners buy only when the career payoff is clear)Put course value and career outcome first, so learners can judge a course and see how it moves them to their next career step.
Applied in: Course details IA and page hierarchy
Make learning active.
(Finding 3: learners prefer practice-based formats)Favour interactive sessions, real-world connections, and mentor or doubt support over passive content.
Applied in: Lesson Player
Decision 1: Course details page
Principle: Lead with the career outcome
Problem
41% users hesitated to enrol because they didn’t trust the course or platform, but 76.9% said clear outcomes would be enough to enrol.
What the page had to answer (survey + interviews)
- Trust : Recognized medical standards, instructor credentials, learner reviews.
- Value and outcome : Skills gained, career and resume benefit.
Final Choice
Option B
- In interviews, a few learners said the course page packed in so many details that it was hard to find the ones they needed.
- So we led with a short summary of the course basics, followed right away by one grouped Outcomes section, instead of putting outcomes above any context.
- This gives the page a clear flow: what the course is, then what it does for your career, then the deeper detail.
Users frequently mentioned ‘Free preview,’ ‘Certificate,’ and ‘learning formats’ during interviews, so these terms are highlighted at the top.
Instructor, content standards and Social proof are the main trust factors, so placed at the top with price.
Detailed yet easily scannable, this first section provides an overview of the course, including its key skills. As this is the only section that covers the course details, I’ve tried to include almost everything learners need to know.
A brief introduction to the instructor, with an option to view their full profile.
The Outcomes section summarizes what learners will learn, career opportunities, and course impact in one place, reducing the need to scroll through the course details page for this information.
Learners in interviews stressed engagement’s importance. Showing these options on the course page helps them understand and encourages enrolment.
Trade-off
Outcomes now sit lower and need a scroll. I added a fixed quick-nav bar anchored to key sections so learners can jump straight to what they want.
Result
(Final design, 9 participants)9 of 9 felt confident or very confident they had enough information to decide; 8 of 9 found the information that mattered easy or very easy to find.
Testing also surfaced flaws, and the iterations are in Validation.
Decision 2 : Lesson Player
Principle: Make learning active, with support tools that don’t compete with the video
Problem
Learners use multiple tools: YouTube for lectures, AI for answers, notes, and friends for doubts.
This causes context-switching, scattered notes, and slow doubt resolution. The learning screen should unify video, notes, and doubt help to maintain focus.
What the page had to hold (survey + interviews)
- Video first : Most interviewees learn mainly from video.
- While watching : Several take running notes as they watch.
- When stuck : They want quick doubt help from discussion, AI, or an expert.
Initial Design
I designed a three-panel screen: discussion and AI chat on the left, video with description and files in the middle, and note-taking on the right. Discussion, AI, and notes can be minimized. The screen also includes “View all lessons” and “Report an issue.”
Note: This AI chat is a preliminary concept, with technical feasibility validated by the development team. For a deeper look at my AI design process, please refer to my other project.
What testing showed
Learners found it distracting. The video was small, and their focus kept shifting between three panels. The design solved the “everything in one place” problem but weakened the “focus on the video” need.
44% found the layout distracting, while 11% found it difficult to understand.
Final Choice
Video focused layout
- I took the strongest parts of each option and changed them to fit what learners told us.
- I kept the right-side icon rail and single-tool side panel from the Icon Rail option, and the floating tools with translucent panels for full-screen mode from the Cinema Overlay option. I also removed duplicate options and brought descriptions and reference files into the viewport for easier access.
- The video stays large, and discussion, Ask AI, and notes stay one tap away.
Trade-off
The layout focuses on the video and shows one tool at a time, reducing clutter. But 2–3 users wanted to use Discussion and AI Chat with Notes simultaneously to explore answers, copy info, and take notes without switching panels.
Result
(Final design, 9 participants)7 of 9 users preferred the new layout for its focused, uncluttered experience, while the other 2 preferred the initial layout for easier access to multiple tools simultaneously.
Decision 3: Guided learning path
Principle: Guide, don’t list
Problem
Too many options leave learners unsure what to pick or what to learn next. 46.2% cite too many options as their main reason for not enrolling, 48.7% prefer a step-by-step guided path, 35.9% say a clear roadmap would help most.
What competitors do
Competitors offer guided learning, but the paths are cluttered with details, and the difference between regular courses and guided paths isn’t clear, making the feature difficult to discover.
What the path had to do
- Structure : Show the steps in order, so learners know where to start and what comes next.
- Clarity : Make it obvious that a path is a different thing from a single course.
- Decision making : Clearly explain the course quality and how it will benefit users’ careers.
Final Choice
Outcome Driven Guided Learning Path
- The final design was generated using Claude Code, with a few changes to address basic user needs.
- Added Beginner, Intermediate, and Master tabs, along with course standards, key course details, learning outcomes, and skills gained.
- Removed course cards and used a simple course list with a clear order to guide learners through the learning path.
Trade-off
A guided path assumes learners will follow a set sequence and commit to the whole bundle. We accepted that risk because it reduces the overwhelm of a long catalogue, then checked it with users.
Result
(Final design, 9 participants)5 of 9 participants were satisfied with the guided path. The other 4 said they wouldn’t buy every course in it, so we added an “Add to cart” option on each individual course, which none of the 4 competitors we analysed offered.
Other Key Decisions
Few other decisions that made from the research and survey we got.
Search Bar Focused Hero Section
Most learners (15 of 39) prefer searching for a specific topic, suggesting that the search bar should be prominent and easily accessible so users can quickly find what they’re looking for.
Slides Format in Learning
Visuals were the most preferred learning format (31 of 39), and interviews reinforced the preference for slides. After discussing the findings with the client, we aligned on introducing a slide-based format alongside video lessons.
Learning Plan
Learners struggled with consistency and rough time based planning, so we introduced Learning Plan, with structured learning paths and flexible goal dates to help them stay on track.
Course Abandonment Feedback
Added a quick feedback prompt to identify enrolment barriers, bridging the gap between user expectations and platform offerings to satisfy both user and business goals.
Validation
Moderated usability test on Maze with 9 participants. Each person completed all 9 tasks. I observed and never guided participants at any point.
Finding 1
Learners needed time to realise a failed submission could be retried.
What we saw
After failing once, all 9 participants knew they could retry, but 8 only realized this after reading results and feedback. They missed the “Failed” chip and had to figure out what happened before proceeding. Only 1 understood immediately; none were unsure.
What I changed
I added a result modal that appears as soon as the learner opens the course details. It uses a colour theme matching the outcome, with an outcome-specific title and instructor feedback, plus the next action right there.
| Outcome | Theme | Content | Primary action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Passed | Green | Pass title and instructor feedback | View certificate |
| Failed | Red | Fail title and different instructor feedback | View submission |
Finding 2
Learners weren’t fully clear on the target-date setup
What we saw
The learning plan lets learners set a target date, spreading lessons to meet it with individual dates. Only 3 of 9 found the learning plan and target-date setup very clear; 4 said somewhat clear, 2 neither clear nor unclear, none unclear. The pop-up worked, but most weren’t sure what it showed due to its complexity.
What I changed
The initial version combined date selection and the resulting timeline into a single modal, prioritising module names over dates. This made the interface dense and difficult to scan. I separated it into two side by side modals:
- Set a Target Date: Focuses solely on selecting the target date.
- Your Timeline: Prioritises dates over module names, making the schedule easier to scan and understand.
Before
After
Impact
Pre-launch, tested with 9 learners
Less overwhelm when choosing a course
(survey: 46.2% said too many course options holds them back)9 of 9 found the target course, and 7 of 9 did it through the hero search.
Clear value and career outcome
(survey: 76.9% said clear outcomes would build trust enough to enrol)9 of 9 felt confident they had enough information to decide, and 8 of 9 found that information easily.
Active, supported learning
(survey: 17.9% would pay for mentor or doubt support)7 of 9 found the supporting features useful in the lesson, and every participant understood the purpose of each option on the learning page.
After launch, we’d track the success metric by
- Primary: Course completion rate
- Supporting: Lesson completion rate, Course Enrollment Rate
- Business: Paid conversion rate
AI Usage
Where AI helped, and where the decisions stayed mine
| Stage | Tool | What I used it for | What I did with the output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Market research | Perplexity | Insights on medical learning market, sources, how learners learn and their expectations | It shaped my questions for analysis, surveys, and interviews. Findings come from those, not Perplexity. |
| User interview synthesis | ChatGPT | Transcribed the interview audio and turned each transcript into structured notes | Verified first interview notes with recording and emotions; they were accurate, so I repeated for others. |
| Ideation | ChatGPT | Brainstormed ideas for a few problem areas | Chose the final solutions myself by scoring them on effort, value and feasibility |
| Design | Claude Code | Built the remaining screens to my design system and standards | Created the design system and key screens, taught Claude to follow them, and refined the screens in Figma. |
| Prototyping | Claude Code | Built the interactive prototype used in usability testing | Ran the 9-participant Maze test on it and made the design changes from the results myself |
AI saved time on background research, organising interviews, generating ideas, building screens and prototyping. The findings, the decisions and the design standards are mine.
Reflection
- A feature fails if learners can’t find or understand it. Only 3 of 9 testers got the learning plan setup, so I redesigned the target date setup instead of defending my first versions.
- All 9 completed every task, which taught me to look at what people never touch, not only what they finish.
- Next time, I’d test unique features earlier with a rough prototype and retest redesigned flows with new participants.
I learned AI works best once I set the standard, so I’d try to set it earlier and use it more.