TD Bank
Cash Redemption
For years, TD customers redeemed their cash back through TSYS, a third-party platform with a vanilla, limited experience. We brought redemption in-house so TD could finally define the workflow, UX, UI, content and business rules.
Role:
Lead UX Designer
Duration:
6 Months
Platforms:
iOS, Android and Webapp
Context
Redemption ran on TSYS, so the experience was only as good as the third party allowed.
What testing showed
All 18 participants completed redemption — but the flow made them work too hard to predict what came next.
Resolution
Keep the streamlined, consolidated structure, then fix the content and control gaps that hurt confidence.
Five clicks before you can even choose.
Tied to TSYS, the experience was clunky and outdated. Customers tapped through five screens just to reach the point where they could pick a redemption type and amount. The labels along the way didn’t match how they think about their rewards.
Current state on TSYS. Redemption sat several screens deep in a third-party experience.
Moving off TSYS meant every layer of the experience was ours to define for the first time.
Workflow
UX
UI
Content
Business Rules
Should we save clicks, or reduce cognitive load?
The team kept circling between two directions. To break the tie, I asked Copilot to compare both designs against UX heuristics and flag which UX laws each one followed or broke.
Broken-down flow
Seven steps
What it does well
Only one decision per screen.
Choices feel bounded and manageable.
Large, well‑separated tap targets.
One clear action per card.
Each screen presents 2–3 primary options.
Information is chunked logically across screens.
The system absorbs complexity, not the user.
Step‑by‑step flow explicitly manages unavoidable rules
This design optimizes for speed and simplicity.
UX weaknesses
One extra navigation step. Slightly slower mechanically.
Best use case
Confidence and correctness
Consolidated flow
six steps
What it does well
Large CTAs.
Fewer taps.
mmediate access to all paths
UX weaknesses
Speed is offset by increased thinking time
Choice overload and slower decision‑making
Users must hold too many parallel concepts in memory
Users perform extra interpretation work
Users must re‑interpret the same concepts repeatedly
Nesting secondary actions inside primary destination cards is uncommon in banking UX
Best use case
Confidence and correctness
On paper, each won on different terms. We took both to customers to find out which mattered more.
Users could finish...but had to work too hard to predict what came next.
Leveraging Copilot and partnering with UX Researchers, we synthesized existing studies and contact center feedback into six core customerneeds.
18
participants across both studies
100%
completed the core redemption task
4.17–4.33
ease rating out of 5 in the long-vs-short study
Objective
Save clicks, or reduce cognitive load?
Research questions
Are users able to complete the process?
Where do users feel confused or hesitant?
Do users understand the difference between redemption types?
Which amount option would users pick for a one-time redemption?
Did one design better support task completion and ease of use?
Study 1 · Long vs. short workflow
The consolidated design performed slightly better but both exposed the same early uncertainty.
Design A
Consolidated
Fewer screens felt closer to users’ preference for a streamlined experience.
Fewer screens felt closer to users’ preference for a streamlined experience.
Design B
Broken out
Options were explicit, and every user completed the task.
Extra decisions and terms acceptance made the flow feel longer than expected.
The mechanics are usable. However, the gaps are in content and visibility.
Study 2 · Closely aligned workflow
What worked
Easy, navigable interaction
All six participants located and completed the task; visual design and interaction met expectations.
6 of 6
Prefer custom control
Everyone wanted to choose the amount, even though many would redeem the maximum in real life.
Discoverability
Custom amount was too hidden
A two-step “Custom field” pattern nearly caused one participant to miss the option entirely.
Repeated friction
Agreement became a hurdle
Two users almost missed it. The pattern added three clicks and was treated as a gate, not content.
In Summary
The strongest direction is a streamlined flow with clearer signposting, not simply the fewest screens.
Streamlining was exactly where TD’s strategy was already heading — giving the design direction clear business backing.
Five clicks before you can even choose.
Tied to TSYS, the experience was clunky and outdated. Customers tapped through five screens just to reach the point where they could pick a redemption type and amount. The labels along the way didn’t match how they think about their rewards.
Cash Redemption for TD mobile app
Design iterations
Design iterations through out the design process
Final Designs for online banking
Cash Redemption for TD mobile app
Design iterations
Design iterations through out the design process
Final Designs for online banking
Outcomes
TD Bank
Cash Redemption
For years, TD customers redeemed their cash back through TSYS, a third-party platform with a vanilla, limited experience. We brought redemption in-house so TD could finally define the workflow, UX, UI, content and business rules.
Role:
Lead UX Designer
Duration:
6 Months
Platforms:
iOS, Android and Webapp
Context
Redemption ran on TSYS, so the experience was only as good as the third party allowed.
What testing showed
All 18 participants completed redemption — but the flow made them work too hard to predict what came next.
Resolution
Keep the streamlined, consolidated structure, then fix the content and control gaps that hurt confidence.
Current state on TSYS. Redemption sat several screens deep in a third-party experience.
Moving off TSYS meant every layer of the experience was ours to define for the first time.
Workflow
UX
UI
Content
Business Rules
On paper, each won on different terms. We took both to customers to find out which mattered more.
Should we save clicks, or reduce cognitive load?
The team kept circling between two directions. To break the tie, I asked Copilot to compare both designs against UX heuristics and flag which UX laws each one followed or broke.
Consolidated flow
six steps
What it does well
Large CTAs.
Fewer taps.
mmediate access to all paths
UX weaknesses
Speed is offset by increased thinking time
Choice overload and slower decision‑making
Users must hold too many parallel concepts in memory
Users perform extra interpretation work
Users must re‑interpret the same concepts repeatedly
Nesting secondary actions inside primary destination cards is uncommon in banking UX
Best use case
Confidence and correctness
Study 1 · Long vs. short workflow
The consolidated design performed slightly better but both exposed the same early uncertainty.
Design A
Consolidated
Fewer screens felt closer to users’ preference for a streamlined experience.
Fewer screens felt closer to users’ preference for a streamlined experience.
Design B
Broken out
Options were explicit, and every user completed the task.
Extra decisions and terms acceptance made the flow feel longer than expected.
In Summary
The strongest direction is a streamlined flow with clearer signposting, not simply the fewest screens.
Streamlining was exactly where TD’s strategy was already heading — giving the design direction clear business backing.
The mechanics are usable. However, the gaps are in content and visibility.
Study 2 · Closely aligned workflow
What worked
Easy, navigable interaction
All six participants located and completed the task; visual design and interaction met expectations.
6 of 6
Prefer custom control
Everyone wanted to choose the amount, even though many would redeem the maximum in real life.
Discoverability
Custom amount was too hidden
A two-step “Custom field” pattern nearly caused one participant to miss the option entirely.
Repeated friction
Agreement became a hurdle
Two users almost missed it. The pattern added three clicks and was treated as a gate, not content.
Users could finish...but had to work too hard to predict what came next.
Leveraging Copilot and partnering with UX Researchers, we synthesized existing studies and contact center feedback into six core customerneeds.
18
participants across both studies
100%
completed the core redemption task
4.17–4.33
ease rating out of 5 in the long-vs-short study
Objective
Save clicks, or reduce cognitive load?
Research questions
Are users able to complete the process?
Where do users feel confused or hesitant?
Do users understand the difference between redemption types?
Which amount option would users pick for a one-time redemption?
Did one design better support task completion and ease of use?
What it does well
Only one decision per screen.
Choices feel bounded and manageable.
Large, well‑separated tap targets.
One clear action per card.
Each screen presents 2–3 primary options.
Information is chunked logically across screens.
The system absorbs complexity, not the user.
Step‑by‑step flow explicitly manages unavoidable rules
This design optimizes for speed and simplicity.
UX weaknesses
One extra navigation step. Slightly slower mechanically.
Best use case
Confidence and correctness
Broken-down flow
Seven steps
Outcomes
TD Bank
Cash Redemption
For years, TD customers redeemed their cash back through TSYS, a third-party platform with a vanilla, limited experience. We brought redemption in-house so TD could finally define the workflow, UX, UI, content and business rules.
Role:
Lead UX Designer
Duration:
6 Months
Platforms:
iOS, Android and Webapp
Context
Redemption ran on TSYS, so the experience was only as good as the third party allowed.
What testing showed
All 18 participants completed redemption — but the flow made them work too hard to predict what came next.
Resolution
Keep the streamlined, consolidated structure, then fix the content and control gaps that hurt confidence.
Five clicks before you can even choose.
Tied to TSYS, the experience was clunky and outdated. Customers tapped through five screens just to reach the point where they could pick a redemption type and amount. The labels along the way didn’t match how they think about their rewards.
Current state on TSYS. Redemption sat several screens deep in a third-party experience.
On paper, each won on different terms. We took both to customers to find out which mattered more.
Should we save clicks, or reduce cognitive load?
The team kept circling between two directions. To break the tie, I asked Copilot to compare both designs against UX heuristics and flag which UX laws each one followed or broke.
Consolidated flow
six steps
What it does well
Large CTAs.
Fewer taps.
mmediate access to all paths
UX weaknesses
Speed is offset by increased thinking time
Choice overload and slower decision‑making
Users must hold too many parallel concepts in memory
Users perform extra interpretation work
Users must re‑interpret the same concepts repeatedly
Nesting secondary actions inside primary destination cards is uncommon in banking UX
Best use case
Confidence and correctness
Study 1 · Long vs. short workflow
The consolidated design performed slightly better but both exposed the same early uncertainty.
Design A
Consolidated
Fewer screens felt closer to users’ preference for a streamlined experience.
Fewer screens felt closer to users’ preference for a streamlined experience.
Design B
Broken out
Options were explicit, and every user completed the task.
Extra decisions and terms acceptance made the flow feel longer than expected.
In Summary
The strongest direction is a streamlined flow with clearer signposting, not simply the fewest screens.
Streamlining was exactly where TD’s strategy was already heading — giving the design direction clear business backing.
The mechanics are usable. However, the gaps are in content and visibility.
Study 2 · Closely aligned workflow
What worked
Easy, navigable interaction
All six participants located and completed the task; visual design and interaction met expectations.
6 of 6
Prefer custom control
Everyone wanted to choose the amount, even though many would redeem the maximum in real life.
Discoverability
Custom amount was too hidden
A two-step “Custom field” pattern nearly caused one participant to miss the option entirely.
Repeated friction
Agreement became a hurdle
Two users almost missed it. The pattern added three clicks and was treated as a gate, not content.
Final Designs for online banking
Users could finish...but had to work too hard to predict what came next.
Leveraging Copilot and partnering with UX Researchers, we synthesized existing studies and contact center feedback into six core customerneeds.
Objective
Save clicks, or reduce cognitive load?
Research questions
Are users able to complete the process?
Where do users feel confused or hesitant?
Do users understand the difference between redemption types?
Which amount option would users pick for a one-time redemption?
Did one design better support task completion and ease of use?
Design iterations
Design iterations through out the design process
What it does well
Only one decision per screen.
Choices feel bounded and manageable.
Large, well‑separated tap targets.
One clear action per card.
Each screen presents 2–3 primary options.
Information is chunked logically across screens.
The system absorbs complexity, not the user.
Step‑by‑step flow explicitly manages unavoidable rules
This design optimizes for speed and simplicity.
UX weaknesses
One extra navigation step. Slightly slower mechanically.
Best use case
Confidence and correctness
Broken-down flow
Seven steps
Moving off TSYS meant every layer of the experience was ours to define for the first time.
Workflow
UX
UI
Content
Business Rules
18
participants across both studies
100%
completed the core redemption task
4.17–4.33
ease rating out of 5 in the long-vs-short study
Cash Redemption for TD mobile app
Outcomes