Plant Care App
A self-initiated 2-day UI project exploring how visual clarity, structure, and modular systems can improve trust and usability — even without changing core business logic.
#hero —
#nav-trigger-1 —
Why this project?
This was a study project. No client, no KPIs, no branding kit — just a goal: build something structured from scratch and finally understand what “design system” means.
I picked a plant care app because the context felt close — and I guess that’s how most people choose their first real project. Something you already care about, just enough to want it to make sense.
Planty became my testbed for system thinking. I wanted to go through the full flow — from user research to prototype — but more than that, I wanted to stop guessing what makes an interface consistent.
#context —
UX research, with all the trimmings
“We had two personas, a CJM, a competitor matrix and another two or three frameworks — but I knew we were just circling around the real problem.”
(Hunter S. Thompson didn’t say this, but he might’ve if he worked in Figma.)
I did what a proper UX student is supposed to do:
two personas, a full journey map, competitor audit, IA, storyboards, frameworks.
The research wasn’t pointless — but I knew from the start that no matrix would help if the interface couldn’t carry the logic on its own.
So I used all this not to validate features, but to draw boundaries.
UX didn’t give me answers — it gave me constraints to work with. That’s where the structure came from.
#research —
Iteration one: where it fell apart
The first version was what you expect from someone who just learned UX terms:
cluttered, visually unbalanced, no rhythm, too many things happening.
I tested early lo-fi screens on actual humans via Useberry.
It was the first time I tried collecting feedback, and I had no idea what I was really asking.
That’s when I realized how little I actually knew about the flow of understanding in a product.
And how much of “UX research” at this stage is just slowly learning where you were wrong.
So I did the only sensible thing:
Deleted everything and started over.
Iteration two: structure starts to speak
This time, I focused on rhythm and limits.
Each screen had fewer elements. Actions followed clearer patterns.
I didn’t build components yet — but the idea of structure started forming.
The kind of structure that tells a user what’s important before they even start reading.
#structure —
Design system... or at least the attempt
I had read the definitions. I had seen Fluent 2. But I still didn’t get it.
So I used this project to figure it out from the inside.
Not “build a system”, but:
how do spacing, corner radius, shadows and color combine into trust?
where does consistency come from — and how do I break it without breaking everything?
I started to recognize how much structure hides in the smallest decisions — and how fast UI collapses without them.
#system —
#form —
A prototype that holds its own.
In the end, I built a clickable mobile prototype in Figma with 12 core screens:
Onboarding
Home (overview)
Add plant
Plant detail
Calendar
Reminder flow
Problem diagnosis
You can try it here: [insert prototype link]
The UI was still a bit fluffy in places. But it held together — structurally, visually, and functionally.
Each card shows just what’s needed — nothing more, nothing less:
vehicle type, fuel, transmission, seats, and price.
Popular cars are visually marked.
Actions appear on hover (desktop) or are visible from the start (mobile) to keep things clean but accessible.
Designed for all screens — and for attention
From homepage to cards to booking flow — each element was designed to adapt across breakpoints and support microinteractions.
The result: a consistent experience that feels natural both on desktop and mobile.
What I learned
And what I'll definetely change next time.
This project reminded me how much structure shapes perception.
I didn’t redesign the brand, rewrite the content, or add new features — but just by cleaning layout logic and rethinking how components behave, the product felt more confident. And more human.
Even without access to analytics or user interviews, small design decisions added up: clearer form logic, cleaner cards, responsive behaviors that don't distract. It became easier to trust the interface — not because of gradients or microcopy, but because everything was where it should be.
That said — I wouldn’t do it the same way again.
I’d test more assumptions: see how people move through the flow, how fast they book, where they hesitate. I’d validate if visual clarity actually helped reduce friction or just felt better to me as a designer.
Visual trust is not a style — it’s a decision
Also, the cards could be more flexible. In hindsight, I’d make them easier to scale with things like promos, loyalty offers, or upsells. I focused on clarity — but didn’t test complexity.
Still, for a 2-day self-initiated project with no brief and no metrics, it did what I needed:
It challenged my assumptions.
And it made me rethink how much value lives in simple structure.
#context —
#reflections —