Reframing the Quick Fix
Reframing the Quick Fix
Reframing the Quick Fix
How I prevented a risky fix by reframing the problem and offering simpler alternatives
How I prevented a risky fix by reframing the problem and offering simpler alternatives
How I prevented a risky fix by reframing the problem and offering simpler alternatives
Learn more
Learn more
Project Summary
Project Summary
Timeline: Q2, 2025
Timeline: Q2, 2025
Overview
Overview
Project Type:
Project Type:
Feature Optimization and UX Strategy
Feature Optimization and UX Strategy
Platform:
navify Digital Pathology
navify Digital Pathology
Role:
Role:
UX Designer
UX Designer
Focus Areas:
Focus Areas:
UX Strategy, Storytelling, Stakeholder Management
UX Strategy, Storytelling, Stakeholder Management
During a redesign of navify Digital Pathology, I discovered that a legacy configuration feature had been rebuilt with reduced functionality and unclear placement.
A proposed “quick fix” risked introducing new UX issues, so I explored four alternatives—ultimately delivering a simpler, more intuitive solution that aligned with project constraints.
During a redesign of navify Digital Pathology, I discovered that a legacy configuration feature had been rebuilt with reduced functionality and unclear placement.
A proposed “quick fix” risked introducing new UX issues, so I explored four alternatives—ultimately delivering a simpler, more intuitive solution that aligned with project constraints.
🔑 Key Challenges
🔑 Key Challenges
A key configuration feature was rebuilt with missing functionality—and no one noticed until mid-redesign.
In the legacy product, users could control which sidebar panels were visible and save those preferences globally across all cases.
Early design plans for the redesign preserved this functionality—but after a scope reduction, only case-specific settings remained.
Unfortunately, the UI was never revisited to reflect that change. The feature remained under a gear icon in the viewer header, disconnected from the sidebar panels it controlled. This introduced:
A spatial mismatch between control and function
No UI feedback about what level (case vs. global) the setting affected
A risk of user confusion or unintended configuration
The behavior had changed—but the interface hadn’t caught up.
A key configuration feature was rebuilt with missing functionality—and no one noticed until mid-redesign.
In the legacy product, users could control which sidebar panels were visible and save those preferences globally across all cases.
Early design plans for the redesign preserved this functionality—but after a scope reduction, only case-specific settings remained.
Unfortunately, the UI was never revisited to reflect that change. The feature remained under a gear icon in the viewer header, disconnected from the sidebar panels it controlled. This introduced:
A spatial mismatch between control and function
No UI feedback about what level (case vs. global) the setting affected
A risk of user confusion or unintended configuration
The behavior had changed—but the interface hadn’t caught up.
Approach
Approach
Rather than pushing back on the proposed fix in isolation, I focused on making the problem—and the risk—visible to the team. I framed the UX consequences of silently introducing global behavior: users would have no way of knowing that changes applied beyond the current case, and the spatial disconnect between the control and its impact would only deepen that confusion.
To move the conversation forward, I mapped out a clear progression of possible design paths—each one showing a different tradeoff between clarity, risk, and effort. This wasn’t about finding the “right” solution immediately, but about helping the team see the full shape of the problem and consider what a thoughtful resolution could look like.
First, I outlined the current proposal—the quick fix—as a baseline. I didn’t dismiss it outright, but I called out where it introduced risk: it would overwrite local settings, confuse users about what was being configured, and add backend complexity while pretending to be simple.
Then, I shared what I saw as the ideal version of this feature. This wasn’t a scope recommendation—it was a signal. If we truly wanted to reintroduce global functionality, this is what a clear and well-designed solution would require: UI feedback, tooltips, default states, and scoped controls. It framed the delta between “possible” and “responsible.”
From there, I offered a leaner MVP version—one that kept most of the clarity from the ideal design, but trimmed features like reset or heavy UI patterns. This made space to consider a scoped reintroduction of global presets without pretending the quick fix was safe.
Finally, I offered a fourth option: a minimal UX patch. No backend changes, no added features—just a better mapping of the existing control to reduce ambiguity. It was the simplest possible change with real UX value.
Each of these was designed to reveal—not just resolve. By showing the team what better could look like, even under constraint, we were able to align on what mattered and make space for a safer, smarter fix.
Rather than pushing back on the proposed fix in isolation, I focused on making the problem—and the risk—visible to the team. I framed the UX consequences of silently introducing global behavior: users would have no way of knowing that changes applied beyond the current case, and the spatial disconnect between the control and its impact would only deepen that confusion.
To move the conversation forward, I mapped out a clear progression of possible design paths—each one showing a different tradeoff between clarity, risk, and effort. This wasn’t about finding the “right” solution immediately, but about helping the team see the full shape of the problem and consider what a thoughtful resolution could look like.
First, I outlined the current proposal—the quick fix—as a baseline. I didn’t dismiss it outright, but I called out where it introduced risk: it would overwrite local settings, confuse users about what was being configured, and add backend complexity while pretending to be simple.
Then, I shared what I saw as the ideal version of this feature. This wasn’t a scope recommendation—it was a signal. If we truly wanted to reintroduce global functionality, this is what a clear and well-designed solution would require: UI feedback, tooltips, default states, and scoped controls. It framed the delta between “possible” and “responsible.”
From there, I offered a leaner MVP version—one that kept most of the clarity from the ideal design, but trimmed features like reset or heavy UI patterns. This made space to consider a scoped reintroduction of global presets without pretending the quick fix was safe.
Finally, I offered a fourth option: a minimal UX patch. No backend changes, no added features—just a better mapping of the existing control to reduce ambiguity. It was the simplest possible change with real UX value.
Each of these was designed to reveal—not just resolve. By showing the team what better could look like, even under constraint, we were able to align on what mattered and make space for a safer, smarter fix.
Final Solution and Impact
Final Solution and Impact
We chose the fourth option: a minimal UX patch that kept case-level behavior but relocated the control.
This solved the issue without backend changes or added scope. As I walked the team through the risks of the proposed quick fix, there was initial tension—but presenting clear, thoughtful alternatives helped us realign.
The final solution was met with relief. It solved the problem cleanly, avoided rework, and left the door open for future improvements.
The quick fix looked simple, but wasn’t. The final fix was simpler and safer—because it came from understanding, not instinct.
We chose the fourth option: a minimal UX patch that kept case-level behavior but relocated the control.
This solved the issue without backend changes or added scope. As I walked the team through the risks of the proposed quick fix, there was initial tension—but presenting clear, thoughtful alternatives helped us realign.
The final solution was met with relief. It solved the problem cleanly, avoided rework, and left the door open for future improvements.
The quick fix looked simple, but wasn’t. The final fix was simpler and safer—because it came from understanding, not instinct.
Reflection
Reflection
This case reminded me that UX design isn’t just about solving problems—it’s about helping teams see them clearly.
Instead of defaulting to a flawed fix, I slowed the process just enough to reframe the issue. What mattered wasn’t the design—it was guiding the conversation.
We avoided a poor fix, aligned around what mattered, and delivered something better within the same timeline.
That’s the kind of UX I want to keep doing.
This case reminded me that UX design isn’t just about solving problems—it’s about helping teams see them clearly.
Instead of defaulting to a flawed fix, I slowed the process just enough to reframe the issue. What mattered wasn’t the design—it was guiding the conversation.
We avoided a poor fix, aligned around what mattered, and delivered something better within the same timeline.
