#Product Design #UX #UI #Visual Design
Let's Role
Designing Complex Workflows for AI-Enhanced Talent Matching
The Problem
AI talent-matching platform had fragmented brand (multiple icons, inconsistent fonts, rainbow palette) and zero design system. Budget limited brand investment.
The Decision
Prioritized UX consistency over brand perfection — chose battles strategically, delivered cohesive experience within constraints.
The Impact
"What for me was minimum for them was a blast!" — PM and client called final design "cohesive and alive" where it was previously generic chaos.
Context
Let's Role (LinkedIn-meets-Tinder for talent matching) had fundamental design debt: fonts changed between screens, brand showed pig mascot + map locator competing for attention, no component library. Team wanted to scale but couldn't move fast.
The real conflict
Not just "lacks design system." Deeper issue: stakeholders wanted brand "personality" but wouldn't invest in proper branding work. MVP mindset meant delivering maximum impact with minimum brand authority.
The Brand-led decision
Accepted I couldn't fix brand architecture (lost battles: locator in logo, colored skill dots). Instead, focused where I had control: consolidated rainbow → blue system, standardized typography, built component library.
The Result
PM feedback: "The design is amazing! It looks so cohesive and alive!" Team velocity increased — design system eliminated ambiguity. '3D' pig illustration became "show stealer."
BEFORE:
The Frankenstein Brand Problem
← Swipe to see chaos →
Every screen felt like different product. Fonts jumped randomly. Brand had TWO competing symbols. Color palette was rainbow without strategic reason.
"When you try to show multiple symbols, you end up communicating nothing."
Why this wasn't just "messy UI"
Stakeholders thought variety = "dynamic personality." Reality: Brand looked amateurish exactly when competing against LinkedIn, Indeed.
The deeper problem
Client positioned as MVP, didn't want to invest in brand strategy.
My job: make it look professional without budget/authority to properly rebuild brand architecture.
PROCESS:
Choosing Battles You Can Win
The brand identity I inherited:
-
Personality attempting: "dynamic, accessible, playful"
-
Reality achieving: "confused, inconsistent, trying too hard"
Trade-offs I had to navigate
⚠️ BATTLE LOST #1: Brand architecture
Tried: Remove map locator from logo wordmark
Decision: Keep it (feature of product)
Compromise: Rounded the locator icon to better match "O" shape — reduced Frankenstein effect 20%
Learning: When you can't win, minimize damage
⚠️ BATTLE LOST #2: Colored skill dots
Argument: "Is color-coding skills useful for employers, or just colored balls cluttering our small screens?"
Decision: Keep them
Acceptance: Fine, but made them smaller, more organized, less chaotic
✅ BATTLE WON: Color system
From: Rainbow palette (no strategic reason)
To: Blue tones and shades (sober, professional)
Why: Reduced visual noise, felt more trustworthy for professional context
✅ BATTLE WON: Typography hierarchy
From: Fonts randomly changing (caps/lowercase, italic/normal)
To: Consistent hierarchy tied to information architecture
Why: Users could finally scan interface predictably
Design chaos
Design library
"I think this design could be amazing for both! First thing: the design is amazing! It looks so cohesive and alive! Next thing: I love the names you came up with for those plans. They are perfection!"
— Product Manager, during design review
SOLUTION:
System Over Perfection
Consolidated Visual System
Color: Rainbow → Blue-based
Typography: Standardized
Components: Figma library
Dual-sided UX
Talent: Simplified flows
Employer: Management tools
Both: Consistent language
End-to-end Flows
Onboarding, swipe matching, profile creation, subscriptions, boost features
Brand-Led decisions embedded
Even with limited brand authority, every component choice reinforced "professional yet accessible":
-
Blue palette = trust + technology (vs rainbow = confusion)
-
Rounded corners = approachable (vs sharp = corporate cold)
-
3D pig illustration = personality without clutter
-
Subscription page = sales-thinking (vs generic settings)
Design system, onboarding, swipe flow, dashboards, and monetization features
IMPACT:
When "Minimum" Becomes "Blast"
Faster Handoff
Library eliminated ambiguity
Team Velocity
Self-service components
Client Impact
"Show stealer"
Workflow improvements
Before design system
Dev team asked constant clarification questions. Each feature required custom decisions. Handoff involved interpretation and back-and-forth.
After design system
Documented component library eliminated ambiguity. Developers had self-service access to specs. Handoff became: "use component X from library." Team moved from "design bottleneck" to "design enables velocity."
Project Reflection
Challenge navigated
Delivering brand consistency within budget and political constraints where ideal solutions weren't viable. Stakeholders wanted brand personality but wouldn't invest in proper branding work. Classic startup tension: "make it professional but don't spend time on it."
Design approach validated
-
Strategic compromise over perfectionism
-
Fixed what was controllable: color system, typography hierarchy, component library
-
Minimized damage where authority was limited: logo architecture, feature clutter
-
Chose battles that would compound into system-level improvement
Complexity handled
-
Brand architecture compromised → worked around it with systematic visual decisions
-
Budget limited → prioritized high-impact, low-effort wins
-
Stakeholders resistant → found middle ground that shipped
-
MVP constraints → delivered system that scales beyond MVP
Outcome achieved
Design system that scaled the product despite brand architecture limitations. Team moved from "design bottleneck" to "design enables velocity." Client feedback shifted from "generic" to "cohesive and alive." Component library became foundation for future features.
Brand-Led philosophy applied here
Even when you can't control brand architecture, you can control how brand feels through systematic visual decisions. Blue palette communicated trust. Rounded corners maintained approachability. 3D personality elements added memorability without clutter. Consistent hierarchy made interface scannable. These choices compounded into "professional yet accessible" even when logo itself remained Frankenstein.
Key learning
In constraint-heavy environments, the designer who identifies winnable battles and delivers within reality becomes trusted partner. Perfect is enemy of shipped. Senior design isn't having your way — it's knowing which battles matter, accepting losses strategically, and winning the war through compounding small victories.
Want to explore the prototypes?
Schedule a 15-min walkthrough where I'll show you:
-
Design decisions behind flows
-
Brand-Led UX in action
-
Interactive components