Back to work

CeraVe

CeraVe's site was redesigned and still broke in the same place. I showed the problem was structural, rebuilt the information architecture, and made the helpful content findable.

The site changed while I was studying it. So I tested each version.

V1

Original site

no longer live

Same problems, first proof

Content inventory · Tree test (round 1)

V2

Interim redesign

no longer live

New paint, same failure

Heuristic eval · Cognitive walkthrough · Usability test

▪

Proposed sitemap

my redesign

The structural fix

Tree test (round 2) · validated

The same problems survived a full redesign. That told me a new look wouldn't fix it; the structure had to change.

Solo

4 months

Figma · Proven by Users · Google Sheets

IA redesign · UX Research · Content Strategy

Ingredient info found

0%70%

of testers found it after the redesign

Issues found

52

usability problems across navigation, labels, and product pages

Tasks cleared

6/8

reached 70%+ success in re-testing

~3 min read· 6 sections
01 · Snapshot

I rebuilt the site's structure so browsing, learning, and deciding each have a clear path.

Challenge

CeraVe had all the right content, but people couldn't find it. In testing, 9 in 10 missed the cleanser quiz and nobody found the ingredient information.

Solution

I made three changes: one quiz hub at the top level, a structure you can predict with four ways to browse, and a product page you can scan and compare from.

My role

Solo project over four months. I did the research, ran two rounds of tree testing, and designed the new structure.

Redesigned CeraVe Daily Moisturizing Lotion product page.

The redesigned product page

02 · Problem

The catalog had outgrown the site.

90%

of testers couldn't find the cleanser quiz. None found the ingredient information.

01Categories that led somewhere unexpected.
02Quizzes and ingredient guides hidden right when people needed them.
03Product pages too dense to scan or compare.
04The same thing called different names in different places.
03 · Research

I wanted to find exactly where the structure broke, then check that my fix held.

The six methods

Five methods to find the problems, one to test the fix. Tap a method to see what I found.

Original site · V1 · no longer live

I mapped every page, navigation entry, and decision-support tool, capturing labels, locations, and overlaps.
  • Quizzes were duplicated, and one path led to the wrong page.
  • Ingredient information was buried inside the blog.
  • One quiz had two different names; sections looked inconsistent with each other.
  • Bestsellers couldn't be filtered by product type.

Original site · V1 · no longer live

I ran tree-testing tasks on the live sitemap to measure success, directness, and time, with no visual or content cues.
  • 90% of users failed to locate the Facial Cleanser quiz.
  • 80% reached the skincare solution quiz, but only through indirect paths.
  • 0% successfully found ingredient information.
Proven by Users tree-test results for round 1, showing task-by-task success and failure rates.
Round 1 results (Proven by Users): task-by-task success rates on the V1 sitemap.

Later redesign · V2 · no longer live

I scored the desktop site against Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics, rating each issue for severity and frequency.
  • Logged 52 usability issues across navigation, content structure, and product pages.
  • Consistency and standards was the worst category: 17 violations.
  • Quizzes, filters, and ingredient content scored lowest on visibility and recognition.

Later redesign · V2 · no longer live

I walked through three core tasks step-by-step, applying Lewis & Rieman's four questions at each action and rating every breakdown for severity.
  • "Buy Online" implied checkout on CeraVe but redirected to outside retailers (severity 3).
  • The Skincare Solution Finder quiz was buried on the homepage, easy to scroll past (severity 3).
  • Quiz results overwhelmed users with too many recommended products (severity 3).

Later redesign · V2 · no longer live

I ran moderated remote sessions with five participants: think-aloud, three core tasks, and ASQ plus SUS ratings.
  • Participants found specific products easily through search and the nav bar.
  • 4 of 5 abandoned the skincare quiz; they expected to filter by concern.
  • 3 of 5 never found the comparison tool; the Compare button was too low-visibility.
  • The site scored 54.5 on the SUS, well below the 68 benchmark.

Redesigned sitemap · validation

I re-ran the original tree-testing tasks on the proposed sitemap with 10 testers, to check whether the new structure actually resolved the breakdowns the first round exposed.
  • Ingredient information: 0% → 70% found it; the V1 total failure resolved.
  • Facial Cleanser quiz: ~10% → 40% found it; improved, still the weakest task.
  • The skincare quiz now succeeds directly (60% direct), not only through indirect paths.
  • 6 of 8 tasks cleared 70% success; baby-care and sensitive-skin were near-perfect.
  • Directness is the remaining gap: several tasks land correctly but by longer routes.
  • Three already-strong tasks slipped ~10 pts each. That's label competition, not a structural break. A tightening pass fixes it.
Bar chart of round 2 tree-test success rates by task on the proposed sitemap.
Round 2 success by task (Maze, n=10), consolidated from the per-task reports.
Key findings
01

A redesign didn't fix it

The same failures showed up on both the original site and its redesign. New visuals, same structure, same result.

02

People shop by concern, not product

4 of 5 testers gave up on the quiz because they wanted to filter by their skin problem first. The site was organized around products.

03

Search hid the problem

People found products they already knew by name. Anyone still deciding got lost, which is exactly who the quizzes were for.

04 · Design

What I changed, and why.

Most of the work is in the new sitemap. Ingredients and quizzes get their own sections, and duplicates are gone.

Proposed sitemap for CeraVe: Home branching into What's new, Bestsellers, Skincare, Baby, Haircare, Skincare tips, Ingredient glossary, Why CeraVe, and Find your perfect skincare routine, with new (N) and to-be-removed (R) markers.
The new sitemap. Green is top level, yellow is second level, pink is pages. N means new, R means removed. Click to zoom.
Decision · 01

Merged the quizzes into one hub

Insight

There were five separate quizzes, all hard to find. You had to know what was wrong before you could get help.

Decision

Combine them into one hub at the top level, named for what people want: “Find your perfect skincare routine.”

Outcome

The help is now where people look first.

Proposed sitemap detail: the Find your perfect skincare routine hub with five quizzes (acne, facial cleanser, facial moisturizer, body moisturizer, skincare routine), each marked R for removal as standalone pages.

The five scattered quizzes collapse into one hub.
R marks pages removed as standalone destinations; N marks newly added sections. Click to zoom.

Decision · 02

Made the structure predictable

Insight

With duplicate sections and mixed labels, people couldn't guess where a product would be.

Decision

Remove the overlaps. Let people browse skincare four ways: product type, concern, skin type, or ingredient. Give Baby its own section.

Outcome

People can guess where things are and switch how they browse without getting lost.

Proposed sitemap detail: Skincare split into four parallel facets (by product type, by concern, by skin type, by key ingredient), each leading to product pages.Proposed sitemap detail: Baby as its own top-level section with Skincare and Haircare sub-branches, all newly added.

Skincare browses four parallel ways (product type, concern, skin type, key ingredient); Baby gets its own front door.
N marks newly added sections; R marks removed ones. Click either to zoom.

Decision · 03

Simplified the product page

Insight

Product pages were dense, and 3 of 5 testers never found the Compare button.

Decision

Open with what the product does, who it's for, and what's in it. Put comparison where people can see it.

Outcome

People can scan, compare, and decide without reading a wall of text.

BeforeThe original product page

Original CeraVe Daily Moisturizing Lotion product page, before redesign.

AfterThe redesign, change by change

05 · Impact

The fix held up in re-testing, with one gap left.

Before-and-after bar chart comparing round 1 (V1) and round 2 (proposed sitemap) task success rates across the same eight tasks.
The same eight tasks, tested on the original site and on my sitemap, 10 people each.

People now get to the right place, but some take the long way. That points to labels, not structure, so the next pass is about wording.

06 · Reflection

Nobody notices structure until it breaks.

Re-testing showed me that finding something and finding it quickly are different problems. The structure is fixed; the labels still need work.

What I learned

  • Good content doesn't help if people can't predict where it is.
  • Tree testing caught problems a visual review never would have.
  • Testing each version of a moving site is what made the case convincing.

What I'd do next

  • Rewrite the labels on the slow tasks, like the cleanser quiz, and test again.
  • Carry the structure over to mobile navigation and search.
  • Finish the comparison flow on the new product page.
↑