You weren’t meant to see this…

This page is still a work in progress. We’ve only got a few case studies to show right now, because we’d rather show a few that matter than ten that don’t.

View cases

Get in touch

Portrait of Lars Broekzitter, data-driven UX designer and CRO specialist.

UX Research

UX / Product Design

CRO

Users could read everything about the product but still had no idea what it was.

Cierpa Kaizen’s product page described every feature of their B2B process improvement software in detail, but visitors couldn’t answer the most basic question: what am I actually buying? I led the UX research, redesign strategy, and validation across two rounds of preference testing

I did this as a freelance job, I led the UX research, design, validation process, dev hand-off and communication with the client.

Why it mattered

The page was generating roughly one demo request per month. For a B2B SaaS product where every demo is a potential enterprise contract, that is the difference between a page that exists and a page that works.

This project showed how information can fail when it only talks about what a product does instead of what it does for you. Features don’t sell. Outcomes do. But only when people can actually see what they’re getting.

We set out to increase demo request CTR. What we actually did was make the product visible by making the information that was already there work for the people reading it.

The problem

People didn’t understand the product because we never really showed it.

Cierpa Kaizen is software that teams use every day, but the product page read like a wall of jargon.

Ten overlapping text blocks with no clear order, a CTA buried below the fold, and zero product visuals anywhere users could actually find them.

We saw that the few users who scrolled all the way down the page clicked on a YouTube demo link at disproportionately high rates. Users really wanted to see what they were paying for.

We made the product visible

First, we restructured the page based on research. We merged the hero sections, moved the CTA above the fold, and reduced ten confusing text blocks down to four grouped blocks.

Scroll depth at the bottom of the USPs jumped +21.2%.

But shortening sections alone wasn’t enough. People could navigate the page now, but they still weren’t converting at the rate the product deserved. So we fixed the issue that users had never seen the actual software.

We built an entirely new mobile app section with phone and desktop mockups, pulled the video CTA from the bottom of the page up to the hero, and rewrote every section to lead with outcomes instead of features.

We validated through two rounds of Lyssna preference testing (the first round gave us direction, the second reached statistical significance), and iterated on participant feedback between rounds.

Impact

On top of the +21.2% scroll depth improvement we saw: +817% relative uplift in overall demo CTR (2.27% to 20.83%), +991% on mobile alone.

Demo requests went from roughly 1 per month to 4 per month. Surprisingly, clicks on that previously buried YouTube demo link dropped to near zero. The demand for product visuals was satisfied earlier.

We convinced more users that they wanted a demo. We helped them understand what they were requesting the demo for.

The redesign answered the question users had been asking with their clicks all along: “What am I actually buying?”

This is how we created an uplift of 817% in CTR by making the product visible and reframing the value.

Read full case study

UX / Product Design

CRO

Psychology

Shipping costs suck, but what if they didn’t?

Our users were ready to buy, the add-to-cart ratio showed this. But they dropped off when they hit the shipping cost. We couldn’t remove the €4.95 fee, our margins were too tight for that.

So the question became:
If we can’t change the price, can we change how it feels?

For this project I led the strategy, research, design, and testing. The goal was to reframe the perception of shipping without touching the cost.

Why it mattered

We couldn’t remove the shipping fee, but it was costing customers. People would get all the way to the cart, see that €4.95, and decide not to go through with it.

It wasn’t really about the amount, prices were still lower than the competition. But it was the way it showed up like an unexpected extra.

What I learned from this project is that not all problems show up in the data. You only notice them when you start asking why people leave and don’t come back.

The problem

Shipping costs were mentioned in 31% of post-purchase surveys and customer service complaints. They made users feel like they were paying extra for nothing, a last-minute fine.

But the users who complained were the ones who completed the purchase. The bigger issue were the users who left without saying a word.

We dug into session recordings, complaint data, drop-off analytics and compared those to the post-purchase survey to piece together the moment of friction.

It wasn’t dramatic, just a small line in the order summary that quietly leaked conversions.

Designing for Perception, Not Price

We couldn’t remove the shipping fee, but we could reframe it.
Over several iterations, we repositioned value around the shipping costs.

– Moved discount information directly above the shipping line to rebalance perceived value.
– Rewrote “Shipping Costs” to a more neutral “Shipping”
– Added trust cues like “With Track & Trace”
– Introduced outcome-based copy: “Carefully packed and quickly shipped”
– Used color, spacing, and labels to highlight savings more clearly

We A/B tested each iteration to validate our hypotheses.

The goal wasn’t to hide the fee, it was to make it feel like part of the service, and not like that last-minute penalty it felt like before.

Impact

The biggest win? Silence.
Complaints about shipping dropped by 36% in the post-purchase survey, the clearest sign that friction was fading and trust was returning.

The data backed it up:
+1.62% (91% Bayesian) transactions from discount repositioning.
+7.04% (100% Bayesian) transaction with “With Track & Trace.”
+1.85% (84% Bayesian) transactions with “Carefully packed & quickly shipped.

This is how we shipped (pun intended) results under real constraints.

Control vs. variant layout comparison showing how a data-driven UX designer repositioned shipping costs and discounts on the cart page.

Side-by-side comparison of control and variant in a 2-column product detail page — redesigned by a data-driven UX designer to improve housebrand visibility.

UX / Product Design

CRO

We had a killer deal, our users didn’t see it…

Our housebrand cartridges were cheaper than the big-name stuff—better margins for us, better prices for customers. But people kept buying the expensive option anyway.

I led the UX strategy and design across two rounds of testing, using clickmaps, user interviews, and A/B experiments to figure out why.

Why it mattered

We knew our housebrand products delivered great value, but having a good deal isn’t enough. People choose what feels safe over what is smart, especially when they’re unsure.

This project showed how easily uncertainty can override logic when people are in doubt. Familiarity wins. Every time. But the right design can shift that behavior without changing anything about the offer.

We set out to boost housebrand conversions. What we actually did was help people make a more informed choice. Not by pushing it more, but by showing more value.

We helped users choose a product with the same quality, but for a better price per ml. At the same time, we boosted the margins for the company.

Sometimes the best outcome isn’t more buyers. It’s more confident ones.

The problem

There were actually two problems working against us.

First, users weren’t even seeing the switch. They’d land on the page, see the default OEM option, and buy it immediately. The housebrand alternative might as well have been invisible.

Second, even when users did notice the switch, it didn’t give them a reason to flip it. The interface showed the housebrand option, but it never highlighted what mattered: the cheaper price-per-ml.

So housebrand cartridges already felt like a risk, they weren’t the name you knew. And when the sticker price looked higher without an obvious reason why, people defaulted to the OEM option because it felt safer.

The better deal was there, in price-per-ml, but it was hidden in plain sight. And invisible value doesn’t change behavior.

We made value unmissable

First, we repositioned the product switch using the Gutenberg diagram, moved it where eyes actually land.

Switch interactions jumped +6.01%.

But conversions barely moved.
People saw the option. They just didn’t see the point in switching.

So we fixed the real issue: Clarity.
We spotlighted the ‘price-per-print’ and ‘price-per-ml’ inside the product switch, giving people hard proof they were getting more for less.

Impact

The moment users understood the deal, they took it.

On top of the +6.01% uplift in switch use we saw:
+45.16% uplift in housebrand transactions
+3.78% uplift in add-to-cart rate

We didn’t really convince ‘more’ users to buy products, but users made a more conscious choice which product they bought.

Our design didn’t just get attention, it earned trust.

This is how we turned hidden value into a 45% boost in housebrand transactions.

Accessibility

CRO

No one cares about accessibility… Until you prove it works

We knew the site had accessibility issues: missing focus states, poor contrast, barely any screen reader support.

With a 20+ year-old codebase, nothing is simple. But to be honest, code wasn’t the hardest part, mindset was.

So I did what I always do when something’s hard to sell: I turned accessibility into a business case.

I led the project from the start to the end. Analyzed user data, built buy-in across teams, and delivered WCAG-compliant improvements, without hurting conversions.

Why it mattered

Our audience skews older. Most of our users are over 50, and when I dug into the age data across the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and France, it became obvious: This wasn’t an edge case, it affected a massive part of our user base.

These were real, paying customers. And we were making life harder for them.

If someone can’t see a button, read a text clearly, tab through with a keyboard, or tell which element is selected, you lose them. Simple as that.

But this wasn’t only about doing right by users. It was also a legal risk, and the clock was ticking.

The European Accessibility Act would be implemented from June 28, 2025. That wasn’t a nice-to-have milestone. That was hard deadline.

We had to move, but not just for compliance, but because inaccessible design also means lost revenue every day.

The problem

We weren’t starting from scratch.

Our frontend has been evolving for over two decades,new code gets written properly, but chunks of the site haven’t been touched in years. Some of it’s so brittle that touching it risks breaking unrelated components.

But the deeper problem was organizational inertia. Accessibility had been a nice-to-have or was even seen as a burden.

Management worried about a return on investment and “taking accessibility too far.” One common quote: “blind users don’t use a printer”

Everyone assumed users were doing fine, but the ones who struggled often never made it far enough to complain.

From moral choice to metric

We needed proof to convince stakeholders of the monetary value of accessibility.

So I started small: a contrast test on the product detail page. We show a switch between original brand cartridges and our cheaper-per-ml housebrand option. The green text failed contrast checks, so we changed it to black.

That’s it. Just a color change. And we could test this ourselves without front-end developers, which made it dirt cheap.

Results:
Netherlands: +2.69% conversion (Bayesian: 69%)
Belgium: +9.74% conversion (Bayesian: 95%)

Yes, we tested button colors

That small win created momentum. If a contrast fix could lift conversions, what would happen if we tackled our primary CTA?

Our ‘Add to Cart’ button was failing contrast checks too.

We tested a darker version of our green, close enough to the original to keep brand consistency. Bolder options like pink, black, yellow, or red are still on the table, but this was the cleanest starting point.

Hypothesis:
Improving the CTA’s color contrast to meet WCAG guidelines will make the button more accessible and easier to perceive. As a result, the add-to-cart rate and conversion rate will remain stable or improve.

Impact

Netherlands: +0,43% uplift (Bayesian: 43%)
Belgium: +3,16% uplift (Bayesian 86%)
Germany: +7.16% uplift (Bayesian: 96%)
France: -7.90% (Bayesian: 3%) Likely tied to a younger user base.

Overall: Light average uplift across all markets.
Mobile: Strong performance across the board, backing our theory that contrast matters more on small screens with changing lighting.

We had enough proof. We rolled out the new accessible green as standard across the site as the experiment proved our hypothesis.

More users can now use our webshop just like people without a (permanent or temporary) impairment can.

Now what?

We’ve implemented visible focus states, improved text contrast across nearly the entire site, and made sure our primary CTA meets WCAG 2.1 AA contrast requirements. Link accessibility for screen readers is underway.

More importantly, the conversation inside the company has shifted.

Developers now see accessibility as an optimization, not a blocker. Management gets that compliance and conversion can go hand in hand.

And we’ve shown others that accessibility improvements can be measured and experimented with, just like anything else.

We didn’t just fix a button color.
We changed how the company sees accessibility: from a legal burden to a competitive advantage.

What happened next?

After the experiment, I wrote about it on LinkedIn.
It started a small riot.

Not everyone agreed that testing button colors was worth the time, accessibility or not. But the controversy created traction. The post went viral and became an example of how to safely implement WCAG-compliant changes without tanking your metrics.

That led to interviews, an invitation to speak at a Shopping Awards meeting for Expert Groups, and eventually a quote in one of Thuiswinkel.org Shopping Tomorrow’s bluepapers.

We didn’t just improve our site. We set a new standard for how to roll out accessibility changes. Safely, measurably, and without fear.

Side-by-side comparison of control and variant in an ab-test for improvement in accessibility by a data-driven UX designer.

UX flowchart illustrating how a data-driven UX designer redesigned the forgot password experience.

UX / Product Design

User Flow Design

Users hadn’t forgotten their goals, our flow had.

A user forgets their password. It happens. They reset it and expect to pick up where they left off. Instead, they landed somewhere that made no sense.

I led the analysis and redesign of PrintAbout’s password reset flow to cut the friction and restore momentum for users trying to finish what they started.

Why it mattered

Password resets are easy to overlook. They’re invisible when they work. But when they don’t, they break trust, momentum, and sometimes the entire experience.

This project was about listening to users, recognizing the friction we’d normalized, and rebuilding trust with thoughtful defaults.

It taught me to stop asking “Does it function?” and start asking “Does it respect what the user is trying to do?”

The problem

PrintAbout has an average retention period of 8 months between purchases, we don’t pretent to be that important to users that they will remember their account’s password. So many will use the password reset function.

This password reset flow was technically functional, but ‘to function’ isn’t the same as ‘to work.’
Users weren’t just resetting their password, they were trying to reach their initial goal, and the password reset just happened to be on the way.

We ran five user tests and watched the same thing happen every time: No matter if they started at the account login or in the checkout login, they all got dropped on the shopping cart page.

Still logged out. Disoriented. And further from their goal.

It wasn’t their fault. It was ours.

Rebuilding with user intent

There are two distinct entry points, and two very different intentions:

Checkout users had one clear goal: Place an order.
Dropping them back at the shopping cart forced them to repeat steps they’d already taken. It felt like starting over. Worse, it felt like being punished for forgetting their password.
Now, they’re returned directly to the shipping step, already logged in, ready to continue their purchase.

Account users weren’t immediately trying to buy, they needed invoices, order histories, or address updates.
The old flow dropped them in the wrong place entirely, the shopping cart…
Now, they land in their account dashboard, logged in and closer to their goal.

By restoring context and removing unnecessary steps, we turned a frustrating detour into a seamless journey.

Now, users move forward. Not back.

Impact

This change didn’t generate a massive revenue spike, because most users resetting their password were already motivated enough to finish their task.

But that wasn’t the point.

Sure, they could still complete the task before.
And yes, most would’ve come back eventually.
But that frustration? It sticks, to the brand, the memory, the next visit.

This is how we turned a technical flow into a human flow.

Let’s Create Something Together!

Whether you’re looking for a data-driven UX designer for your team, or just exploring new ideas, I’d love to hear from you. I always welcome meaningful conversations, portfolio feedback, or opportunities to solve real user problems together. Let’s connect and see where it leads.

Request sent successfully

There has been an error while submitting the form. Please verify your input.