As a lead UI/UX designer, I specialise in crafting intuitive, user-focused digital experiences. During the Google UX Foundation course, I chose to tackle a challenge I personally encountered while booking a flight on Ryanair’s website. This case study highlights the process I followed to identify and resolve usability issues on Ryanair’s platforms, drawing on competitive analysis to propose solutions that enhance the overall user experience.
👩🏻 : UX/UI Designer
⏰: 3 weeks | Individual Project
🧰: Figma, FigJam
📝: Heuristic Evaluation, Competitive Analysis, User Testing
Overview
This case study focuses on improving the user experience of the Ryanair website and mobile application. As a lead UI/UX designer, I identified significant usability issues while personally booking a flight, which led me to explore these platforms in depth. Through comprehensive research and analysis, including competitive comparisons, I aimed to address the core pain points users face and propose enhancements that align with best practices in user experience design.
Problem Statement
Ryanair’s website and mobile application, while functional, suffer from several usability challenges that hinder the booking process and overall user satisfaction. Key issues include a cluttered interface, aggressive upselling tactics, and a lack of intuitive navigation, all of which contribute to user frustration. The goal of this case study is to identify these pain points, assess their impact on the user experience, and propose targeted design solutions that improve ease of use, streamline the booking process, and ultimately enhance customer satisfaction.
Design Process
Heuristic Analysis
To begin, I conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Ryanair’s flight search flow on both mobile and desktop platforms. This involved a detailed assessment of the existing features, user interface, and potential pain points in the user journey. This initial phase was crucial to form an unbiased understanding of the user experience, ensuring that my observations and conclusions were grounded in objective analysis before proceeding with further research. By systematically identifying key areas for improvement, I aimed to uncover specific usability issues and inform the direction of subsequent user testing and analysis.
Ghost Filters: The filter options only come to life when users engage the “browse destinations” feature with “anywhere” as the chosen destination. This selective activation can leave users scratching their heads, wondering why these helpful tools vanish during a standard search.
Lack of Contextual Relevance: The “explore destinations” pop-up seems to have a mind of its own, jumping out every time a user hovers over the “Destination” field. This persistent suggestion quickly becomes more of a pesky ghost than a helpful guide, cluttering the interface and irritating users.
Inactive and Misleading Filters: The current interface displays destination options, including Belgium, Israel, Turkey etc., that are not accessible from the airport, London Stansted. These destinations appear in an inactive state, yet they still occupy space in the selection list. The inclusion of these unreachable destinations adds unnecessary visual clutter, can confuse users and does not provide value to the user experience. For an effective UX, only relevant, accessible destinations should be displayed to prevent cognitive overload and streamline the decision-making process.
Overemphasis on Irrelevant Information: The “Regions” and “Popular Attractions” sections, prominently highlighted at the top, may not always be pertinent to users who have a specific destination in mind. These sections could potentially be seen as distracting or even irrelevant, especially when users are searching for particular flights rather than exploring new destinations. The design choice to emphasise these sections without considering user intent can detract from a seamless experience.
Redundancy Issue: The phrase “at the time of travel” is repeated multiple times across the passenger categories, which not only clutters the interface but also adds unnecessary cognitive load for users. This repetitive information could easily be communicated once at the top of the selection box, where it can serve as a general guideline for all categories. his would simplify the design, reduce visual clutter, and make the interface more user-friendly, allowing users to focus on making their selections without being distracted by repetitive information.
Lack of Pricing Information During Date Selection: Users typically prefer to see fare information upfront to make informed decisions about their travel plans. Unlike many other flight search engines that display pricing directly on the calendar, Ryanair’s interface lacks this feature. Users are required to select dates without any indication of the associated costs, which can lead to frustration and unnecessary back-and-forth between date selection and pricing review. This gap in information increases the cognitive load on users, as they cannot easily compare prices for different travel dates within the same interface.
Mobile Screens
Promotional Banners: The top section is occupied by promotional banners (e.g., “Customer Verification” and “Add Fast Track”) which can distract users from the primary task of booking a flight.
Verification Reminder: A persistent reminder about third-party booking verification appears, which can be useful but might clutter the interface if not contextually relevant to the user at the moment.
Primary Call to Action (CTA): The “Book a flight” button is prominently placed, which is good for directing users to the main task but is somewhat overshadowed by the surrounding elements.
Empty Space Below CTA: There is an empty or underutilised space below the main booking CTA, which could be used more effectively to enhance the user experience or provide additional useful options.
Verification Badge: The “Verified by Ryanair” badge is present, possibly to reassure users about the security and authenticity of their booking, but its purpose might not be immediately clear to all users.
Secondary CTA — ‘Let’s go’: The “Let’s go” button is positioned at the bottom, serving as the final action to initiate the search. The button color is muted, which could make it less noticeable, potentially affecting user engagement.
Date Selection Calendar (Left Side): The calendar interface is used for selecting travel dates. However, a notable issue is the absence of pricing information on the calendar itself. Users cannot see the fare associated with each date, which makes it difficult for them to make informed decisions about their travel dates. This could lead to a frustrating user experience, as users may have to go back and forth to find the most cost-effective option.
Price Total Display (Right Side): On the flight selection screen, there’s a “Total” section at the bottom that displays the total cost of the selected flights. In this screenshot, the total is shown as “0.00 EUR,” which is likely because no flights have been selected yet. This can be confusing for users, as they might expect the total to update dynamically as they select flights. Ensuring that the total updates in real time as selections are made would provide clarity and improve the overall booking experience.
These points highlight issues related to the visibility of pricing information and the need for real-time updates in the interface, both of which are crucial for enhancing user satisfaction and efficiency during the booking process.
Forced Seat Selection Fees: Several users expressed frustration with being charged extra for selecting a standard seat, which they felt should be included in the ticket price.
App Performance and Usability Issues: Users reported issues with the mobile app, including short timeouts, difficulty with boarding pass access, and problems with entering email codes that were not recognised. These problems led to a stressful experience when trying to check in or access flight information.
Inadequate Customer Support: There are multiple mentions of poor customer service, particularly long wait times on the phone and unresolved issues after contacting customer support.
Hidden or Unexpected Costs: The reviews highlight dissatisfaction with additional costs for baggage, seat selection, and other “extras,” which users felt were not made clear during the booking process. This led to feelings of being misled or taken advantage of.
Flight Delays and Re-routing Issues: Some users experienced significant delays and issues with re-routing, which were compounded by inadequate communication from Ryanair, leading to missed connections and frustration.
General App Disappointment: Overall, users found the app to be disappointing, with complaints about both functionality and user experience, indicating that the app does not meet their expectations for ease of use or reliability.
User Testing: Guerrilla Usability Test for Ryanair
Methodology:
For this test, I approached users who closely matched the profile of a typical Ryanair customer — budget-conscious traveler's, frequent flyers, and casual vacationers. I asked them to perform common tasks on the Ryanair app, such as searching for a flight, completing the booking process, and navigating through additional service options like baggage and seat selection. The objective was to observe any difficulties they encountered, particularly with the issues I had previously identified, and to gather immediate, candid feedback on their experience.
Key Findings:
Navigation and Usability:
Users noted that while the basic functions (like searching for flights) were straightforward, the frequent pop-ups for add-ons, such as insurance and priority boarding, were intrusive and caused frustration.
The abundance of promotional banners and upsell prompts disrupted user flow, making it difficult to focus on completing their primary tasks.
2. Booking Process:
Some users expressed confusion over the final cost of their booking, as the continuous addition of optional extras made it difficult to track the total amount.
Users felt overwhelmed by the number of add-ons and optional extras presented to them, often describing the experience as “annoying” and “distracting.”
3. Overall User Experience:
The overall user experience was rated as mediocre by most participants. While users appreciated the low prices offered by Ryanair, they felt that the app’s design and the aggressive sales tactics detracted from the overall experience.
Users mentioned that they would prefer a more streamlined process, with fewer interruptions and clearer pricing information. They also suggested that reducing the frequency of upsell prompts could significantly improve their experience with the app.
The guerrilla usability test reinforced the issues identified during the initial analysis, particularly regarding Ryanair’s aggressive upselling strategies and cluttered interface. Users expressed a clear desire for a more streamlined and less intrusive booking process, with transparent pricing and fewer interruptions. These findings highlight the need for Ryanair to reconsider its approach to upselling within the app, balancing revenue generation with user satisfaction to create a more positive overall experience.
Improvement Proposals & New Screens
Conclusion
Through thorough analysis and competitive benchmarking, I proposed targeted solutions to streamline the booking process, reduce user frustration, and create a more intuitive and enjoyable digital experience.
While the proposed changes address many of the existing pain points, there remains room for further improvement. Continuous user testing, feedback loops, and iterative design processes are essential to refining the user experience and ensuring that Ryanair’s digital platforms meet the evolving needs of its customers.
