Things to HOU | Improving Event Discovery & Providing Collaborative Planning

I grew up in Houston. I know this frustration firsthand. My friends and I would get together wanting to do something. We'd search in advance. Nothing. We'd get together to find something to do the day of and end up sitting on the couch, phones in hand, scrolling endlessly. Finding something was hard. Finding something that matched our interests, our price point, our availability? We'd either give up or find out about an event after it had already happened. And I suspected we were not the only ones who experienced this frustration. Maybe it was just us, but maybe there was a whole group of people who were also missing out?

I first wanted to understand the real problem before designing anything, and I needed to understand who I should be talking to about it.

I started with secondary research. I looked at existing event discovery platforms, industry reports, and user behavior patterns. Research showed that young adults ages 18–30 are the most active event seekers. The generation currently making up the majority of this age range is Gen Z who are considered to be digital natives. This matters because they have grown accustom to personalization within online experiences and services. I also learned that event goers fall into two distinct groups: planners and spontaneous attendees. Two different behaviors. Two different needs.

This informed everything that came next. I knew my target demographic. I knew what behaviors to listen for. And I knew what questions to ask. Now I had to focus on the local context. I wanted to validate whether existing research applied to Houston specifically, and understand local behaviors, pain points, and needs.

So I developed a research plan outlining objectives and key questions based on what secondary research showed me. I put out a survey on social media, coordinated five interviews (four in person, one remote due to illness), and used a structured interview guide to ensure consistency across all sessions. All participants were people in the 18-30 age range who actually lived in Houston and faced this problem.

What the interviews revealed was telling. Event discovery wasn't intentional. It was passive. Participants stumbled across events through social media, ads, posts from friends. Here was the problem: basic event details were completely missing or unclear. So they couldn't even decide if an event was worth attending.

This forced them to search across multiple platforms to cross-verify information. One post mentioned a time but not a location. A different source had the price but not the dress code. They were spending hours piecing together information that should have been available in one place.

And when they finally found something interesting? They tried to "save" it. But their methods were broken. Leaving tabs open. Bookmarking posts. Writing notes on their phones. Rarely did they actually return. Events got lost. Opportunities were missed.

However, something really stood out to me. Every single person said the same thing in different ways, "I want to go out, I just don't want to go alone." People don't go to events alone. Event attendance was a social decision, and users were far more likely to attend events if they had someone to go with.

This reframed the entire problem. Supporting event discovery alone wasn't enough. The experience had to reduce friction across the whole journey, event discovery and coordination between people, so that users would actually follow through. This would not only address a key user need, but also creates more opportunities for sustained engagement beyond one-time event searches.

Next, I brainstormed solutions based on what users were actually struggling with:

1. Personalized event recommendations on homepage, so discovery doesn't start from scratch
2. An event details screen, with logistical information so they can make confident decisions
3. An interested events page, to remember and manage what they’re interested in
4. Group planning tools, so friends can coordinate together

I identified three red routes: Sign Up & Register, Manage Interested Events, and Plan & Collaborate On Events.

While doing a heuristic analysis, I explored competitors and made a surprising discovery. All Houston event discovery platforms either target tourists or are hyperlocal to one neighborhood. These platforms are not top of mind for locals across the city. None of my participants used them, and even as a Houstonian, I wasn’t aware of most myself.

I looked at what worked on other platforms that handled lots of information, but did so without overwhelming anyone. Information hierarchy that made sense. I modeled my screens after those designs. The style guide drew inspiration directly from Houston. The brand concept: take the energy of a school bulletin board and reimagined it with a modern, polished aesthetic. Trustworthy but trendy. That way users felt confident they were getting first access to current, reliable information.

I conducted two rounds of moderated usability tests. Eight tests total. Five tests took place in person and three tests were done remotely due to scheduling constraints.

All users were Houston residents. Six were Gen Z (ages 19-29). Two were Gen X (late 50s) working in product development for 30+ years. Since I didn't have collaborators, the perspective of seasoned product thinking was valuable.

The tests focused on core tasks, discovering events, saving them, creating plans, and coordinating with others. After each round, I compiled a usability report and prioritized issues by severity.

Here's what worked: users loved the amount of detailed information. Every single person across all eight tests said the same thing, this information made them feel confident deciding whether an event was worth attending. I solved the core problem. People didn't have enough information to make decisions. Now they did.

Here's what didn't work: the interactions weren't always intuitive. Users hesitated. They made missteps during key actions. The planning flow especially felt clunky. Users expected a more seamless, automated experience instead of manual effort.

1 / 6

I took the liberty of applying some of the user feedback and experimented with creating a couple of new screens for what would be used in a third round of usability testing which is featured in the above slides. Due to time constraints I could not complete an entire 3rd round of iterations.

If I were moving forward with this project, here's what I'd prioritize:

First: Interaction Refinement. Add event times directly to event cards so users aren't clicking back and forth comparing. Incorporate tutorials for moments like date selection and planning. Add vendor details in the planning flow.

Second: Social Features. Refine group and profile features to feel as intuitive and familiar as the social platforms people already use.

Third: Measuring Improvement. Conduct another round of usability testing measuring task success, error rates, and time on task in the planning flow. I'd also ask users to rate their confidence in the information provided at key decision points—discovery, evaluation, planning. Those ratings paired with behavioral observations would show exactly where users gain or lose trust.

This was my very first case study. I didn't know what I didn't know.

Initially, I thought more methods meant stronger research. Turns out, that's not how it works. Strong research requires intentionality about which methods serve your research question, not how many you can fit in.

Additionally, My "Plan & Collaborate on Events" red route was also too broad and should have split it into two distinct flows, resulting in four red routes instead of three. That focused approach would have revealed interaction issues earlier and let me test each flow with the rigor it deserved.

But there's another thing I'd do differently, and it's more concrete.

I conducted eight usability tests across two rounds. At the time, I didn't know the industry standard was fifteen people across three rounds. If I could redo it, I'd test five people in round two and five in round three instead. Fifteen tests across three rounds gives you confidence that the issues you're identifying are real and consistent, not just coincidences from a small sample. The additional tests would have given me more certainty and either validated or challenged what I thought I knew.

These mistakes taught me to be deliberate about the sample size, the scope, and what each flow actually solves for.