Why does user intent weaken at the moment it matters most?
Reimagining the cart as a decision surface, not a holding page.
Platform: App + Mobile Web
Scale: High traffic, sale-led spikes
Role: Design Owner (Cart)
Collaboration: PM, Eng, Analytics
Cart → PDP drop-off: 72% → 22%
Revenue impact: ₹23 Cr
Cart View → Order: +0.66%
Improved coupon application rate
When I took ownership of the cart experience, I didn’t start with a redesign. I started with an audit. Coming in fresh, without legacy bias, I ran a heuristic and intuitive evaluation to assess how the cart functioned as a decision surface. But intuition wasn’t enough.
I expanded the lens through:
Secondary research
Competitive analysis across leading commerce platforms
Review of all previous user research and usability findings
Internal reports and historical learnings
On paper, the cart worked. In reality, behavior told a different story.
Working closely with Manogna (PM) and Analytics, I analyzed:
Funnel metrics
Navigation paths
Cart interaction patterns
Back-navigation triggers
That’s when the problems became impossible to ignore.
THIS IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO IMPROVE
Problem 1:
Cart didn’t support safe decision-making
SKU cards were hard to scan quickly
Mistaps could remove products users had invested time in
No confirmation before destructive actions
Size and quantity changes offered no reassurance
Intent was leaking backward.
~72% of users were navigating from Cart → PDP. This wasn’t drop-off; it was reassurance-seeking. High time spent on cart signaled hesitation, not engagement.
Problem 3:
Users were forced to leave the cart to decide
To zoom into images
To check highlights, ratings, and reviews
To confirm return policies
Context switching broke purchase momentum
Problem 4:
Out-of-stock handling created anxiety
OOS items were scattered among active SKUs
Availability status wasn’t immediately clear
Users had to resolve blockers manually
Problem 5:
Cart amplified commitment anxiety
Users treated the cart like a temporary wishlist
Adding multiple items, then removing or abandoning entirely
Cart forced an all-or-nothing checkout decision
Fixing the foundation: making intent feel safe
The first step wasn’t adding features.
It was stopping intent from leaking through fear.
I restructured the SKU cards to:
↳ Improve scanability
↳ Introduce confirmation before removals
↳ Clear separation of primary vs secondary actions
↳ Size and quantity changes
↳ Surface intent-building nudges like Price-Drop
↳ Club out-of-stock items together for faster resolution
Impact
+3.85% increase in wishlist additions
–3% reduction in product removals
+2.6% increase in Cart View → Order (Android)
(12.87% → 13.21%)
Guardrail metrics remained intact.
Preserving momentum with reassurance
Even after clarity improved, we re-examined post-release funnel data.
The behavior persisted.
Users were still navigating back to PDPs.
Deeper analysis of navigation paths and interaction patterns showed why:
Image zooming
Product Details
Ratings and reviews
Return confirmation
So instead of forcing users back, we brought reassurance into the cart.
Quick View started small, then evolved.
Impact
Phase 1 reduced Cart → PDP from ~72% → ~55%
Phase 2 reduced it further to ~22%
Problem 1:
Intent was leaking backward.
~72% of users were navigating from Cart → PDP. This wasn’t drop-off; it was reassurance-seeking
High time spent on cart signaled hesitation, not engagement.
**Problem 2 — The cart didn’t support safe decision-making**
* SKU cards were hard to scan quickly
* Mistaps could remove products users had invested time in
* No confirmation before destructive actions
* Size and quantity changes offered no reassurance
**Problem 3 — Users were forced to leave the cart to decide**
* To zoom into images
* To check highlights, ratings, and reviews
* To confirm return policies
* Context switching broke purchase momentum
**Problem 4 — Out-of-stock handling created anxiety**
* OOS items were scattered among active SKUs
* Availability status wasn’t immediately clear
* Users had to resolve blockers manually
**Problem 5 — The cart amplified commitment anxiety**
* Users treated the cart like a temporary wishlist
* Adding multiple items, then removing or abandoning entirely
* Cart forced an all-or-nothing checkout decision
**Problem 6 — Offers created cognitive overload**
* Coupons, dynamic offers, and payment benefits were scattered
* Some required action, some auto-applied
* Auto-applied offers were not made explicit
* Users weren’t confident they were getting the best deal
At this point, it was clear:
> The cart wasn’t broken visually.
> It was broken psychologically.
Problem#2