Shared Calendar Apps

Shared Calendar Apps UI/UX Case Study

Role: Product Designer · Insan Nurjaman
Practice: UX · UI · Interaction design
Evidence: Original project archive

Overview

The problem: My first-use evaluation found little product explanation before registration and weak guidance toward sharing a calendar or creating a first event.
My contribution: I evaluated the existing first-use flow, benchmarked onboarding, and designed revised flows, wireframes, mobile UI, and a prototype.
The outcome: A redesign proposal linking product explanation, sign-up, calendar purpose, sharing, and the first event.

Problem

The archive explicitly starts from my experience trying TimeTree. It identifies a missing early explanation, premature profile setup, and limited sharing or event-creation prompts. Existing and proposed flow diagrams provide the before-and-after evidence; no participant study is documented.

Shared Calendar Apps: Personal evaluation of the existing TimeTree entry screen — Personal evaluation of the existing TimeTree entry screen. Original archive, panel 2; open at full size to inspect.

Shared Calendar Apps: First-use sharing and event-creation objective — First-use sharing and event-creation objective. Original archive, panel 3; open at full size to inspect.

Shared Calendar Apps: Existing onboarding issues from personal evaluation — Existing onboarding issues from personal evaluation. Original archive, panel 5; open at full size to inspect.

Shared Calendar Apps: How-might-we questions for understanding, sharing, and creation — How-might-we questions for understanding, sharing, and creation. Original archive, panel 6; open at full size to inspect.

My Role

Company / product context: TimeTree · Independent onboarding redesign exploration
Users: New users beginning a shared-calendar journey.
My role & scope: I evaluated the existing first-use flow, benchmarked onboarding, and designed revised flows, wireframes, mobile UI, and a prototype.
Evidence available: Original project narrative and design artifacts retained in this case study.

Process

Benchmark screens, the original and revised flows, and wireframes document the reasoning before high fidelity. The flow comparison shows a proposed change in sequence, not a measured reduction in drop-off.

Shared Calendar Apps: Onboarding benchmark references — Onboarding benchmark references. Original archive, panel 7; open at full size to inspect.

Shared Calendar Apps: Existing and proposed onboarding flows — Existing and proposed onboarding flows. Original archive, panel 8; open at full size to inspect.

Shared Calendar Apps: Low-fidelity onboarding wireframes — Low-fidelity onboarding wireframes. Original archive, panel 9; open at full size to inspect.

Key Decisions

Explaining the product can improve orientation but adds steps before the calendar. The proposal moves feature explanation earlier and defers nonessential setup, while contextual guidance introduces sharing and event creation when they become useful. The optimal amount of guidance still needs testing.

Final Solution

The proposal introduces sharing, communication, and multi-calendar features before sign-up, then guides calendar purpose, invitations, and first-event creation. The original UI states, component sheet, and animated prototype remain available below.

Shared Calendar Apps: Product-explanation and welcome interface sequence — Product-explanation and welcome interface sequence. Original archive, panel 10; open at full size to inspect.

Shared Calendar Apps: Detailed mobile onboarding design — Detailed mobile onboarding design. Original archive, panel 11; open at full size to inspect.

Shared Calendar Apps: Reusable component and state sheet — Reusable component and state sheet. Original archive, panel 15; open at full size to inspect.

Shared Calendar Apps: Animated onboarding prototype — Animated onboarding prototype. Original archive, panel 16; open at full size to inspect.

Outcomes

The outcome is the onboarding redesign proposal. No implementation, activation-rate change, time-to-first-event improvement, or user-study result is established.

Evidence & limitations

This is an independent design exploration, not a commissioned TimeTree project. Personal evaluation is not presented as user research or a measured funnel result.

A personal critique can miss needs and behaviors that differ from the designer's own.

Learnings

What worked in the design: The proposed sequence ties onboarding to sharing and creating, rather than account setup alone.
What I would change next: Test an existing-flow baseline and the revised prototype with new users, including people who want a private calendar or are not ready to invite others.

Shared Calendar Apps: Original project closing — Original project closing. Original archive, panel 17; open at full size to inspect.

Client Portal: clarity across trading workflows

Next selected case study