Held for you
A checkout concept for Zara where a piece you choose stays yours for five minutes, and urgency only shows up when it’s real.
The problem in one line
A piece becomes unavailable between selecting it and paying for it.
- Project
- Zara checkout, concept project (no affiliation with Zara)
- Role
- UX/UI designer: research, prototyping, interaction design
- Tools
- Figma [add others]
- Duration
- [add]
Two interviews, three frustrations
Removing a piece from the bag
[Add quote + name or initial, with permission]
Gray text that is hard to read
[Add quote + name or initial, with permission]
Unclear refund notification
[Add quote + name or initial, with permission]
With two interviews, these are signals rather than statistics. [Add screens beside each frustration]
The piece that disappears
The unavailable piece affects the purchase itself, so the hold timer became the main solution. Accessibility and refund notifications are supporting improvements.
A hold, not a rush
When a customer secures a piece, it is held for five minutes. Urgency appears only when it’s real. Try it.
Secure this piece starts the hold. When the time ends, the piece goes back on sale and the customer can keep shopping.
Low stock. Secure it to hold it while you pay.
We’re holding this piece for you. One delivery fee for everything you add for 24 hours.
Your hold has ended. This piece is back on sale.
What I chose, and what I gave up
Real urgency over persuasive urgency
- Chose
- The countdown only appears when a piece is actually held.
- Gave up
- Extra conversions from constant “low stock” messaging.
- Why
- Pressure that isn’t real erodes trust.
A 5-minute hold
- Chose
- A short hold, long enough to pay.
- Gave up
- A longer, more relaxed window.
- Why
- Longer holds block pieces for other shoppers.
Two actions, no Checkout button
- Chose
- “Secure this piece” and “Continue shopping”.
- Gave up
- A familiar shortcut.
- Why
- Fewer choices make the next step clearer.
24-hour shared delivery fee
- Chose
- One fee for all orders within 24 hours of the first payment.
- Gave up
- Tighter cost control for the store.
- Why
- Simple, generous, and it rewards securing the low-stock piece first.
One fee, not one parcel
- Chose
- Promise a single fee, never a single package.
- Gave up
- A more appealing but less reliable promise.
- Why
- Orders can already ship in separate parcels.
Customer and store
Secures the piece first and keeps shopping without paying delivery twice.
Fewer abandoned purchases and, as a hypothesis to validate, more orders per customer.
Accessibility and refund
Readable text
Higher contrast for text that was hard to read.
Clear notification
A plain message when a delivery problem happens.
From product page to payment
Export from Figma, compress, and add captions.
Drag to compare
What I would validate
The hold duration, the 24-hour window and the impact on orders, with product, logistics and finance teams, using real usage data. Every value here is a design proposal.
Held for you
A checkout concept for Zara where a piece you choose stays yours for five minutes, and urgency only shows up when it’s real.
The problem in one line
A piece becomes unavailable between selecting it and paying for it.
- Project
- Zara checkout, concept project (no affiliation with Zara)
- Role
- UX/UI designer: research, prototyping, interaction design
- Method
- I interviewed two shoppers to find the main frustrations in the checkout
- Tools
- Figma, Claude (research support and writing)
- Duration
- 1 week, part-time
Two interviews, three frustrations
Removing a piece from the bag
[Add quote + name or initial, with permission]
Gray text that is hard to read
[Add quote + name or initial, with permission]
Unclear refund notification
[Add quote + name or initial, with permission]
With two interviews, these are signals rather than statistics. [Add screens beside each frustration]
The piece that disappears
The unavailable piece affects the purchase itself, so the hold timer became the main solution. Accessibility and refund notifications are supporting improvements.
A hold, not a rush
When a customer secures a piece, it is held for five minutes. Urgency appears only when it’s real. Try it.
Secure this piece starts the hold. When the time ends, the piece goes back on sale and the customer can keep shopping.
Low stock. Secure it to hold it while you pay.
We’re holding this piece for you. One delivery fee for everything you add for 24 hours.
Your hold has ended. This piece is back on sale.
What I chose, and what I gave up
Real urgency over persuasive urgency
- Chose
- The countdown only appears when a piece is actually held.
- Gave up
- Extra conversions from constant “low stock” messaging.
- Why
- Pressure that isn’t real erodes trust.
A 5-minute hold
- Chose
- A short hold, long enough to pay.
- Gave up
- A longer, more relaxed window.
- Why
- Longer holds block pieces for other shoppers.
Two actions, no Checkout button
- Chose
- “Secure this piece” and “Continue shopping”.
- Gave up
- A familiar shortcut.
- Why
- Fewer choices make the next step clearer.
24-hour shared delivery fee
- Chose
- One fee for all orders within 24 hours of the first payment.
- Gave up
- Tighter cost control for the store.
- Why
- Simple, generous, and it rewards securing the low-stock piece first.
One fee, not one parcel
- Chose
- Promise a single fee, never a single package.
- Gave up
- A more appealing but less reliable promise.
- Why
- Orders can already ship in separate parcels.
Customer and store
Secures the piece first and keeps shopping without paying delivery twice.
Fewer abandoned purchases and, as a hypothesis to validate, more orders per customer.
Accessibility and refund
Readable text
Higher contrast for text that was hard to read.
Clear notification
A plain message when a delivery problem happens.
From product page to payment
Export from Figma, compress, and add captions.
Drag to compare
What I would validate
The hold duration, the 24-hour window and the impact on orders, with product, logistics and finance teams, using real usage data. Every value here is a design proposal.