Research context
Everyday Living Interiors (ELI) is a small interior design service based in Diemen, near Amsterdam, run by Sara de Abreu. This is Round 3 of a three-wave longitudinal evaluation. In Round 1, six personas evaluated Sara's original website and identified critical barriers: invisible pricing, vague deliverables, narrow emotional register, no couples positioning, and limited portfolio. In Round 2, the same personas evaluated a virtual prototype (v2) that addressed all findings — reactions were strongly positive, particularly to visible pricing, an emotional acknowledgement section, and explicit couples positioning. In Round 3, the same six personas evaluate Sara's actual live implementation — a real website with real visual design, photography, and content. The question shifts from 'does the concept work?' to 'did the implementation capture what matters?'
Research objective
Evaluate how the live implementation of the ELI website performs against the validated v2 prototype, identifying where the translation from text-based concept to visual, designed website strengthens or weakens the persona experience — in order to provide Sara with specific, evidence-based recommendations for the next iteration of the site.
Key areas of investigation
- Implementation fidelity — do the elements that tested well in v2 (visible pricing, concrete deliverables, emotional acknowledgement) land with the same power in their implemented visual form, or does the translation from concept to design change their impact?
- Visual design effect — the live site has a higher editorial quality than either previous version; does this elevate the brand or create distance from the target audience?
- Emotional content displacement — the strongest emotional content (naming real frustrations, real messes, real starting points) now lives in the blog rather than on the homepage; do personas discover it, and what happens if they don't?
- Missing element impact — several v2 elements that drove strong reactions are absent or diluted (couples positioning, detailed emotional acknowledgement, FAQ, testimonials, low-barrier contact); how significant are these gaps in practice?
- Portfolio proof — the site now shows real projects but with limited before-and-after comparisons and no visible budgets; is this enough to build trust and demonstrate value?
- Conversion pathway — with the service qualifier now contact-dependent rather than self-service, and no WhatsApp or photo upload options, has the path from interest to action become easier or harder?
Research questions
How do personas perceive the overall visual identity and editorial design quality of the live website — does it make the service feel more professional and trustworthy, or does it create a sense of distance or intimidation?
Does the visible pricing on the live site land with the same clarity and impact as it did in the text-based v2 prototype, or does the visual context (editorial photography, bold typography) change how the prices are perceived?
How do personas experience the adapted emotional acknowledgement section ('Whenever you're ready, styling starts right here, where you are') compared to the v2 version that named specific emotions (shame, embarrassment, couple conflict, feeling stuck)?
Do personas discover the blog content — particularly 'I Don't Design For Magazines' — and if so, does finding the strongest emotional content in the blog rather than on the homepage change its effectiveness?
How do personas respond to the portfolio case studies — do the real project photographs build more trust than text descriptions, even with limited before-and-after comparisons and no visible budgets?
For Tom and Priya specifically: with couples positioning reduced to a single mention on one service page, does the live website still feel relevant to their situation — or has the concept lost its power?
How do personas experience the absence of the FAQ, testimonials, and low-barrier contact options (WhatsApp, photo upload, quick opinion) that were part of the v2 concept — do they notice these gaps, or do other elements compensate?
Does the 'About Sara' page — now a professional summary rather than the intimate personal narrative of the v2 — provide enough connection to build trust with emotionally motivated personas?
How does the gap between €80 (Room Reset) and €250 (Design Roadmap) affect personas who would have been drawn to the missing Thoughtful Edit at €150?
After experiencing the full live website, what is each persona's likelihood of taking action — and has the conversion barrier shifted compared to their v2 reactions?
Success indicators
Good insights from this round would:
- Reveal whether a professionally designed visual implementation amplifies or diminishes the resonance of text-validated concepts — a finding with implications beyond this specific project
- Identify the specific emotional and practical gaps created by the adapted or missing v2 elements, with enough granularity for Sara to prioritise what to add next
- Capture whether the blog functions as an effective emotional channel or whether its depth is wasted by being discoverable only to visitors who navigate beyond the homepage
- Produce clear, persona-specific recommendations that account for different audience segments reacting differently to the same implementation choices
- Generate at least 2–3 unexpected findings — things the research design didn't anticipate — that reveal dynamics only visible when a concept becomes real