As a UX and Product Designer, I contributed to feature design, design system work, and best-practices research on a B2B programmatic recruitment platform
2022 – 2023 | Remote, external expert
1. Design system and team workflow
2. Status and sub-status: research-driven redesign
3. Scheduling feature: full feature design
4. Reports nav: an unexpected hierarchy problem
1. Design system and team workflow
I joined PandoLogic as part of a team working to bring the component library into atomic design order.
Atomic design is a methodology for building design systems from the smallest reusable pieces up, so every component is consistent and scalable.
My role at the start was UI:
contributing to that cleanup work, learning the system, and understanding how the product was built.
As the engagement matured, my role expanded.
One contribution that stood out beyond the component work: helping formalize the team's design workflow.
We structured it as a checklist, a step-by-step guide for any designer joining the team, defining the process in order. This was the first time I built a workflow document at that level of clarity. The same pattern came back later, evolved significantly, at Myop.
The Challenge
A component library only works if everyone uses it the same way. And a design process only works if it is written down. Both required discipline: not just doing the work, but documenting it in a way that survives handoffs and new team members.
The Process
Component library work: organizing and standardizing existing components to match atomic design principles. Learning the product system deeply enough to contribute without introducing inconsistency.
Workflow formalization: mapping out how design work actually unfolds on this team, step by step, and structuring it as a transferable checklist. The goal was that any designer joining could pick it up and know where to start and what comes next.
The Solution
A cleaner, more consistent component library. A documented design workflow that the team could use and build on. Both are infrastructure work: not visible in a single screen, but they make every subsequent design decision faster and more reliable.
The Result
A foundation that supported the feature work that followed. Wrote my first PBI (product backlog item, a formal task description handed to developers) during this period. Practiced developer-facing handoff. Got fluent in how this product system was built before designing within it.
PandoLogic, UX and UI on an HR-tech SaaS platform
Started with design system cleanup, grew into feature design and best-practices research.
Identified hidden complexity in briefs.
Multi-channel research methodology.
User journey mapping for new feature development.
Contributed to formalizing the team's design workflow.
First PRD written during this engagement.
2. Status and sub-status: research-driven redesign
PandoLogic continuously refines how the platform works. One initiative required rethinking how status, sub-status, and reason-for-status were displayed across different parts of the system, including page headers and tables.
The question was not just visual. It was behavioral: how do other companies solve this? How do you display a sub-status and its reason cleanly without crowding the interface? How do you distinguish between a UI element that opens a menu and one that reveals more information, when both can look like a chevron or an arrow? How do you stay visually consistent while making those functional differences clear?
I ran a five-channel research process: articles on conventions and best practices; live design system libraries from companies that publish them online; conversations with colleagues in professional forums; selective use of AI tools; and academic or institutional research where available. The output was a structured comparison with annotated examples, ready to present to the PM and team with a clear recommendation and a basis for discussion.
The Challenge
The hardest part was the arrows sub-research: comparing different arrow and chevron patterns used across the industry to determine which should signal "opens a menu" versus "reveals more information." These elements look similar but behave differently. Getting this wrong creates confusion at the interaction level, not just the visual level.
The Process
Five research channels run in parallel: articles, live DSM libraries, colleague conversations, AI tools, academic research. Each channel adds something the others cannot. Articles give conventions. Live DSMs show what large companies actually ship. Colleagues give perspective from people solving the same problems in different contexts. AI accelerates pattern recognition. Academic research anchors recommendations when practical sources conflict.
The research question was defined precisely before starting. A vague research question produces vague findings. A tight one produces something presentable and actionable.
The Solution
A structured comparison of how peer companies present status, sub-status, and reason-for-status. Clear recommendation on arrow and chevron usage across the system. Consistent treatment defined for page headers and tables, with the distinction between menu-opening and information-revealing elements made explicit.
The Result
A recommendation the team could discuss, pressure-test, and act on. The research was organized for handoff: not just "here is what I found" but "here is what it means and here is what I recommend."
3. Scheduling feature: full feature design
PandoLogic takes UX seriously. Every new feature goes through a discovery phase: research, user exploration, wireframes. The Scheduling feature was a full new service, and the team ran it with that level of rigor. Everything tracked in Monday so every team member knew their role and every manager knew where the project stood.
I contributed across the full design cycle: user journey mapping for one of two personas, collaborative sessions with the PM and an overseas project team, status and event diagramming before any low-fidelity design began, and prototyping to surface gaps before implementation.
Final Takeaways
The five-channel research approach came into focus during this engagement. Reading articles alone does not give you enough. Looking at how large companies actually built their live design systems adds a layer that theoretical best practices cannot. Talking to colleagues in forums adds perspective from people solving the same problems in different contexts. AI tools, carefully used, can accelerate pattern recognition. Academic research can anchor a recommendation when the practical sources conflict.
What I took from PandoLogic was not just the methodology. It was the discipline of defining the research question precisely before starting. A vague question produces vague findings. A tight research question produces something presentable, discussable, and actionable.
The other thing: requirements are a starting point. The Reports nav project was a direct example. The brief was accurate about the symptom but not about the cause. The discipline is to map what is actually happening before proposing anything. Requirements tell you what someone noticed. They do not always tell you what is broken.
Credits: Dafna, Team Manager at PandoLogic. Her structured approach to standups and genuine growth-mindset leadership made this a genuinely good working environment. That is not something to take for granted.