Contextual Translations in Lessons
My role: Senior Product Designer.
Team: PM, QA, iOS / Android Developers, Learning Designer
Tools: Figma, Confluence, Jira.
Year: 2023 – 2024.
1. About the Task
1.1. The Problem
Users often encounter content in the language they are learning, for which a translation is not available. It may include complex expressions and phrases, causing difficulties, especially for beginners. This slows down the learning process and reduces motivation to continue studying due to a lack of understanding of the material.
1.2. The Hypothesis
If we add the feature of translating individual words in lessons, it will improve the learning experience for beginners and increase lesson conversion rates.
2. What Went Wrong
Given that the design task, in my estimation, shouldn’t have taken much time, I decided to complete it and present the mockups at a product meeting with the CEO, managers, and analysts. These meetings are held twice a week, where hypotheses and designs are approved.
For the lessons, I added functions for word highlighting and the ability to view individual word translations in a tooltip.
During the stakeholder presentation, it became clear that this version did not meet their expectations. Previously, an agreement was reached between the CEO, course PM, and lesson designer to implement phrase translations instead of individual words in the first iteration due to technical difficulties with correct word translation. Until the "Books" team resolves these issues, the "Courses" team decided not to use this approach. As a result, my proposed version was rejected, and we agreed to present a new concept at the next meeting.
At the "Courses" retrospective, I brought up this issue, as such moments are critical for planning my work. I work in two teams simultaneously and cannot accurately estimate task completion times if one team requires the concept to be reworked instead of handing over the mockups for development. Reworks took little time in this task, but in other projects, the amount of rework was significantly higher, which affected the plans of the "Books" team.
To avoid similar situations in the future, I suggested documenting all agreements and decisions made during meetings in a shared document accessible to all participants. This would increase transparency and improve communication within the team. However, the proposal was not supported, as it was considered too monotonous for anyone to handle. In my view, this was odd, as documentation is the most transparent way to keep everyone informed.
2.3. Second Design Version
I prepared a new design version with phrase translations, which was presented at a meeting without my presence. However, I did not receive feedback on whether this version was approved. After this, the task was forgotten, and no new information was received.
2.4. Third Design Version
More than a half-year passed since the last discussion of this task. I assumed the task had been abandoned. However, it was brought up again. In the new discussion, it was revealed that the situation with translations had improved, and now we could easily test contextual translations in lessons.
During this time, we managed to successfully redesign the lessons for iOS and Android. Since the concept remained unchanged, we only needed to add translations to the new design. We added translations in more places. For example, in some types of assignments, it is impossible to view the translation because the text is a button for selecting the correct answer, and overriding this action is impossible. In such cases, the translation is added during the correct answer validation state.
At the last product meeting, the situation repeated itself: despite significant improvements in the dictionary and the elimination of technical constraints for testing translations, the CEO still considered translations unacceptable for launch.
3. What I Learned from This Experience
This project showed me how important clear and precise communication between all participants in the development process is. I realized that even minor misunderstandings of the task can lead to significant delays and rework. I also understood that the lack of clear argumentation and analytical support for a hypothesis can greatly reduce the likelihood of successful implementation. Unfortunately, I do not always have the opportunity to influence this, as communication with the CEO mainly occurs through the PM, and much of the result depends on the persistence and ability of the product manager to sell the feature.
3.1. Conclusions and Impact on My Approach to Design and Team Work
After this experience, I became more attentive to the process of requirements gathering and task discussion in the early stages. This prompted me to focus more on ensuring that all parties understand the essence of the task and reach agreement on key issues before starting work on the design.
I also became more persistent in documenting decisions and agreements. I believe that documenting all key points helps avoid misunderstandings in the future and improves the transparency of the process for the entire team. In the end, we agreed to work this way, and it greatly simplified our lives.
3.2. What Changes I Would Make to the Processes
The main problem at Ewa is that it’s a startup with chaotic processes. Many tasks are completed at a fast pace, and documentation is rarely encountered. Until the company has enough resources to move out of the startup stage, no radical changes in processes should be expected, although they are very much needed.
As a designer, I see the main problem in the lack of established design processes. Ewa has only 4 designers, and only two are involved in development. These resources are clearly insufficient to effectively handle the tasks of two teams facing different problems. This creates a high risk of burnout and loss of motivation to improve processes.
Another significant problem is that the company primarily relies on marketing, and most resources are spent on traffic acquisition, marketing campaigns, and specialists. In my opinion, the key to success for many companies lies in building processes around the design department. Investing in quality design not only improves the user experience but also contributes to creating products that attract and retain users on their own, which in the long run can reduce dependence on costly marketing strategies. A strong design department can become a center of innovation, influencing all aspects of the product — from concept to implementation, and providing the company with a sustainable competitive advantage in the market. In addition, having a design department would allow new decisions to be approved internally, bypassing the CEO, and decisions would be made not based on subjective sense of beauty, but by discussing and focusing on design heuristics and UX design principles.