Myra B2C
One Structure for 150+ Exams, Instead of One Each.
Role:
Product Designer, working through One Craft on Myra's redesign. I drove the research, competitive audit, and information architecture, with guidance from two senior designers at the agency, then validated the structure with Myra's founder before handoff to UI design.
Timeline:
12 Weeks
Scope:
User Research, Competitive Audit, Information Architecture, UX Strategy
Team:
Me, One Craft (2 senior designers, guidance and review), Myra Founder (approval and content input), Content Team, Developer
Status:
Research and IA complete and approved. UI design is shipped. Development is in Progress.
Restructuring Navigation Across 150+ Exams
Myra serves students across 150+ competitive exams (NEET, JEE, SSC, Banking). As the platform grew, one shared structure buried every student's exam under everyone else's content.
DURATION | PLATFORM | MY ROLE |
12 Weeks | B2C Web | Research, IA, UX Strategy |
Old Homepage Vs New Homepage
Snapshot
150+ | 1 | 4 |
exams consolidated onto one template | onboarding decision drives all personalisation | competitor platforms audited |
PHASE 1 OF 5
Discover
Understand why students were actually leaving, not guess.
Auditing the category
Pulled directly from App Store reviews, Reddit threads, and public student feedback across Testbook and 3 other platforms. Two problems stood out as direct causes, not symptoms.
Cluttered, hard to navigate too many options, inconsistent categorization, poor prioritization, students think too hard just to find their exam ·
Categories and filters overwhelming similar exams scattered across the structure, unintuitive filters, inconsistent labels, students can't reach what they need
Both trace back to the same root cause: an information architecture built around the business's categories, not the student's exam.
How students actually search
NEET students → scroll past Banking, SSC to find their own content Trust erodes → in small increments, not one big failure The data existed → nothing was wired to use it
PHASE 2 OF 5
Define
Diagnose why the existing structure was failing.
The gap, stated plainly
Platforms collect your exam at onboarding. Then build one homepage for everyone.
Step | What happens |
Signup | "Which exam are you preparing for?" |
Homepage | Same layout, same categories, for every student regardless of the answer |
The exam question exists. Nothing downstream uses it.
Who this actually is
First-year student self-studying for NEET ·
Relies on mock tests, PYQs, revision notes ·
Frustration irrelevant exam options, time lost in menus, uncertainty about whether paid content is current
"If everything is organized by my exam, studying becomes easier."
Every structural decision that failed this line got cut.
PHASE 3 OF 5
Design
Explore structures, reject two, land on one.
Two rejected directions
Three ways to structure this were on the table. Two get rejected below, the third is what shipped.
Approach | Scales | Personalizes |
A separate, fully-built page for every exam | ✗ | ✓ |
One generic page shown to every student | ✓ | ✗ |
One adaptive template, content scoped to the selected exam | ✓ | ✓ |
Trade-off The real constraint was maintenance, not design. A page per exam personalizes best, but needs a content team that can build and update 150+ experiences. Myra's team is small. One adaptive template was the only direction that didn't become a staffing problem six months later.
Finalised IA of MYRA B2C Platform.
Purchase Flow for any exam.
Landing lists exams, no personalization yet ·
Exam page the student's click is the decision, everything downstream inherits it ·
Signup phone number, nothing more ·
Dashboard same slots as every other student's, different content, scoped to the exam they clicked into
Dashboard Final UI (Prototype)
PHASE 4 OF 5
Validate
Test the structure before any pixel was final, not after.
Reviewed with:
2 senior designers checked the IA against structural logic, not visual polish ·
Myra's founder checked it against business and content reality ·
Content team checked it against what could actually be produced and maintained at 150+ exams
Rough drafts built in Figma Make, so each reviewer reacted to the actual structure within days, not a written spec they had to imagine their way through.
Figma Make Design for Faster approvals on IA & Structure.
What the review actually found
The core structure, exam-scoped homepage, single decision point driving personalisation, held up with only minor refinements. That's worth stating plainly rather than glossing over: three reviewers with three different stakes, design rigor, business fit, content feasibility, each had a different reason to push back, and none found a structural flaw worth reworking. The scoping decisions made in Discover and Define carried through review intact.
Key takeaways
Structure needed fixing before UI ·
One decision point beats personalizing every screen ·
Small content team = one template, not 150+
PHASE 5 OF 5
IA and UI design are both complete. The build is now in development, so there's no engagement data yet.
What shipped:
Multi-exam IA covering 150+ exams on one adaptive template, signed off by the founder and content team
Path to exam-specific content cut from several unrelated categories to a single onboarding decision
A persona and competitive audit that carried through into UI design and dev handoff, not shelved after research
Full UI shipped from that approved structure, the build is now in development
What this taught me:
The complaint was never "too little content," it was content organized around the business's categories instead of the student's exam
A small content team can't maintain 150+ personalized experiences, so the fix had to be structural, a visual refresh wouldn't have touched the actual problem
Validating the structure with stakeholders before any UI work meant design didn't have to re-litigate the IA once it started
Test History Flow
Profile Page
Exam MCQ Flow
Contact Expert Flow
