GalleryGo: understanding hesitation before the first bid
8 min read
A reflection on how my approach to product research has evolved.
I shifted the auction experience toward visible authenticity cues, clearer pricing, and simpler bid decisions before users committed.
What prevents first-time collectors from feeling confident enough to place their first online bid?
GalleryGo began as one of my earliest UX design projects. At the time, I used a survey and competitive review to understand how people evaluate art online. Revisiting it today helped me separate conclusions I could support with evidence from assumptions I would now investigate through deeper qualitative research.
Research question
- What information and product cues help first-time collectors feel confident enough to place an online bid?
Trust, clear information, and simple auction mechanics mattered more than feature depth.
I conducted a survey with 11 participants aged 25-34 across different professions and locations. Most people who responded were beginners who had not participated in an online auction before, so I paid close attention to the questions and anxieties they brought into the experience.
Trust depended on visible proof of authenticity
64% of the people I surveyed indicated that provenance, artwork history, or verified details mattered before buying art online.
Clarity mattered more than auction mechanics
The people I surveyed prioritised clear information (100%), followed by bidding ease (55%), price transparency (18%), and simple listing (18%).
Existing marketplaces revealed recurring trust patterns
I also reviewed existing auction and marketplace patterns to understand how similar products handled discovery, bidding, and listing.
I also created two personas in the original case study: a busy prospective buyer who wanted authentic art and transparent pricing, and an emerging artist who wanted visibility and a simpler way to list work. Looking back, I would treat these as design artifacts based on early survey interpretation, not as research-backed archetypes from interview synthesis.
Each major screen answered a specific uncertainty in the buying or selling journey.
At the time, I moved from low-fidelity wireframes into high-fidelity screens for buyer discovery, seller listing, artwork details, and confirmation flows. The clearest design decisions came when I mapped a survey signal to a moment where someone needed confidence before taking the next step.
I learned that trust depended on evidence users could verify before committing to a bid.
I made authenticity, artist context, and supporting information primary content on the artwork detail screen before the bid action.
I found that participants prioritised understanding the artwork over learning auction mechanics.
I prioritised guided browsing and visible bid entry points on the buyer homepage rather than dense auction controls.
I noticed that participants wanted pricing to be understandable before it became competitive.
I made pricing fields and bidding states explicit so users could understand what they were committing to before taking action.
I also considered artists who needed visibility and a manageable way to list artwork.
I included a seller homepage, listing visibility, and confirmation feedback so artists could track what they had published.
Directional feedback on ease, confidence, navigation, and complexity.
At the end of the original work, I recorded participant ratings for ease of use, confidence, navigation and complexity. Because I do not have the original System Usability Scale questionnaire or scoring method documented, I present these as post-test ratings rather than SUS scores.
Useful design direction, with the limits of survey-only research.
What worked
- I used the survey to identify directional evidence that trust and clarity were stronger concerns than feature richness.
- I translated that evidence into design decisions that prioritised clarity and confidence over complex bidding tools.
- Designing mobile-first helped me narrow the experience to essential buyer and seller actions.
- I connected early findings to concrete screens instead of treating research as a separate phase from design.
What was missing
- I could not explain why participants felt uncertain because I relied only on survey responses.
- I did not document behavioral observation, so I could not compare what participants said with what they did.
- I did not use thematic coding, affinity mapping, or a qualitative synthesis framework.
- I worked with a small sample, so I could use the results for direction but not for broad claims.
If I were conducting this research today
Questions to investigate
Why do people hesitate before bidding? What information builds trust? Which uncertainties prevent action? How do buyers judge authenticity and price fairness?
Research methods
Semi-structured interviews, think-aloud usability testing, task analysis, affinity mapping, and thematic analysis before interface decisions.
Participant mix
First-time collectors, experienced collectors, gallery owners, and artists to compare trust needs across the marketplace.
Evidence needed
What information reduces hesitation before bidding? Which trust signals change purchase confidence? Where do buyers abandon the bidding flow? What assumptions from the original survey still hold?
Researcher's note
This project taught me that good interface decisions do not automatically mean well-supported product decisions. The survey offered useful direction, but it could not explain behaviour or challenge assumptions. Revisiting the work reinforced how qualitative research can reduce uncertainty before design begins and how much more confidence it gives teams when making product decisions.
That lesson directly influenced how I approached WellNest, where qualitative research became the foundation for every product decision.