While doing user research on our smart lock app, I uncovered consistent pain points in the “Guest List” tab—the area where users manage access for others, whether through app invitations, entry codes, or fingerprints.
What started as a small idea evolved into a full redesign, with the goal of creating a clearer, more consistent experience for users managing access to their locks, aligning the design with internal frameworks, and ensuring that the structure would scale to support new connectivity standards like Matter.
Year
2025
Team
Me (as Senior Product Designer), Product Manager, and multiple developers across iOS, Android, firmware, backend, and QA
Addressing user (and team) frustrations
Technical baggage - While testing features for Yale Assure 2 Touch and the Yale Keypad, I noticed users were consistently frustrated with the access management section of the app, where users manage entry codes, fingerprints, and app-based access. The experience was confusing, inconsistent across platforms, and difficult to maintain due to a decade of fragmented development.
Complete overhaul - When we began designing for Matter—a new smart home standard that required our app to serve as the “source of truth”—it became clear the existing UI couldn’t scale. I pushed for a full redesign by tying user pain points to technical and strategic needs, and ultimately got buy-in from the VP of Software Product to move the initiative forward.
Understanding lock-focused vs. user-focused
User-centric confusion - The current structure shows you a list of users, but doesn’t clearly communicate what access they have for which locks. As I worked through redesigning access management, I realized that this model was creating more confusion than convenience.
Because most actions require a direct connection to the lock, a user making global changes for another user across multiple devices often encountered error states that they didn’t understand.
Lock-centric clarity - I proposed shifting to a lock-centric model with single, sequential actions. The downside for this model was that users may have to repeat flows like adding codes for each lock, but the upside was that users are less likely to end up in an unclear “pending” state that could present a security risk.
Our data shows most users typically only add access once or twice, so a more reliable process of sharing lock access outweighs the concerns of a slightly longer flow.
Testing the models
Usability tests - To test my assumptions, I built high-fidelity prototypes of both approaches, one reflecting the current user-centric model, and one with the new lock-centric structure. I conducted both moderated and unmoderated usability tests with new and existing users and also tested against our current app as a baseline.
Accelerated success - The results were clear: With the lock-centric flow, users found where to add an entry code (one of our biggest pain points) faster and with less confusion than the user-centric flow.
Check out the comparison of task completion times:
In-market app: 1m17s
User-centric flow: 39.6s
Lock-centric flow: 29.1s
The data and user feedback confirmed that the lock-focused, single-action model was the optimal path and a more than 50% reduction in time it took to complete the task.
Designing breadth and depth
Comprehensive user flows - Once we committed to the lock-focused model, I designed the full set of flows. I accounted for every scenario across our ecosystem, from legacy doorbell cameras to power users managing dozens of locks, thinking through all the possible edge cases.
Striving for perfection - This stage of design is one I especially enjoy—diving deep into UI details and exploring dozens of iterations to find the strongest visual solution. During this stage I also love putting together working sessions with other designers, where we can challenge each other’s ideas and push the work further together.
Collaborating on implementation
Engineering input - Designing the flows was one important part of the process, but communicating the details to engineering was equally important. I used a mix of review meetings, Slack threads, annotated flowcharts, condition notes, and prototypes to clearly define interaction patterns, logic, and UI behavior so engineers had everything they needed to hit the ground running.
Implementing to spec - Throughout, I relied on engineers not just for assessing feasibility, but also for their ideas and input on the design, which often influenced and improved the final design. Our team also relied on designers reviewing PRs. Engineers included screenshots or videos for any UI work, and I provided feedback before anything hit QA. This process significantly reduced churn, helped us catch issues before implementation, and saved time by avoiding future implementation bug reports.
Outcomes
A fully redesigned access sharing experience that resolves key user pain points—from confusing navigation and error flows to smaller issues flagged in reviews and testing.
Unified, consistent design across both Android and iOS.
Scalable architecture with Matter support, positioning us as the first smart lock platform with full app-to-app interoperability.
Potential success metrics: higher app/product ratings, reduced negative sentiment in reviews, fewer support calls about sharing access, and faster completion times for key tasks like sharing access or creating codes.
