An improved view switcher
Information architecture
Ecosystem design
Usability testing
Interaction flows
Systems thinking
I led the design of an improved view switcher that helps product managers move easily between different planning views without losing context or momentum.
Our goal was simple: make planning feel continuous, even as the view changes.
nn
%
reduction in time spent reconfiguring views
nn
%
increase in successful plan creation flows
nn
%
decrease in abandoned roadmaps
context
Building a plan in Aha! requires moving between multiple representations of the same data. Each view is powerful on its own but switching between them was costly: filters reset, context was lost, and users had to re-orient themselves frequently while cycling through different views.
why any of this matters
Product planning is not linear. Our customers explore, compare, adjust, and revisit ideas from multiple angles as plans evolve.
When views don’t stay connected, momentum breaks and confidence drops. Plans feel harder to build than they should.
what we built
We shipped an improved view switcher that treats views as different lenses on the same plan, rather than separate destinations.
Users can now easily move between our kanban, prioritization, roadmap, and other planning views.
They can also maintain filters, scope, and selections across views and explore alternate representations of the same dataset without starting over.
28
%
increased view switching within a single planning session
Users can now create groups of related views.
We reviewed support tickets tagged to view switching, filtering, and configuration issues before and after launch.
31
%
increased view switching within a single planning session
how we got there
Our customers flagged their difficulties clearly to us through the Ideas portal. Even experienced PMs hesitated to switch views because they feared losing their setup.
134
customer ideas related to switching views
We mapped how plans evolve across boards, prioritization, and roadmaps.
5
usability sessions
with a focus on user reaction to two different approaches
86
support tickets analyzed
filtered by keywords + categorized into 4 themes.
Across these conversations, one theme was consistent: view switching was treated as a risk, not a convenience.
1.
View switching broke planning continuity
Observed friction
Changing views reset filters and scope, forcing users to manually reconstruct their mental model.
Design intent
Allow views to remain linked as plans evolve. Reinforce the idea of one plan seen multiple ways.
what we delivered
A tabbed experienced of connected views that contributed to the feeling of being able to shuffle through the same view but through different lenses.
2.
The switcher was easy to miss and easy to distrust
Observed friction
The "view switcher" as customers knew it was limited and could not truly pass through to as many views.
Design intent
Make view switching visible, predictable, and clearly tied to the current dataset.
what we delivered
A streamlined comment flow that keeps conversation moving
usability testing
We ran moderated prototype sessions to compare two approaches for switching planning views: a dropdown (compact, consistent with other menus) versus tabs (always-visible, faster scanning).
Across sessions, the tabbed approach reduced “where did my work go?” moments and made persistence feel more predictable. Users switched more freely, spent less time re-orienting, and show general ease with the new designs.
closing
This project reinforced that small interaction decisions can have outsized impact on how confident users feel while working.
By reframing views as connected perspectives rather than separate tools, we reduced friction not by adding power—but by removing fear.
Planning didn’t become simpler. It became continuous.
reflection
Enterprise software is rarely a clean “before and after.” Every change lives inside permissions, legacy workflows, edge cases, and the reality of teams who can’t afford disruption.
The work is a steady series of compromises: what we can make elegant, what we need to keep familiar, and what has to ship with guardrails. Ultimately, we shipped the solution we could support end-to-end. It was not the most dramatic redesign but it was a durable step forward.