What is REGIS?

REGIS is a mapping and demographics program made by Sites USA, which allows users to run a complete analysis on their commercial real estate location(s). This analysis done using demographic data to determine if it is an area that can be developed, rented, or expanded into. The data REGIS uses includes anything from traditional demographic data (population, income, educational attainment etc.) or newer forms like mobile location data, and traffic counts. This data comes from a collection of Sites USA’s partners, and allows users to collect a report form, or they can create maps in REGIS’s layout mode for their target market. These maps are then shared or printed to help them illustrate a location’s viability to their clients.

ROL4 ui and sample map

My Role

My role for this project was to design a new front end for product, improve the program wherever I could, and discover what more it could do for users.
-Address issues with program (zoom tool etc,)
-Test design and new features/ui (usability testing)
-Determine user needs/pain points (email campaigns user interviews)
-Validate requested features (research for api/data embed)
-Create channels to collect feedback (channeling support/QA)


Initial Research

To deliver a more purposeful design to our users, I needed to know and understand my audience as best I could. I started by collecting the existing assumptions Sites USA had about their users, these existing assumptions revolved around each of the users roles within the commercial real estate industry. The users typically worked for a landlord, a developer, or a broker each of which had slightly different motivations that made them successful in their role. Initially all the research that the company was doing revolved around tracking what features their users used most frequently. I emphasized that this information was a great start to understanding their users within the program and in their industry, but we also needed to take a deeper look at who our users are as humans. After some convincing I reached the point were I was given a small list of users that I could test/interview with to show the company what a basic user test would look like, and what they could get from it.

User Research

With these initial tests and interviews I took note of who was actually using our program, and found out it was rarely the person who signed up for the account, (which was the cause of some communication issues with the users) but they were often the primary account holder’s assistant, marketing department, or secretary for that primary account holder. This answered some of the questions we had about how to prioritize what needed to be worked on, and guided some of the usability testing I would do for the new version of the software. Often we found that our pie in the sky/dream features were misaligned with some of the the issues these people were having with the existing program. Our users were mostly annoyed with things like the general flow of the program, and having to do work arounds for a desired output. An example of one of these work arounds was there was no way to get their map to fit in the layout/print mode in the product. The result was that they often had to take a screenshot of the webpage, or forgo the layout portion of the product. This was one of the most requested ‘features’ and it wasn’t anything new to the program, but something that could be worked into an existing feature.

Susa user persona

Company Research

While working on REGIS I also had to take note of the internal needs of Sites USA. An example was that some of the sales team had a difficult time demonstrating a few of the add-on features to our clients, this was due to a lack of visibility within the basic membership version of the product. We agreed that REGIS needed to have a way to showcase new features within the product. This would not only help sales, it would also bring to users some of the features they didn’t know existed in REGIS. The support team was also incredibly helpful in aiding the design process of the product because they were often the first to hear from users calling in with questions and complaints. To capture some of this feedback collected by support my team created a channel for them to log this information. We took the feedback from this channel and entered it into our database to get a rough idea of what wasn’t working as well as it should be.

The technical requirements were simply to update application front-end into something that is much easier to maintain, this included a consistent design guide to be used as the program continues to develop for future designers and developers. Sites USA also wanted to Retain users and there was an heavy emphasis around keeping the people around that have stayed with us for a long time.

Design Guide


Iteration Cycles

We broke up the design tasks in REGIS into small iterative stretches. We started with the core functions of the program as determined by our in-house tool usage site. These functions were what the most users initially signed up to use, and were vital to get correct. We then sketched existing user flows for these tasks, and looked to see what improvements if any there was to be made. The initial design consisted of adding retail merchants to the map, creating demographic heat maps, and running reports on a location.

Userflow whiteboard

Usability Testing

We tested usability on both the old version and the new version. testing was done by scoring some of our users/employees/random people, part of the reason i choose to include employees was because i was selling the ux process to the company. I was the first person working here that had UX experience ( could be an project in itself) and by showing them a basic ux technique allowed them to trust me/and open up to more research/ui/ux in the future. anyway we gave some of these users a handful of tasks, and watched them as they worked their way through the new design. I would then score them on a scale of 0-3 for each task see below example. This provided me with some ‘hard’ data that Sites USA could use to determine what areas needed to improve. Some of the things i found was low visibility of some of the features. obscure icons that didn’t best convey the tool they where made to interpret

Usability testing results



Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque eget sagittis ipsum. Curabitur tempor vestibulum lorem vitae molestie. Quisque eu nunc in libero scelerisque ultrices id eget arcu.