In-memory giving redesign
B2C Charity website design – Senior Interaction Designer
Introduction
Organisation
Shelter is a UK housing and homelessness charity supporting people facing homelessness through advice, support services, and campaigning for long-term change. Shelter relies on public generosity to fund its work, including donations made in memory of loved ones.
Project / My contribution
This project focused on redesigning Shelter’s in-memory donation experience — one of the most emotionally sensitive journeys on the site. Supporters often arrive while grieving, many for the first time, and require clarity, empathy, and reassurance rather than persuasion. My role was to lead the end-to-end interaction design, ensuring the experience aligned with Shelter’s new brand, supported bereaved users, and delivered measurable outcomes.
Responsibilities
Quantitative and qualitative research - Insight synthesis and problem definition
- Information architecture and content hierarchy
- Accessibility and inclusive design
- Tone of voice and content structure (in collaboration with content and brand)
- Interaction design and prototyping
- Supporting validation and usability testing
- Working closely with stakeholders across fundraising, content, and platform teams
Team size
- x1 Senior UX / Interaction Designer (me)
- Fundraising stakeholders (UK-based)
- Content designers
- Platform/development teams
The problem
Shelter’s in-memory webpages had not been updated following the rebrand and no longer met the needs of bereaved supporters. The in-memory landing page — the primary entry point for this journey — was off-brand, difficult to navigate, and not accessible, failing to reflect the emotional context of users or Shelter’s in-memory proposition, “Home, in their name”.
As a result, supporters struggled to understand how to donate in memory, often defaulting to the main donation flow and contacting the helpdesk to clarify their intent. Key supporting features, including e-cards and funeral wishes, were also outdated and inaccessible, further weakening the experience.
This was particularly critical as in-memory giving was becoming a more significant income stream than Trusts or Foundations, increasing both the user and organisational impact of these shortcomings
The goals
Redesign the in-memory webpages to provide a clear, accessible, and supportive experience for bereaved users, aligned with Shelter’s brand and tone of voice.
Success was defined by:
• Increased donations via the in-memory webform
• Increased donations via MuchLoved tribute and funeral collection pages
• Increased organic traffic to in-memory content
Step 1 Discover
To delve deeper into the problem, I focused on understanding who we were designing the in-memory experience for. Following discussions with senior stakeholders, I identified a broad set of audiences who may arrive at the in-memory pages:
• Warm and cold supporters
• Family members, friends, and work colleagues
• Volunteer groups
• Funeral directors and nursing homes
Many users would be arriving bereaved — sometimes very recently. Some may never have supported Shelter before and were visiting only because their loved one had. Funeral directors might also visit the page to deposit funeral collections on behalf of families.
Persona inputs
Stakeholders advised reviewing personas previously created by an agency working with Shelter called Clarysys to inform this work.
Across personas, motivations were consistent: donors give to honour a loved one, value remembrance and storytelling, prefer clarity over detail, and often return to give over time. This reinforced that the experience needed to centre the loved one — not the charity — while supporting different emotional states and levels of engagement.
How in-memory donors give
-The insights showed that people give in-memory in multiple ways, often over time rather than through a single action. Common routes included:
• Funeral collections
• Anniversary gifts • Dedications
• Tribute funds
• Fundraising as part of an event
The chart highlighted the percentage given by channel, showing clear behavioural patterns across in-memory giving.
Insights summary
• In-memory giving is driven by the loved one. Donors give to remember someone, not in response to a traditional charity ask.
• Funeral collections and events are the largest sources of in-memory fundraising and should be clearly connected within the in-memory journey.
• Tribute funds have strong long-term potential. Storytelling is central to remembrance and users need clear support when setting up and managing tributes.
• In-memory giving is relational. The stronger the emotional connection, the more likely supporters are to return and continue supporting over time.
• In-memory donors are three times more likely to leave a legacy and want reassurance that their gift is valued, making gratitude and gentle legacy signposting important.
User testing insights
Following the review of analytics, I conducted usability testing with six users, including people who had donated in memory and one funeral director. The aim was to better understand emotional needs, expectations, and perceptions of in-memory giving and tribute experiences.
Key themes from user feedback
In-memory giving is emotionally driven
• Users described giving as comforting, requiring an experience that leads with empathy, reassurance, and clarity.
Remembrance needs to feel personal
• Tribute pages helped users feel their loved one was acknowledged through shared stories and imagery.
Clarity outweighs detail
• Users wanted simple, plain explanations of impact rather than long or complex content.
Tone shapes trust
• Language needed to acknowledge loss, express gratitude, and avoid feeling transactional.
Giving is an ongoing
• Many users returned to donate on significant dates, reinforcing in-memory giving as long-term engagement rather than a one-off action.
Journeys must support different needs
• Some users preferred human contact, while funeral directors followed separate offline processes requiring clear guidance.
Heuristic evaluation of the current experience
To validate earlier insights and understand where the existing experience was failing, I conducted a heuristic evaluation of the in-memory landing page. This helped identify usability, accessibility, tone, and hierarchy issues that could prevent bereaved users from completing key tasks.
Key findings
• The page was off-brand and used outdated components,
undermining trust.
• Content was long, text-heavy, and poorly structured,
increasing cognitive load.
• Primary CTAs were unclear and easily missed.
• Different in-memory options were listed without guidance
or prioritisation.
• The tone of voice was not appropriate for bereaved users.
• Key support information was buried or inconsistent
Step 2 Define
Defining the structure
Based on insights from stakeholder discussions, user research, analytics, and the heuristic evaluation, I began defining what content and sections were essential for an effective in-memory experience.
The aim was to identify the minimum set of sections needed to:
• Support bereaved users emotionally.
• Clearly explain different ways to give in memory.
• Reduce confusion and cognitive load.
Align with Shelter’s in-memory proposition, “Home, in their name” This resulted in a clear list of priority sections for the in-memory landing page.
This resulted in a clear list of priority sections for the in-memory landing page.
The following sections were identified as essential:
• A clear introduction acknowledging loss and gratitude.
• A primary call to donate in memory.
• Ways to give in memory, including:
• Tribute funds.
• Funeral and service collections.
• Writing a dedication.
• Donations via social platforms (where appropriate).
• Guidance and reassurance for bereaved users
• Clear expressions of impact and gratitude
• Contact and support information
Non-essential or overlapping content was deliberately questioned or deprioritised to avoid overwhelming users at a vulnerable moment.
Using wireframes to define layout and hierarchy
With the content structure agreed, I created low-fidelity wireframes to explore how these sections could be arranged clearly and accessibly.
At this stage, the wireframes were used to:
• Test information hierarchy and sequencing.
• Explore how users would scan and navigate the page.
• Clarify primary versus secondary actions.
• Identify areas where users would need guidance or reassurance.
• Sense-check content decisions with stakeholders.
The focus was on structure and clarity, not visual polish.
Why low-fidelity wireframes
Low-fidelity wireframes were used to focus conversations on structure rather than visual design. They helped test information priority, identify where users might hesitate, and assess whether the experience felt calm, supportive, and suitable for mobile use. This enabled early alignment with stakeholders and reduced the risk of solving the wrong problem.
What this clarified
This work confirmed the need for:
• A clear, calm entry point with visible primary actions.
• Clearly grouped and explained ways to give in memory.
• Removal of features that added confusion rather than value.
• Accessibility and emotional tone to be addressed at a structural level.
Entry points – Competitive analysis
Before moving into development, I reviewed how users discovered in-memory giving across Shelter and other charity websites. This revealed that users were often getting lost before reaching the in-memory pages.
A competitive analysis showed that in-memory giving typically sits within Support us, Donate, or Fundraise sections, with Support us being the most common entry point. On average, users took around three steps from a homepage to reach in-memory content.
This highlighted the need to address findability, not just on-page experience.
Key takeaways
Decisions & outcomes
• In-memory giving is usually accessed via Support us or Donate, and should be surfaced earlier in user journeys.
• Pages with minimal copy, clear hierarchy, and prominent CTAs were easiest to navigate.
• Most charities manage in-memory giving through their general donation form using conditional fields.
• Many charities support multiple ways to give in memory, including events and legacy giving.
• Gratitude and bereavement support are often under- emphasised but highly valued by users.
Based on these findings, we agreed to:
• Surface in-memory giving from Support us or Donate with clearer navigation.
• Redesign the in-memory landing page with clear sections, strong hierarchy, and minimal copy.
• Align in-memory donations with the existing donation platform, capturing in-memory intent clearly.
• Include options to fundraise through events and link to legacy giving.
• Make gratitude and bereavement support visible and explicit.
• These decisions defined the scope and direction for Develop, ensuring the solution addressed both discoverability and experience.
Step 3 Develop
How might we… (Design goals)
– Show enough non-biased detail on the product information and description pages to help Oliver with his purchase?
– Show up to date current stock so Martin can use the Cycle To Work Scheme?
– Help customers with measuring, prior to a bicycle purchase?
– Show your competitive advantages?
– Show filters with relevant information?
– Appeal to the personas?
Design workshop collaboration
– We sketched ideas with time-boxing and came up with ideas to address the problems we had outlined in the How might we design goals, focusing on our personas Oliver and Martin.
– As a team we had some great ideas with equal votes on some designs but couldn’t decide which to use for the initial prototype, we ran A/B testing to see which designs were more intuitive.
Our assumptions based on competitor analysis of having more than 1 flow to the navigation seemed like the winning choice.
– How wrong were we!
A/B testing and validation
A/B testing of 2 homepages designs and 2 filter placements, both received an equal amount of interest during the design workshop. The usability test aims to identify any stress points from the implications of the navigation bar, filter placement and user journey.
A/B testing – Task 1 and goals
Find categories on the homepage and feedback on which page you prefer and why?
– Categories within the navbar, repeated under with thumbnails as visuals.
– Categories within the navbar, with a single image placement for the page.
Homepage design A
Homepage design B
Task 1 results
• 4 of 5 users preferred only having the navbar –Homepage design B, users felt the navbar together with thumbnails – Homepage design A had too much information and already understood what would be inside each category, they felt the repetition was pointless.
Our assumptions were proved incorrect.
A/B testing – Task 2 and goals
Find product filters on the page, which position seems more intuitive for you to use and why?
Filter position A
Filter position B
Task 2 results
Both ideas seemed great and our assumption based upon previous data suggested filters on the top would outperform filters on the side.
• 5 of 5 preferred filters on the side – Design B.
• 3 of 5 felt Design B was aesthetically pleasing and Design A – drop-down filter options weren’t intuitive.
Usability testing of high fidelity prototype
5 participants
– 3 females
– 2 males
– Age range between 30 – 55 years old
– Keen interest in cycling and purchasing goods online
Goals – Moderated user testing
Each participant was required to navigate through stimulations of the InVision eCommerce prototype website on a laptop and undergo questions at each stage to evaluate the users’ experience.
We took in turns for the role of the test moderator, to overview the research and ensure each participant was able to complete the tasks without any technical issues.
– Test product research and concept design with the target audience.
– Reveal friction points & confusing experiences.
– Identify any bugs & usability issues with the product.
Usability questions – Tasks & scenarios
Kinesis Fend off Mudguards – in black colour
Can you show me how you would search for the product and go through the checkout process?
– Can you show me how you would find another pair of mudguards by not using the search bar at the top?
Your product references: Brand: BBB, rear mudguard in black colour
– You would like to read more information about this particular product, can you show me how you would do it?
– You would like to find out more about the shipping cost for this product. Can you show me how you do it? What info did you find?
– There is a Kinesis product on your wishlist and you don’t wish to have it displayed anymore. Can you show me how you remove it from the wishlist section?
– Can you show me how you would find out more about Bike Stamford Brook services?
– You would like to visit the shop and contact them. Can you show me how you find the necessary information and how would you communicate?
– Can you find the categories:
– Pedals
– Gloves
– Mountain bikes
– Cleaning product to clean your bike
Post test questions
On scale: 1 -5? 1 – Excellent, 2 – Good, 3 – Okay, 4 – Poor, 5 – Awful
– What did you like most about this website today?
– What was the toughest part of this test?
– Would you like to use this website in the future?
– Are there any tips or recommendations you have for me?
Step 4 Deliver
What I learned
• Emotional context fundamentally changes how users read, decide, and act.
• Clear structure, calm language, and visible reassurance reduce hesitation at vulnerable moments.
• Simplifying journeys delivered more value than adding new features.
• Treating in-memory giving as an ongoing relationship, not a one-off donation, increased engagement and value.
• Ethical, high-fidelity testing was essential to accurately assess tone, trust, and emotional response
Challenges and adapting
Designing for bereaved users required balancing emotional sensitivity with fundraising goals.
Running research with people with lived experience meant slowing decision points, carefully structuring tasks, and collaborating closely with content and research peers.
From past experience, I knew low or mid-fidelity prototypes could feel uncomfortable or distracting in this context. I adapted by:
• Validating structure early with low- and mid-fidelity wireframes internally.
• Moving to high-fidelity prototypes sooner for external testing.
• Collaborating closely with content and engineering to ensure feasibility, tone, and accessibility are aligned.
This approach reduced risk while maintaining ethical standards.
What I’d do differently
• Run longitudinal research to better understand repeat in-memory giving over time
• Test donation CTA language earlier and more extensively
• Explore light personalisation for returning in-memory supporters
• Integrate in-memory options into the core donation journey sooner, rather than treating them as a separate flow