Teams, Zoom, Webex, and the collaboration environment surrounding the room.
← Selected work
03 / INTERACTIVE PRODUCT
Turning technical expertise into a guided decision product.
An interactive AV readiness assessment combining structured questions, scoring logic, personalized recommendations, lead capture, and a downloadable results experience.
Product decision flow
01Assess
Structured questions capture the user's current environment and readiness.
→
02Interpret
Answer values feed a scoring model that evaluates strengths and gaps.
→
03Personalize
The result changes based on the user's assessment rather than returning one generic response.
→
04Act
Recommendations, downloadable results, and consultation paths turn insight into a next step.
QuestionsConditional experienceScoreResultsHubSpotPDF
The assessment was designed as a small product system: collect meaningful inputs, translate them into a decision, and give the user something useful in return.
01 / Problem
Expertise existed. The customer still needed a way to use it.
Evaluating the readiness of a meeting environment requires more than asking whether a room has a camera, microphone, and conferencing platform.
Reliability depends on how those pieces work together: platform compatibility, audio quality, microphone coverage, camera performance, content sharing, software maintenance, and the ability to perform consistently when the room is actually needed.
The opportunity was to turn that internal expertise into something a prospective customer could use independently — without requiring them to already understand AV infrastructure.
02 / Decision model
Before I could build the assessment, I had to define what a good answer meant.
The product needed to translate technical AV considerations into a decision model that made sense to someone who was not necessarily an AV specialist.
I organized the assessment around the conditions that most directly affected meeting readiness, then structured the questions so each response contributed meaningful information rather than simply creating a longer questionnaire.
The scoring model became the bridge between expert knowledge and the customer-facing experience: individual answers fed section-level signals, which then contributed to an overall readiness result and recommendation.
Input
01Customer answers
Simple responses capture what is happening in the meeting environment today.
Interpret
02Readiness signals
Each answer contributes to a structured view of reliability, compatibility, and user experience.
Evaluate
03Score + patterns
The system combines individual signals into section and overall readiness states.
Output
04Recommendation
Results explain the user's current state and provide a practical next step.
Assessment domains
The questions were grouped around the factors most likely to influence whether a meeting space would perform reliably.
Whether participants can hear and be heard consistently across the space.
Whether remote participants can clearly see the people and activity that matter.
How reliably users can move information from their device into the meeting experience.
Updates, software state, and operational consistency between meetings.
Whether the room continues working when the meeting is important enough that failure is costly.
Product principleAsk only what changes the decision.
Every question needed a reason to exist: either it changed the score, changed the recommendation, or helped the user understand an important readiness gap.
03 / Experience design
The experience needed to feel lighter than the decision model underneath it.
The assessment contained multiple categories, scoring rules, and recommendation states, but the customer should never feel like they were operating a technical diagnostic tool.
I designed the experience around progressive disclosure: sections begin collapsed, one area opens at a time, and the interface guides the user through the assessment without exposing the complexity of the scoring model.
The visual system stayed deliberately quiet — clear hierarchy, restrained color, and lightweight interaction — so the user could focus on answering rather than learning the interface.
Keep sections collapsed until the user needs them rather than presenting the entire assessment at once.
Each state should make the next interaction obvious without competing controls or unnecessary explanation.
Scoring and completion behavior help the user understand that their answers are contributing to a meaningful result.
Guided assessment
Structure the journey before asking the user to think.
The interface separates the assessment into focused sections, giving users a clear sense of progress while reducing the cognitive load of a longer technical questionnaire.
01
Sections begin collapsed so the page feels approachable.
02
The active section becomes the clear focus of the page.
03
Completed answers feed the score without exposing the underlying calculation.
12304 / Logic + scoring
Every interaction had to resolve into something meaningful.
The interface collected simple answers, but those answers needed to produce a consistent assessment of the user's environment rather than a generic completion screen.
I translated responses into structured scoring logic, evaluated readiness across the assessment, and used the resulting state to determine what the user saw next.
That separation was important: the customer experience could stay simple while the logic underneath handled evaluation, result generation, and downstream actions.
Simplified decision engineInput → interpretation → output
Input
01Answer values
Each response carries meaning for the readiness condition being evaluated.
Evaluate
02Section state
Related answers combine into signals about specific areas of the environment.
Resolve
03Readiness result
The completed assessment resolves into an overall result state.
Respond
04Personalized output
The result determines the feedback and next steps presented to the user.
Result screenRecommendationsLead dataDownloadable PDFConsultation CTA
Logic architecture
Keep the scoring model separate from the interface.
The assessment UI handled interaction, while JavaScript maintained answer state, calculated the score, determined the result, and prepared the information needed by the results and lead-capture experiences.
This made it easier to change the presentation without rewriting the core decision logic — and easier to reason about what should happen when an answer changed.
01
capture answer state
02
evaluate section responses
03
calculate readiness score
04
resolve result state
05
render personalized feedback
06
prepare lead + PDF data
Product principle
The user should understand the result, not the machinery required to calculate it.
05 / The build
The assessment was only useful if the entire journey worked together.
I built the experience as a connected flow rather than a standalone questionnaire: capture answers, calculate the result, collect lead information, generate a useful takeaway, and create a clear path into the next conversation.
That meant coordinating front-end interaction, scoring logic, HubSpot lead capture, personalized results, PDF generation, and conversion behavior as parts of the same product.
End-to-end product flow
Capture structured answers through the interactive UI.
→
Translate responses into readiness and result state.
→
Pass customer information and assessment context into HubSpot.
→
Present personalized feedback and readiness recommendations.
→
Offer a downloadable PDF and consultation path.
Lead capture
Ask for contact information after the user has already received value.
The assessment experience happens first. Once the user completes the diagnostic, the lead-capture step becomes part of receiving their personalized result rather than a barrier placed before the interaction.
HubSpot receives the contact information alongside assessment context, giving the sales team more useful information than a generic form submission.
Assessment completeGet your results
First name
Last name
Email
Mobile
Passed to HubSpot
Contact informationAssessment answersReadiness context
YOUR AV READINESSResults
Overall readinessPersonalized result
✓
Platform readinessResult based on assessment responses
Reliability under pressureResult based on assessment responses
Recommendation
Surface the areas that deserve attention and give the user a clear next step rather than simply displaying a score.
Personalized results
Give the score context instead of making the number the product.
The result experience translates the assessment into feedback the user can actually understand. The objective was not simply to grade the room, but to explain what the result means and where improvement may be needed.
That turns the output from a scorecard into a decision-support experience.
Takeaway + conversion
Let the result remain useful after the browser closes.
Users could download their assessment as a PDF, extending the value of the interaction beyond the immediate web session.
A consultation CTA provided a natural next step for users who wanted help interpreting or improving their environment, without making the assessment itself feel like a sales gate.
AV READINESS
Your assessment resultsReadiness summaryPersonalized
01Download PDF
Keep and share the assessment results.
02Request a consultation
Continue into a higher-intent sales conversation.
06 / Outcome
One interaction created value on both sides of the conversation.
The finished product gave prospective customers a structured way to evaluate their own meeting environment while giving the business more context about the problems behind a lead.
Instead of asking someone to submit a generic contact form, the experience first helped them identify readiness gaps, understand their result, and leave with a personalized takeaway.
When a customer chose to continue the conversation, their assessment context could travel with the lead — creating a stronger starting point for the next interaction.
01
Customer value
A useful answer before a sales conversation.
Self-service diagnostic
Users could evaluate their meeting environment without needing AV expertise to begin.
Personalized feedback
The result reflected their answers rather than returning the same generic content to everyone.
Portable takeaway
Downloadable results gave the assessment value beyond the immediate browser session.
02
Business value
More context than a traditional lead form could provide.
Structured lead context
Assessment answers could accompany the contact record rather than reducing the interaction to name and email.
Higher-intent next step
The consultation path appeared after the user had already explored a problem relevant to the business.
Reusable expertise
Internal AV knowledge became a repeatable digital experience that could support customers at scale.
Product outcome
The assessment turned expertise into a repeatable customer experience.What had previously required explanation from a knowledgeable person could now be introduced through a guided digital product, while still creating a natural path back to human expertise when the customer needed it.
07 / Reflection
Good product design doesn’t remove complexity. It decides who has to carry it.
The assessment worked because the customer never needed to understand the scoring model, data structure, integrations, or technical rules required to produce their result.
That complexity still existed — but it lived inside the product rather than inside the user’s experience.
Building the assessment reinforced how I approach technical products more broadly: understand the system deeply enough that the interface can remain simple, make every interaction serve a decision, and connect the experience to a useful outcome rather than treating engagement itself as success.
What this changed about how I build products
Understand the complexity underneath.Then design so the user doesn’t have to.
Selected work
Back to portfolioExplore all selected work →