All projects

Vodafone Secure Net: Making the Invisible Feel Powerful

Most security happens silently. This redesign made protection visible, actionable, and trustworthy. I led the design end-to-end — directing UX research, owning all decisions, and shipping across 4 markets.

Role

Lead Product Designer · sole design owner · directed dedicated UX researcher

Platform

Android

Timeline

4 months (research to rollout)

Reach

~100,000 users / 4 markets

Result

Drop-off 60% → 40% · NPS +1.5 · rolled out across UK, DE, RO, GR

Security was working — but users couldn’t feel it

Most of what Secure Net does, it does silently. Threats are blocked in the background. Suspicious sites are filtered before users notice them.

That is great for security, but bad for perceived value. Users could not feel the product working, and when you cannot feel something, you stop trusting it.

The Cleaning Tool was the exception: scan device, find threats, remove them, see result. But almost nobody finished the flow.

Drop-off rate: 60%.

Interactive prototype — tap through the Secure Net dashboard to explore the Cleaning Tool flow.

Not confusion — unmet expectation

I ran user testing in the UK before changing the interface. Users started curious, then became uncertain and left.

The flow stacked orientation, virus-definition preparation, scan, and removal without telling people how long each beat would last. Timing swung with backend latency, device tier, and storage volume — so even reliable engineering felt arbitrary.

A six-step onboarding sequence still greeted people before the scan began — useful for education, expensive for momentum when someone only wanted to clean their phone.

Cleaning Tool introductory screen showing step 1 of 6 before scanning.
Orientation step 1 of 6: users absorbed security storytelling while their urgency drained.

Understanding the drop-off, not just measuring it

I directed a dedicated UX researcher to run moderated sessions in the UK before any design work began. We observed 12 users attempting the Cleaning Tool flow on their own devices, tracking where hesitation turned into abandonment.

The sessions revealed that drop-off was not about confusion with the UI. Users understood what to do. They lost trust in when it would end. The flow gave no temporal anchors — no progress, no stage markers, no sense of how long each step would take.

We mapped the emotional arc: curiosity → uncertainty → impatience → abandonment. The inflection point was consistently around step 3 of 6, where onboarding content felt repetitive and the scan had not yet started.

Coming soon
Coming soon

Three coordinated decisions across UX, UI, and system behavior

Business

Prove the value

Increase user awareness of app benefits and encourage proactive device cleaning.

Technical

Speed up the engine

Accelerate the scan process and surface relevant threat metadata earlier.

Design

New design system

Adopt Vodafone Home Portfolio system for a more readable, accessible experience.

What actually happened

Design system upgrade became a UX redesign

The initial scope was a design system migration. During requirements review, I initiated research that reshaped the brief.

  • Users wanted control over digital security and access to threat detail
  • Making scans “educational and entertaining” was not validated by research
  • Effort redirected toward clarity, speed, and trust

Three separate briefs. One design opportunity I shaped from research.

1. Collapse the flow

I removed the database update from the user path and moved it to a silent background pre-step. The experience became a clean two-step flow: Scan → Remove.

2. Set expectations visually

I redesigned screens to communicate progress clearly: active processing, threat detection, and clean-device confirmation became visually distinct states, not just text changes.

3. Improve backend communication

In parallel, I worked with engineering to optimize backend interaction, reducing real wait times and making the tool feel genuinely more responsive.

Execution screens split “work in flight”, “what we found”, and “what happened next” into distinct visual chapters instead of recycled layouts.

6 → 2 User-facing steps
−67% Interaction steps
60 → 40% Drop-off rate
Step 1

Onboarding intro

Welcome screen explaining what Cleaning Tool does.

Step 2

Education carousel

Six slides about threats, security tips, definitions.

Step 3

DB update wait

Visible virus definition download blocking the flow.

Step 4

Scan

Full-device scan with minimal progress feedback.

Step 5

Threat list

Flat list of issues, no clear action hierarchy.

Step 6

Completion

Generic success screen, no summary of what happened.

Redesigned

Scan → Remove

Two clear phases. DB update runs silently in background. Onboarding moved to an optional info touchpoint.

  • Direct entry into scan with real-time progress
  • Actionable threat ledger with severity and selection
  • Earned closure: summary of cleaned items and time
  • Education available on demand, never blocking

See how six disconnected steps became a focused two-phase experience.

Old flow vs. redesigned flow

Drag the slider to compare the original and redesigned experience.

Pre Scan

Pre Scan

  • Moved 6-step onboarding wall that drained user momentum into the info touchpoint. Always available, never blocking.
  • Moved virus definition update to a silent background pre-step
  • Entry point now leads directly into scan with clear intent
Scan

Scan

  • The real-time percentage progress indicator became more visible
  • Contextual content during wait replaces empty screen
  • Cancel path visible and accessible throughout
Pre Clean

Pre Clean

  • Threat list redesigned as actionable ledger with selection controls based on the real data (usually 1-5 infections found)
  • Severity and type made immediately scannable
  • Primary action anchored at bottom for single-hand reach
Success

Success

  • Clear summary of what was cleaned and time taken
  • Closure state feels earned, not administrative

Searching for the right visual language

Before converging on the final direction, I explored multiple approaches: onboarding tone, scan UI density, progress visualization, and completion states. The process included paper sketches, low-fidelity wireframes, and visual research across security and health-monitoring apps.

Visual exploration — design directions, UI density experiments, and iteration snapshots
User research artifacts and findings

Research artifacts that informed the design direction -- scroll horizontally to explore.

Tested, narrowed, iterated, and revalidated

I tested three design variations with users. One clearly outperformed the others, but moderated sessions exposed friction points that metrics alone would not reveal.

Cleaning Tool scan in progress at fifty percent.
Mid-scan frame used in user sessions — anchoring pace expectations before polishing the removal step.

Mid-scan states were especially vocal: percentage motion helped, yet headline hierarchy, reassurance copy, and cancellation paths decided whether someone trusted the wait.

I iterated and retested until those points were resolved. Four months after the first research session in the UK, the redesign was live.

Every screen, every state, every edge case

The final design covers the full journey: dashboard entry, permissions, scanning with real-time progress, results with actionable threat management, cleaning with cancel/uninstall paths, and celebration closure. Scroll horizontally to explore.

Complete Cleaning Tool flow — all screens and states

Consistent performance across markets

The feature launched first in the UK (with baseline data), then in DE, RO, and GR where Cleaning Tool had not been available before.

UK (Q1 → Q3 2025): Drop-off 60% → 40%, Android app NPS 5.0 → 6.5.

DE, RO, GR: new market baseline with post-launch drop-off around 40%, consistent with UK’s improved performance.

Total reach: approximately 100,000 users across 4 markets.

Drop-off rate

60% → 40%

Android app NPS

5.0 → 6.5

Users judge reliability through communication

Security products often prioritize reliability over communication, but users experience both at the same time.

A flow can be technically reliable and still be abandoned if it feels broken. The biggest win here was not only simplifying steps — it was designing what users needed to feel, not just what they needed to do.