PhotoSpots

Interviewed Photographers, Deliberately Across Experience Levels

An event photographer, a photography student, and a hobbyist. I needed a domain model that held up for someone on their first outing, not just someone who already knows what "blue hour" means. Structured interviews — same questions, same order — meant I could compare answers rather than react to wherever the conversation drifted.

Two things came out consistently: all three wanted to filter by sub-types rather than broad categories, and all three raised accessibility issues. This went straight into the design. On top of that, I got a deep insight into what users currently use to try to find locations to shoot at.

Google Maps Surfaces Places. Instagram Surfaces Images. Neither Tells You Where the Light Hits Right.

Photographers often know the exact shot they want but have no reliable way to find where to take it. This was a self-directed academic project — the deliverable was high-fidelity wireframes covering core user flows, arrived at through domain research, card sorting, and tree testing.

The brief left the medium open. I went with mobile — photographers are out on location, not at a desk, and interviews confirmed that's exactly where they needed this.

Tree Testing Found Three Paths to the Same Result — All of Them Needed to Work

Tree tests validated three distinct ways users would arrive at the same location — browsing by category, filtering directly, or going straight to the map. A topic-based category system with a narrow and deep sitemap kept the structure clean without hiding depth from users who wanted it.

Design Decisions

Most participants went Nature → Lakes when asked to find a lake. A fair number skipped categories entirely and went straight to Discover — looking at the map before they knew what they wanted. The Discover screen is a full-bleed map with a draggable card tray at the bottom. Pins are colour-coded by category. Panning the map and browsing are the same action. Search bar at the top if you already know where you're going.

Finding a lake and finding a forest are different scouting trips. One "Nature" chip covers both — nearly useless for anyone with something specific in mind. Browse stays clean: a grid and a sort control. All the filtering is in a panel one tap away — category, subcategory, conditions, distance, rating, accessibility. The result count updates as you adjust so you're never going in blind. The categories came from a card sort — they reflect how photographers actually think about locations, not how I'd have labelled them on my own.

Photos and location go in first — the two things you have before you've named a spot. Category, subcategory, and best conditions follow as pill selections. Accessibility is two toggles: wheelchair access and parking nearby. Either a spot has them or it doesn't — treating it as a tag choice produces inconsistent data.

The location page is where the community data earns its value: a description, reference photos from other visitors, current weather alongside the optimal shooting window, and the conditions the spot is actually best suited for. Not just what the weather is today — but when it's worth going. Ratings and a save button sit below so users can shortlist without navigating back through the browse flow.

Once a user finds a spot they want to save to come back to for future reference, they can easily access the saved tab on the navigation bar. Users can filter the saved tab just like the browse tab, allowing them the ability to narrow down specific spots.

Next Steps

Reflections