Income verification app

The user context that shaped every decision

Gig workers are a specific user group with specific constraints that aren’t visible from a standard usability audit.

They’re often using the app on mobile during short windows between jobs — not at a desk, not with time to figure things out. The experience has to be clear enough to complete correctly while moving fast.

Income verification has real consequences when it fails. A failed verification means delayed benefit access — which for someone in financial precarity can mean missing a rent payment or going without food assistance. Errors or confusion in the flow aren’t just frustrating; they have direct downstream impact.

Many users have limited financial literacy or are not native English speakers. Jargon is a barrier. Vague instructions are a barrier. Copy that assumes familiarity with financial terminology leaves a significant portion of users behind.

These constraints shaped every specific design decision made on this project.

The audit — what was found

Before designing anything, the existing application was audited systematically:

• The income verification flow — where users were dropping off, what was confusing, where instructions were ambiguous about what was actually being asked
• The income report submission process — how users were entering their income data, where the structure didn’t match how gig workers actually think about their earnings
• The deposit loading experience — the status communication during loading, and what users understood (or didn’t) about what was happening and when to expect results
• Error handling throughout — which errors were surfacing in the wrong place, which were written in language users couldn’t act on, which had no clear resolution path
• Copy across the entire product — jargon, inconsistent terminology, overly formal language, instructions that assumed knowledge the user didn’t have

The audit also involved working with stakeholders to understand which failure types generated the most support volume and which were most likely to cause complete abandonment.

What was redesigned

Income verification flow

Restructured around a clearer step-by-step progression. Each step asks for one thing, explains why it’s needed, and gives users a clear sense of where they are in the overall process. Copy was rewritten throughout — removing jargon, making the purpose of each field explicit, ensuring instructions were actionable rather than descriptive.

Income report submission

Gig workers earn from multiple sources — different platforms, different income types, different pay schedules — and the way they mentally categorise their income doesn’t always match the way financial systems want to record it. The redesign mapped to how users actually thought about their earnings rather than to the database schema. Related income sources were grouped together, the distinction between income types was explained in plain language.

Deposit loading experience

When funds are being loaded, users need to understand two things: that something is actually happening, and when to expect it to complete. The old experience was ambiguous on both. The loading state communication was redesigned — clear progress indication, realistic time expectations set upfront, and an unambiguous confirmation state when the process completed.

Error handling across the product

Every error message now tells the user what went wrong, why, and what to do about it. Errors surface close to the point of failure rather than at the bottom of a form after submission. Generic messages were replaced with specific ones users could act on without calling support.

Copy audit and rewrite

A full copy audit across the product — identifying jargon, inconsistent terminology, complex sentence structures, and instructions that assumed financial knowledge. The rewrite prioritised plain language, consistency in how the same concepts are referred to, and a tone that is helpful rather than formal.

What improved

Reducing friction in the verification flow reduced abandonment at key drop-off points. Better error handling reduced confusion and support volume. Plain-language copy made the product accessible to a wider range of users including those with limited financial literacy or English proficiency.

For a product serving people in genuine financial precarity, reducing friction isn’t just a UX metric — it’s directly connected to whether people access the benefits they’re entitled to.