SHEDD AQUARIUM:
MAKING THE TICKET FLOW FEEL NATURAL
2025
ROLE
UX Researcher
TOOLS
tobii pro fusion, figma, hotjar, ga4
UX Researcher
TOOLS
tobii pro fusion, figma, hotjar, ga4
Field> UX Research
THE CHALLENGE
The Shedd Aquarium team knew visitors were dropping off during the ticketing process, but traditional analytics could only show where it was happening, not why.
Our goal was to make pricing easier to understand and the ticketing experience easier to navigate. Closing that gap could recover an estimated $95K to $107K in revenue each month.
Through 16 eye-tracking sessions, we found that pricing was a major source of confusion. Out-of-state visitors pay nearly twice the local ticket price, yet convert 1.6 points less, and 94% of participants were unclear about what their visit would actually cost.
![]()
OUR APPROACH
To truly see the journey through a visitor’s eyes, we combined Tobii eye-tracking technology with a Retrospective Think Aloud (RTA) method.
![]()
First, participants completed the ticket purchase flow while their gaze patterns were silently recorded.
Then, immediately afterward, we played back their session and asked them to reflect aloud on what they noticed, felt, and hesitated over.
This two-layered method allowed us to uncover not just where users looked, but how they made sense of what they saw—revealing hidden confusion, assumptions, and moments of doubt that traditional analytics would have missed.
With our understanding of audiences and the friction points over the payment flow, we came up with our research question:
The Shedd Aquarium team knew visitors were dropping off during the ticketing process, but traditional analytics could only show where it was happening, not why.
Our goal was to make pricing easier to understand and the ticketing experience easier to navigate. Closing that gap could recover an estimated $95K to $107K in revenue each month.
Through 16 eye-tracking sessions, we found that pricing was a major source of confusion. Out-of-state visitors pay nearly twice the local ticket price, yet convert 1.6 points less, and 94% of participants were unclear about what their visit would actually cost.
OUR APPROACH
To truly see the journey through a visitor’s eyes, we combined Tobii eye-tracking technology with a Retrospective Think Aloud (RTA) method.
First, participants completed the ticket purchase flow while their gaze patterns were silently recorded.
Then, immediately afterward, we played back their session and asked them to reflect aloud on what they noticed, felt, and hesitated over.
This two-layered method allowed us to uncover not just where users looked, but how they made sense of what they saw—revealing hidden confusion, assumptions, and moments of doubt that traditional analytics would have missed.
With our understanding of audiences and the friction points over the payment flow, we came up with our research question:
"How might we make a better Shedd Aquarium's ticket purchasing process for individual and family visitors to better support their visits?"
WHAT WE FOUND IN THE INTERVIEWS
15 of 16 participants got stuck navigating the purchase process. Users couldn’t easily move backward, correct earlier choices, or remove add-ons once selected, while the same green button style changed meaning from one screen to the next. “If none of these dates work for me, I can’t close the window. That’s annoying.”
1 4 of 16 participants hesitated on the calendar, time, and add-on screens. Dates, times, pricing, eligibility, colors, and icons competed for attention, making it harder for users to understand what each option meant and slowing down decision-making. “I didn’t understand what the colours were or what all the text about holiday period or discount periods were.”
15 of 16 participants were confused by inconsistent pricing throughout the flow. Cost information appeared alongside already-dense date and time selections instead of being surfaced clearly, so users often skimmed past price changes or failed to understand why the total had changed. By the time participants reached later screens, many were moving quickly just to finish the task rather than evaluating the information in front of them.
Gazemap of a participant who took too long to navigate the payment page
LET’S GET DEEPER INTO EACH FINDINGS
FINDING: USERS HAVE NO AUTONOMY TO NAVIGATE
Looking into our interview data, around 42.9% of participants encountered information overload and 38.1% of them were confused by the lack of context of the CityPass
Users would go back and forth and rely on the browser back button.
Users would go back and forth and rely on the browser back button.
SOLUTION: INCLUDING NAVIGATION BUTTONS
What we saw: Users actively relied on the “Back” button during the ticketing flow and got confused with the irregular positioning of the green buttons
- A clear and consistent navigation will reduce cognitive load and builds trust
- Consistent placement of next buttons
- Back buttons throughout the flow
- Additionally: An interactive sticky stepper with more information about the ticket, admission, etc.
FINDIN: USERS STRUGGLED TO MAKE CONFIDENT DECISIONS ON THE CALENDAR & TIME PAGES
The Introduction of “Must-see tour” and add-ons is too confusing.
The placement of the add-ons caused confusion for visitors. While the “Must-See Tour” appeared beneath the “General Admission” option on the main ticketing page, other add-ons were presented on the following screen.
This inconsistency disrupted the ticketing flow, as users had to pause and make sense of the different options spread across multiple steps.
SOLUTION: RENAME AND COMBINE THE SECTIONS TO ENHANCE CLARITY
What we saw: Visitors ticketing flow got disrupted as they took time understanding the different options.
- Combine the General Ticket page and the Add-on page, and use accordions
- Rename “Must See Tour” as “General Tickets with Exclusive Tour” to let the visitors know what’s the difference between general tickets and tour tickets
- Add a comparison sheet or short explanation on the different types of tickets
The RICE scores gave us a clear order of what to tackle first:
- The RICE scores gave us a clear order of what to tackle first:
- Start with price transparency. This was the strongest opportunity by far, with a RICE score of 62.5. Users were missing important cost information, so pricing should be easier to spot earlier and stay consistent throughout the flow.
- Simplify the calendar and time-slot experience. With a score of 33.3, this was the next biggest pain point. There was too much happening at once, so the goal is to reduce visual clutter and make dates, times, availability, and pricing easier to scan.
- Give users more control over navigation. Navigation scored 32. Adding consistent back and next buttons, along with a clearer sense of progress, would help users recover from mistakes without feeling stuck.
- Make add-ons easier to understand. Add-ons scored 30 and caused confusion because they appeared in different places throughout the flow. Grouping them more consistently would make the decision feel more intentional.
The lower-scoring issues still matter, but they did not need to lead the redesign. The general admission accordion was more limited in reach, and the login page was often skipped altogether.
What stood out most is that the ticketing flow did not need a complete rebuild. There were already parts that worked well, especially guest checkout and the “Get Tickets” entry point. The bigger opportunity was to fix the moments where users lost context, confidence, or control.
So the direction became pretty focused: make the price clearer, make the hardest screens easier to process, and make the flow easier to move through without changing the parts that were already working.
The lower-scoring issues still matter, but they did not need to lead the redesign. The general admission accordion was more limited in reach, and the login page was often skipped altogether.
What stood out most is that the ticketing flow did not need a complete rebuild. There were already parts that worked well, especially guest checkout and the “Get Tickets” entry point. The bigger opportunity was to fix the moments where users lost context, confidence, or control.
So the direction became pretty focused: make the price clearer, make the hardest screens easier to process, and make the flow easier to move through without changing the parts that were already working.
The lower-scoring issues still matter, but they did not need to lead the redesign. The general admission accordion was more limited in reach, and the login page was often skipped altogether.
What stood out most is that the ticketing flow did not need a complete rebuild. There were already parts that worked well, especially guest checkout and the “Get Tickets” entry point. The bigger opportunity was to fix the moments where users lost context, confidence, or control.
So the direction became pretty focused: make the price clearer, make the hardest screens easier to process, and make the flow easier to move through without changing the parts that were already working.