Participants: 10 in total (two cohorts of 5 participants – Past guests and random users). For convenience, User group 1 will signify the “past guests” group which comprises of people who have previously visited the client’s resort; User group 2 will be used for the group of random users who have had no prior interaction or knowledge of the resort.

Bear in mind, “random” users were volunteers who lived in Delhi and were screened to ensure they fit our target demographic’s age range. However, there was not enough time and resources to do a thorough screening to ensure randomness in the second group and recruit more than 5 users per group.

Design variant A: A traditional, safe design option with visual harmony and symmetry.
Design variant B: A modern, cutting-edge design with an unconventional approach.

Method: 30 words were carefully chosen, of which 18 (60%) were positive and 12 (40%) were negative as is best practice. Out of the positive words, words highlighted in green aligned with the client’s brand image goals. The word list went through some iterations after taking feedback from my peers, using AI, and doing some secondary research to ensure the words chosen were, for the most part, construed by society as definitely positive and definitely negative. Since usability was not being tested, words pertaining to usability were not included.

Positive words:
Sophisticated, Charming, Serene, Luxurious, Cutting-edge, Authentic, stable, Easy-to-use, Wholesome, Timeless, Warm, Relaxing, Welcoming, Peaceful, Stylish, Unique, Thoughtful, Exclusive

Negative words:
Outdated, Inconsistent, Overpriced, Impersonal, Crowded, Predictable, Bizarre, Chaotic, boring, Discordant, Confusing, Intimidating

Participants from each group were shown both design variants and were asked to select 5 words that best describe each design option. I randomised the order in which the words were presented as well as the order in which the designs were presented to minimise order bias. After each participant selected the words from the list, I did a quick post-test interview probing them on why they selected those words to extract the “why”.

Finally, I tallied the number of times each word was selected and ordered them by most-selected to least-selected (as percentages). Venn diagrams were made to compare the responses from the two user groups by looking at the top 5 words chosen by each group (see images below).

Variant A (Traditional)

• Words like “timeless,” “warm,” and “relaxing” were selected because users felt the design looked simple, familiar, and similar to other websites for hotels, spas, or restaurants.
• The font was considered a safe choice yet readable and pleasant, and the testimonials added a sense of trust and reassurance.
• “Predictable” was used to describe the layout, as users found elements where they expected them (e.g., “book now” CTA, navigation links, and contact sections). While some saw this predictability as a neutral or slightly negative trait, others appreciated its familiarity. Nonetheless, the two users who had selected the word “boring” also cited the predictable and safe nature of the interface making it appear lacklustre in their eyes.

Variant B (Modern)

• Words like “unique,” “stylish,” and “discordant” were commonly selected. User group 2 viewed the design more favourably, associating it with edgy boutique fashion websites and thus calling it “exclusive.” However, most of user group 1 felt the design did not match the homestay’s traditional brand image, suggesting it would better suit a hotel chain with a modern building and décorn
• Some user group 2 participants also noted the design didn’t align with the homestay’s aesthetic after seeing images of the property, though this feedback was less frequent.
• Words like “confusing” and “chaotic” highlighted usability concerns. Although the test focused primarily on visual appeal, users felt the design appeared less intuitive and user-friendly at first glance, adding to its perceived flaws.