UX Assumptions & Decisions

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: Most high-value visitors arrive with a project in mind and need to be routed efficiently, not browsed like a catalogue.
• -Assumption: The three-division structure (Production, AV Systems & Installations, Acoustics) is the right public-facing architecture.
• -Risk: If the site leads with too much brand positioning and not enough practical routing, visitors may leave before finding the service they need.
• -Risk: Existing hire customers may feel alienated if the transition is not handled with a clear, accessible handoff route.

How to validate

• -5-second testing with target audience members to check whether the proposition and divisions are understood.
• -First-click testing on the proposed homepage to confirm visitors can identify the correct pathway.
• -Stakeholder review of the master proposition wording against real enquiry patterns.

Implication for the site

The homepage must lead with the master proposition, then route into Production, AV Systems & Installations and Acoustics as primary pathways, with hire presented as a secondary handoff below the main commercial hierarchy.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: These seven groups represent the primary audience segments. There may be overlaps or missing groups we have not identified.
• -Assumption: Corporate event decision-makers and festival producers have meaningfully different needs, justifying separate treatment.
• -Risk: Recording/podcast studio clients may be a smaller segment than assumed — this needs commercial validation.
• -Risk: Agency and brand partners may use the site differently from direct clients, which could affect the information architecture.

How to validate

• -Review real enquiry data from the past 12–18 months to confirm which audience groups generate the most valuable work.
• -Stakeholder interviews to rank audience groups by commercial priority.
• -Lightweight user interviews with 2–3 contacts from each priority segment.

Implication for the site

Each audience group should be able to find a clear pathway into the relevant division and see proof of work in their sector. The navigation, case study tagging and service pages need to support multiple entry points without creating excessive page depth.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: 'Understand capability quickly' is the top priority for most high-value visitors.
• -Assumption: Proof of relevant experience outweighs price or availability as a decision factor for B2B buyers.
• -Risk: The priority ranking may differ significantly between audience groups — festival producers may prioritise proof, while venue operators may prioritise process.
• -Risk: Hire users may arrive expecting the old site experience and struggle to find what they need if the hierarchy is too production-focused.

How to validate

• -Card-sorting exercise with 6–8 participants to test priority ranking.
• -Review existing enquiry emails and contact form submissions to identify what visitors ask about first.
• -Post-launch heatmap and scroll-depth analysis on key landing pages.

Implication for the site

Every primary landing page (homepage, division pages, case studies) should address the top three priorities — capability, proof and relevance — before presenting a CTA. Lower-priority items such as process detail and FAQs can sit in supporting sections or accordions.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: The seven personas cover the most important audience segments. There may be gaps, particularly around public-sector or institutional buyers.
• -Assumption: The goals and questions attributed to each persona are reasonable starting points, but they have not been confirmed with real users.
• -Risk: Over-investing in persona-driven design before validation could embed incorrect assumptions into the site structure.
• -Risk: Some personas may share more overlap than expected, making separate treatment unnecessary.

How to validate

• -Conduct 2–3 lightweight interviews per priority persona to test goals, questions and confusions.
• -Review CRM or enquiry data to check whether the persona segments match real client profiles.
• -Run a moderated walkthrough of the prototype with one representative from each priority segment.

Implication for the site

Proto-personas inform page structure, content priorities and CTA wording across division pages, case studies and the contact flow. They should be revisited and refined once real user data is available.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: These seven jobs cover the most common reasons visitors come to the site.
• -Assumption: 'Speaking to an expert' is a distinct job rather than a step within other jobs.
• -Risk: The jobs may be too broad — 'commissioning event production' could encompass very different scales and types of work.
• -Risk: Without client input, we may be missing jobs that drive significant commercial value.

How to validate

• -Stakeholder workshop to map these jobs against real enquiry types and commercial value.
• -Review contact form submissions and enquiry emails to identify the most common 'jobs' visitors are trying to do.
• -Test job-based labels in navigation and CTAs using first-click testing.

Implication for the site

The site should support job-based entry points alongside division-based navigation. CTAs, service descriptions and case study tagging should connect to recognisable jobs, not just internal service categories.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: The five-stage model (Awareness → Evaluation → Proof → Decision → Enquiry) reflects how these audiences actually progress.
• -Assumption: Each journey type is distinct enough to warrant separate mapping.
• -Risk: Real journeys may be less linear — visitors may jump between stages or re-enter the site multiple times before enquiring.
• -Risk: The rental user journey may need a fundamentally different approach, possibly outside the main site entirely.

How to validate

• -Post-launch analytics to trace actual user paths through the site.
• -Session recordings on key landing pages to identify drop-off points.
• -Moderated prototype walkthroughs with 2–3 participants per journey type.

Implication for the site

Each journey implies specific content, proof and CTA requirements at each stage. The site architecture, internal linking and case study placement should support these journeys rather than forcing all visitors through a single linear flow.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: Three primary divisions plus a secondary hire route is the right top-level structure.
• -Assumption: Case studies work best as a shared resource rather than siloed within each division.
• -Risk: The AV Systems & Installations sub-pages may need more granularity than currently planned if the growth ambition is realised quickly.
• -Risk: The Acoustics section may need clearer separation between services, the RUK product range and case studies if the content grows significantly.

How to validate

• -Tree testing with 8–12 participants to confirm findability of key content.
• -Card sorting to validate the grouping of services and sub-pages.
• -Client review of the proposed sitemap against current and planned content.

Implication for the site

The primary navigation should expose Production, AV Systems and Acoustics at the top level, with Case Studies, Insights, Hire and Contact as supporting routes. Sub-navigation should emerge only where there is enough content depth to justify it.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: The Acoustics brochure content can be adapted for the web with editorial adjustment.
• -Assumption: Case study content for We Out Here and Alphabet is available in sufficient depth.
• -Risk: If client logos and testimonials cannot be secured, the credibility sections will lack impact.
• -Risk: Content for AV Systems & Installations is thinner than for Production and Acoustics, which may make that division feel less credible despite its growth ambition.

How to validate

• -Content audit workshop with the client to review each requirement and confirm availability.
• -Prioritised content brief for missing items, with deadlines aligned to the development schedule.
• -Copy comprehension testing on key propositions and service descriptions once drafted.

Implication for the site

Pages should be designed to work with the content that is available now, with clear placeholder structures for content that is coming. No page should launch with a proof section that is empty — better to defer a section than show a gap.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: Intent-led CTAs will outperform generic 'Contact us' labels for B2B audiences.
• -Assumption: A route-based enquiry form (selecting Production, AV Systems, Acoustics or Hire) will improve lead quality.
• -Risk: Too many CTA variations across the site could create decision fatigue.
• -Risk: Visitors who are unsure which service they need may be confused by intent-specific CTAs — a 'Not sure yet' fallback is important.

How to validate

• -A/B testing of intent-led vs generic CTAs post-launch.
• -Review enquiry quality and response times after implementing route-based enquiries.
• -First-click testing to confirm CTA labels are understood correctly.

Implication for the site

Each primary page should have one clear primary CTA relevant to its pathway, supported by one or two secondary exploration CTAs. The contact page should offer route-based selection with a 'Not sure yet' option. CTA language should use sentence case and feel invitational, not transactional.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: The project has sufficient time and budget to conduct at least the 'Do first' priority methods before visual design begins.
• -Assumption: Stakeholder access is available for workshops and interviews.
• -Risk: If research is deferred entirely, the site will launch on unvalidated assumptions with higher redesign risk.
• -Risk: Over-researching before building can delay momentum — the plan must balance rigour with pragmatism.

How to validate

• -Review the research plan with the project team to confirm feasibility and priority ordering.
• -Agree on a research calendar that aligns with the design and development timeline.
• -Track which methods were actually completed and capture findings in a shared research log.

Implication for the site

The prototype and site architecture should be designed to accommodate the findings of upcoming research. Structures should be flexible enough to adjust based on validation outcomes, particularly around audience segmentation, navigation labels and CTA wording.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: The impact and effort ratings are reasonable starting estimates.
• -Assumption: The recommended activities can be completed within the available project timeline.
• -Risk: Effort estimates may be too optimistic if stakeholder availability is limited.
• -Risk: Deprioritised items (such as moderated prototype testing) could reveal critical issues that earlier methods miss.

How to validate

• -Review the matrix with the project team after each phase to adjust ratings based on actual experience.
• -Track time spent on each activity to improve future effort estimates.
• -Compare findings from recommended activities against the assumptions they were meant to test.

Implication for the site

The recommended activities should be scheduled into the project plan before visual design begins. Outputs from each activity should feed directly into design decisions, content priorities and architecture refinements.

Assumptions & risks

• -Assumption: These six decisions are the most foundational. Additional decisions will be logged as the project progresses.
• -Assumption: The owner designations are correct and those individuals have capacity to validate.
• -Risk: If decisions are not revisited after research, the log becomes a record of assumptions rather than validated choices.
• -Risk: Some decisions may conflict with client expectations — early review is essential.

How to validate

• -Schedule a decision review session with the client within the first two weeks of the project.
• -Mark each decision as validated, revised or rejected after user research findings are available.
• -Maintain the log as a living document throughout the project lifecycle.

Implication for the site

Each decision in the log has direct implications for the site structure, content strategy and prototype direction. Changes to any decision should trigger a review of the affected pages and components.