Maya
Automatic or nothing
Back to work
OutputMobile prototype and marketing site
RoleSolo product designer
ResearchCompetitive audit, five personas
LiveFigma prototype
Project scopeCompetitive audit
Personas and journeys
IA and user flow
Mobile prototype
Marketing site
POOL
I designed a savings prototype where a group working toward one goal can see who put in what, without anyone having to ask.
About the project00The problem
Groups saving toward one goal fall back on messages and mental math. Nobody holds one view of who contributed what, so someone has to ask, and asking about money creates tension.
55%Decide together with someone else
26%Decide alone
Joint money is the common case. The apps are built for the 26%.
Israelis aged 20 and over, everyday money decisionsCentral Bureau of Statistics, July 2025
01Between splitting and saving
I plotted nine budgeting and saving apps, three of them Israeli. Each one either splits what a group already spent or tracks what one person saves toward. None did both.
Save toward a goal
Track spending
Personal trackersPocketGuard, Finanda, Sakem.li
YNABMethod, not social
RiseUpOpen banking, one person
HoneydueBuilt for two
ZetaClosed in 2025
SplitwiseSplits, no goal
PoolGroup and goal
One person
A group
Competitive auditNine apps on the two axes that decide whether Pool has a reason to exist
02A group goal is a personal goal, shared
I started with a group app and solo saving as the smaller sibling. The audit and five persona journeys reversed it. One structure serves both, so nobody learns the task twice. The cost: invitations had to read as optional in personal mode.
- 01
One word, two modes
A pool is a shared or personal savings goal.
- 02
Solo first
Starting alone is stated up front. Inviting others can wait.
- 03
One primary action
Create a pool. Insights stay secondary.
Omer
Try before signing up
Shiri
Two languages, one screen
Lior
Uneven income, no ranking
Moshe
Low graphics, no room for error
Five personasEach with a task-by-task journey
03Amounts are visible, ranks are not
I weighed leaderboards, streaks and nudges against plain visible amounts. Lior, the freelancer persona, earns unevenly, and a rank would read as a verdict on him. Members see who has contributed, and settling up is a step in the app rather than a conversation.
- 01
One view
Everyone sees the same progress.
- 02
No ranking
Amounts are visible. The list is not sorted by them.
- 03
One total
Progress counts the whole group.
04Bank sync is a choice, not a gate
Omer, the student persona, will not hand over credentials before he has seen the app work. Bank connection is optional and comes at the end of setup. Manual logging and read-only sync feed the same model, so progress is calculated the same way.
- 01
Trust first
Encryption and read-only access come before the choice.
- 02
Manual is complete
Saving without a bank link is a full path.
- 03
No cliff
Start manual, connect later.
05The site answers the bank question first
Nobody installs a financial app on impulse. A companion site built on the same tokens explains the model and answers the bank question before download.
06How I used AI
I used Figma Make to generate layout alternatives for the two heaviest screens, the goals list and the bank connection step. I set the constraints and picked the direction.
What this does not prove
No usability session took place. The study has goals, research questions and KPIs, but no participants or script. Comparison anxiety is a hypothesis I have not watched a group test. Bank sync is designed, not integrated. Shiri's bilingual onboarding and Moshe's printable low-graphics mode were never designed.
