Homepage — V1 → V2

Header IA mismatch

Logged-out visitors see "Itineraries / Reservations / Wishlist / Explore activities" — items that belong to a signed-in product session. A first-time visitor has no itineraries or reservations yet, so the nav describes a state they can't reach. "Explore activities" is undefined: it's unclear whether it leads to a search, a city guide, or something else entirely. Additionally, showing "Get itinerary" as a persistent nav CTA while the user is already mid-flow creates ambiguity — does it start over, or save progress?

Value proposition is implied, not stated

"A trip plan tailored to you / Just answer a few questions" describes a mechanism (questionnaire-based planning) rather than an outcome (a ready-to-use day-by-day itinerary with bookings). A user landing for the first time cannot determine in under three seconds what is different about Pockigo compared to Google Maps, TripAdvisor, or a travel agent. The supporting route illustration reinforces "planning tool" but not the specific value of AI-generated, locally optimised itineraries.

Two competing primary actions

The V1 hero contains a "Get itinerary" button in the nav and a large "Get itinerary" button in the hero. Two identical CTAs at different visual weights create indecision. The labels are identical, which raises the question: are they different actions? If not, one is redundant; if yes, the distinction is invisible.

Hero illustration reads as a sketch artifact

The dashed orange route path connecting circular photo thumbnails is conceptually strong — it maps the journey structure that Pockigo produces. In execution it reads as an early wireframe rather than a finished product: the stroke weight, the mismatched avatar crop sizes, and the icon circles without consistent labels signal prototype fidelity. For a travel product where the first impression is "is this trustworthy enough to book through?", a sketch aesthetic in the hero works against conversion.

Destination examples mismatch the product's focus

The "Recommended itineraries" section shows Tokyo (6-day) and Thailand (10-day). The actual product in its current state is scoped to European city trips — the Granada itinerary is the core demo, and the destinations section in V2 shows Seville, Lisbon, Porto, and Marrakech. Showing long-haul Asia trips implies global coverage that doesn't yet exist, and creates a credibility gap when a user tries to plan Tokyo and finds a thinner experience.

Trust signals are insufficient for a payment product

"Over 5,000 people have built their plan with us" is a lifetime aggregate number with no time dimension — it doesn't signal current activity. The two testimonials use stock-photo avatars, which are widely recognised as placeholder assets and reduce credibility. For a product that holds ticket reservations and processes payments, users need: evidence of live usage, visible cancellation and refund policies near the payment step, and partner or security indicators that confirm their money is safe.

Footer was overloaded and unfocused

The V1 footer included a QR code for app download, a broad set of navigation links, and social media icons — all competing for attention at the bottom of the page. For a product this early in its lifecycle, a dense footer signals breadth that doesn't yet exist and draws the user's eye away from the primary conversion path. The app QR code in particular was misplaced: a user who just landed on the homepage hasn't experienced the product yet, so there is no compelling reason to download an app.