Purpose — This study explores the needs, expectations, and trust concerns of users seeking everyday community support services — such as home repairs, caregiving, tutoring, and local errands — through a digital platform. It examines service discovery, provider trust and verification, booking clarity, pricing transparency, and accessible, responsive design. Based on these insights, it proposes a user-centred approach to designing a more trustworthy, transparent, and low-friction service-booking experience, developed through the design of a platform, Sahyog. Design/methodology/approach — A user-centred design (UCD) approach structured around the Double-Diamond model was adopted over a seven-week UI/UX design internship. Secondary research into on-demand service-marketplace behaviour was combined with a competitive audit of leading service platforms. The findings informed personas, journey maps, information architecture, user flows, a component-driven design system, low- to high-fidelity screens, an interactive prototype, and moderated usability testing focused on the booking and checkout flow. Findings — Users experience friction across provider discovery, trust and verification, and — most acutely — the booking/checkout flow. They value clear provider credentials, transparent and upfront pricing, simple multi-step booking, and responsive, accessible screens across devices. Reducing booking steps and surfacing trust signals (verification badges, ratings, past-work evidence) emerged as the highest-impact design opportunities. Practical implications — The study demonstrates how user research and a reusable design system can inform community-support platforms that simplify discovery, comparison, and booking while remaining consistent, responsive, and accessible. Originality/value — The study contributes a trust-first, booking-focused, user-centred perspective to service-marketplace design, translating everyday user needs into concrete design decisions and positioning verification, transparent pricing, and responsive accessibility as core considerations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruchi Gaur Harsh Yadav (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: