Case study · Recens
Engineering confidence, dismantling size anxiety.
How a proprietary Dual Height-Tier sizing model reduced return rates by 28%, and how an ambassador program grew community-driven sales.
View live site ↗
Three numbers that prove the design worked, each one maps directly to a design decision, not a vanity metric.
The problem
It wasn't a sizing problem. It was a trust problem.
Recens sells 100% polyester-free western wear to conscious Indian consumers. Our sustainability mission depended on low return rates: every returned parcel has a carbon footprint. But we had a hidden leak: users were abandoning carts, not because they didn't want the product, but because they didn't trust it would fit.
The standard industry response is "just add a size chart." We had one. It wasn't working.
Research
40 interviews. One surprising insight.
I expected to hear about waist measurements. Instead, I kept hearing about height. Users weren't just Small or Large. They were "Short-Small" or "Tall-Medium." Standard charts only measured width and ignored the vertical dimension of fit.
Research, continued
Trust lives in the fabric, not just the fit.
Three paths. One winner.
Each option framed as a hypothesis and stress-tested against the research.
| Option | Hypothesis | Research signal | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A) Static chart | Lowest friction, but fails vertical proportionality. | Already failing: source of 80% of fit-related returns. | Control |
| B) Dual height-tier | Splitting by height tier reduces fit anxiety with minimal clicks. | Directly addressed the "vertical gap" insight from interviews. | Winner |
| C) Sizing quiz | Highest accuracy, but adds a friction barrier. | Users explicitly said they didn't want to "answer ten questions." | Rejected |
How it evolved through two real iterations
Neither version came out fully formed. Here's the honest iteration arc:
Iteration 01
The digital sizing calculator
My first instinct was a sizing quiz: ask users a series of questions, return a personalized recommendation. Technically elegant. Users hated it.
Iteration 02
The dual height-tier chart
I stripped the quiz entirely. Instead of asking users questions, I gave them a single binary choice: your height range. Under 5'6" or 5'6"+. One click. Instant clarity.
Three interlocking decisions
Remove any one of them and the system breaks.
Dual height-tier sizing
XS to XL split across two height bands. Users filter by height first, then width, before seeing a single measurement.
Story-driven technical specs
Transparency as a sales tool: copy that lets a user mentally "feel" the fabric before they buy.
Ambassador program flow
A commission-based program nested in the footer, accessible to power users, invisible to casual shoppers.
Impact
What actually changed
The usability study used a within-subjects design with counterbalancing: users tested Version A (static chart) and Version B (dual-tier) in randomized order. The 28% return reduction wasn't just a business win. It was the sustainability mission made measurable. Every return avoided is packaging saved and a delivery run removed.
"UX is inseparable from business strategy. Every pixel I changed served a measurable goal."
The most important decision on this project wasn't the UI. It was choosing to reject Option C. The pressure to build the more technically impressive solution is real, especially as a founder trying to prove competence. The interviews were clear, and I trusted them over my own instinct to over-engineer.