Most digital systems are built with an assumed user in mind, someone comfortable navigating structured interfaces and able to adapt when systems behave unexpectedly. In practice, many people encounter these systems without training, without guidance, and without the expectation that they should have to learn them at all.
This gap becomes especially visible in community environments. People rely on digital tools not because they choose to, but because those tools have become part of participation itself. When systems are unclear, people disengage. When they are understandable, they stay involved.
Lianlian Ma’s work focuses on this point of transition, where systems stop being technically functional and begin to be usable in everyday contexts. This work reflects Ma’s professional practice, where system-level design decisions are applied in real-world contexts to support how people understand and engage with digital systems.
A System That Created Friction
In one project, Ma led the redesign of the website for S.F. True Light Baptist Church, a congregation of roughly 90 members with 17 active small groups in the San Francisco Bay Area. The original system, last updated in 2017, had evolved without a clear structure. Information was fragmented, navigation paths were inconsistent, and key content reflected internal language rather than how visitors understood the information.
A survey of 29 community members and visitors found that 78% struggled with the existing navigation. Users could not locate essential information such as service times, event details, and contact pathways. For first-time visitors and those unfamiliar with church terminology, completing even basic tasks required trial and error rather than clear guidance. Staff, meanwhile, spent significant time on manual updates that a better-structured system would have handled automatically.
The issue was not visual quality. It was structural clarity.
Redefining the System Structure
Rather than approaching the project as a surface-level redesign, Ma reframed it as a problem of information architecture and interaction logic. She led a small cross-functional team through a research process that included observation, a 29-person questionnaire, 16 user interviews, competitive analysis, and usability testing with eight participants.
The redesign focused on three key changes: reorganizing information architecture to match how users search for content; simplifying navigation to reduce decision friction and unnecessary steps; and rewriting terminology to align with users’ mental models rather than internal assumptions. A dedicated newcomer’s guide was introduced to make faith-related concepts accessible to visitors without prior background knowledge.
These changes did not introduce new features. Instead, they redefined how the system could be understood and used. This way of working, starting from structure rather than surface, can be seen across both community and professional environments.
Observable Changes in User Behavior
The impact of the redesign became visible through user testing and engagement outcomes. Users were able to locate information more efficiently, complete tasks with less hesitation, and navigate the site without external assistance. The system no longer required users to interpret its logic, which aligned with how they already approached information.
In usability testing, 65% of participants submitted the contact form, used as a proxy for meaningful engagement, indicating a strong willingness to take the next step after navigating the redesigned site. Early feedback and internal data indicate increased visibility and engagement. Stakeholders confirmed the redesign had resolved the issues that had constrained community engagement for years.
This shift reflects a change not only in usability but in participation. When systems become understandable, users move from passive observation to active engagement.
A Broader Implication
This pattern extends beyond a single project. It reflects a broader principle: systems influence not only what people can do, but whether they choose to engage at all.
As digital tools continue to expand into everyday environments, including community organizations, nonprofits, and institutions that lack dedicated technical support, the effectiveness of a system is no longer defined only by functionality, but by whether people can understand and act within it. As AI-assisted tools increasingly reach these same environments, the question of who designs those experiences, and with whom in mind, becomes more consequential.
Ma’s work demonstrates that design, at its core, is about making systems interpretable to the people who rely on them. In contexts where users are not technical, this becomes the difference between access and exclusion. This is where design impact becomes most visible, not in what systems can do, but in whether people are able to use them at all.
