A Pet-First Quote Form for PetCare Plus
A Pet-First Quote Form for PetCare Plus
A Pet-First Quote Form for PetCare Plus
Built for a fictional pet insurance client under a tight brief and no access to real users, this mobile quote form uses competitor analysis to shape a pet-first flow, a contextual coverage recommendation, and consistent brand personality from the first screen through to confirmation.
Built for a fictional pet insurance client under a tight brief and no access to real users, this mobile quote form uses competitor analysis to shape a pet-first flow, a contextual coverage recommendation, and consistent brand personality from the first screen through to confirmation.
Built for a fictional pet insurance client under a tight brief and no access to real users, this mobile quote form uses competitor analysis to shape a pet-first flow, a contextual coverage recommendation, and consistent brand personality from the first screen through to confirmation.
Role
UX Researcher
UI Designer
Tools
Figma
Claude
Claude Design
Team
N/A
Timeline
May '26
Role
UX Researcher
UI Designer
Tools
Figma
Claude
Claude Design
Team
N/A
Timeline
May '26
The problem
No Brand, No Users, No Time
The brief set out exactly what needed to be collected: pet owner details, pet details, vaccination status, and a preferred coverage level. It said far less about how to collect any of it, or what "friendly, trustworthy, and modern" should actually look like on a mobile screen.
There was no existing brand beyond three words in a brief, no access to real users, and a short turnaround to work with.
The challenge wasn't just designing a form. It was deciding what good looked like in this space before designing anything at all.
The problem
No Brand, No Users, No Time
The brief set out exactly what needed to be collected: pet owner details, pet details, vaccination status, and a preferred coverage level. It said far less about how to collect any of it, or what "friendly, trustworthy, and modern" should actually look like on a mobile screen.
There was no existing brand beyond three words in a brief, no access to real users, and a short turnaround to work with.
The challenge wasn't just designing a form. It was deciding what good looked like in this space before designing anything at all.
The solution
From Generic Fields to a Pet-First Flow
The form was structured around one idea: lead with the pet, earn trust gradually, and ask for personal details last. Competitor research shaped every major decision, from the order fields appear in to the language used in each label.
Pet details first
The form opens with the pet: name, type, breed, age, and vaccination status, before asking anything about the owner. Cassius's name carries through every later screen, in headers, field labels, and the final call to action. "Where does Cassius live?" instead of "Your address." Small things, but they keep the brand's warmth running through the whole journey instead of stopping at the landing page.
A coverage recommendation, not just a choice
None of the competitors handle coverage selection well. Basic, Standard, and Premium are presented as options and left for the user to work out alone. This form surfaces a recommendation based on the pet details already entered, before showing the full set of options. The brief asked for this directly. None of the competitors actually deliver it.
The quote before the commitment
An indicative quote appears before the form asks for any owner information. By the time a user reaches their own details, the quote sits visible at the top of the screen, giving them a clear reason to keep going.
The solution
From Generic Fields to a Pet-First Flow
The form was structured around one idea: lead with the pet, earn trust gradually, and ask for personal details last. Competitor research shaped every major decision, from the order fields appear in to the language used in each label.
Pet details first
The form opens with the pet: name, type, breed, age, and vaccination status, before asking anything about the owner. Cassius's name carries through every later screen, in headers, field labels, and the final call to action. "Where does Cassius live?" instead of "Your address." Small things, but they keep the brand's warmth running through the whole journey instead of stopping at the landing page.
A coverage recommendation, not just a choice
None of the competitors handle coverage selection well. Basic, Standard, and Premium are presented as options and left for the user to work out alone. This form surfaces a recommendation based on the pet details already entered, before showing the full set of options. The brief asked for this directly. None of the competitors actually deliver it.
The quote before the commitment
An indicative quote appears before the form asks for any owner information. By the time a user reaches their own details, the quote sits visible at the top of the screen, giving them a clear reason to keep going.
THE SHOWCASE
The Flow in Full
THE SHOWCASE
The Flow in Full
The RESEARCH
Research & Discovery
PetCare Plus was a fictional client set as a design exercise: a short brief, a made-up brand, and a deliberately tight turnaround. With no access to real users and no existing brand guidelines to reference, competitor analysis became the primary research method.
Competitor Analysis
Pet insurance is a crowded market but not a converged one. RSPCA carries decades of brand equity. Waggel is deliberately modern and personality-led. Vetsure leans into a clinical, medically credible identity. That range confirmed the market hadn't settled on one approach, which meant the decisions made for PetCare Plus needed to be deliberate rather than conventional.
Each competitor was reviewed across three passes, all completed on mobile:
Form structure: mapping the architecture before filling in a single field
Trust and emotion: completing the form as a real user, noting where it felt reassuring and where it created friction
Brand values: checking where personality survived into the form itself, and where it disappeared
Patterns & Findings
Four patterns held across all three competitors.
Pet-first ordering is the emerging standard. All three lead with pet details before owner details, and it's worth following on purpose rather than by habit. The user is here because of their pet, not their address.
Progress indication is inconsistent but always noticeable. RSPCA shows step progress throughout. Waggel and Vetsure don't. Every time it was missing, the form felt longer and harder to commit to.
Brand personality rarely survives past the landing page. Vetsure loses it almost immediately. RSPCA stays visually consistent but loses warmth. Waggel is the only one that carries personality into field labels and helper text, and it reads as noticeably more engaging.
Quote timing is a real strategic choice. Waggel shows the quote before asking for personal data. RSPCA gates it behind an email address. For PetCare Plus, showing value first fits the brand better. It might cost a few email addresses. That's a fair trade for staying friendly rather than pushy.
A few specific comparisons shaped the design directly. Waggel asks "What is your pet's name?" and offers "Not sure exactly?" for rescue pets. Vetsure uses generic field labels with no personality, for the same data. RSPCA reveals fields progressively as previous ones are completed, which kept a long form feeling manageable. Vetsure shows everything on one page, which felt overwhelming on mobile. Across all three, error messages were generic: "Please enter a valid date" turned up on every site in some form. Warm, specific error copy costs nothing and changes how the whole form feels.
Where This Would Go Next
Competitor analysis gives a strong baseline, but it can't confirm whether these decisions work for PetCare Plus's actual customers. Usability testing would be the natural next step, particularly around the coverage recommendation and whether showing the quote before capturing an email helps or hurts conversion in practice. That second question sits well as an A/B test. It's a business decision as much as a design one, and worth resolving with data rather than opinion.
Analytics from day one, tracking drop-off per screen and time spent on each step, would keep any future iteration grounded in real usage rather than assumption.
The RESEARCH
Research & Discovery
PetCare Plus was a fictional client set as a design exercise: a short brief, a made-up brand, and a deliberately tight turnaround. With no access to real users and no existing brand guidelines to reference, competitor analysis became the primary research method.
Competitor Analysis
Pet insurance is a crowded market but not a converged one. RSPCA carries decades of brand equity. Waggel is deliberately modern and personality-led. Vetsure leans into a clinical, medically credible identity. That range confirmed the market hadn't settled on one approach, which meant the decisions made for PetCare Plus needed to be deliberate rather than conventional.
Each competitor was reviewed across three passes, all completed on mobile:
Form structure: mapping the architecture before filling in a single field
Trust and emotion: completing the form as a real user, noting where it felt reassuring and where it created friction
Brand values: checking where personality survived into the form itself, and where it disappeared
Patterns & Findings
Four patterns held across all three competitors.
Pet-first ordering is the emerging standard. All three lead with pet details before owner details, and it's worth following on purpose rather than by habit. The user is here because of their pet, not their address.
Progress indication is inconsistent but always noticeable. RSPCA shows step progress throughout. Waggel and Vetsure don't. Every time it was missing, the form felt longer and harder to commit to.
Brand personality rarely survives past the landing page. Vetsure loses it almost immediately. RSPCA stays visually consistent but loses warmth. Waggel is the only one that carries personality into field labels and helper text, and it reads as noticeably more engaging.
Quote timing is a real strategic choice. Waggel shows the quote before asking for personal data. RSPCA gates it behind an email address. For PetCare Plus, showing value first fits the brand better. It might cost a few email addresses. That's a fair trade for staying friendly rather than pushy.
A few specific comparisons shaped the design directly. Waggel asks "What is your pet's name?" and offers "Not sure exactly?" for rescue pets. Vetsure uses generic field labels with no personality, for the same data. RSPCA reveals fields progressively as previous ones are completed, which kept a long form feeling manageable. Vetsure shows everything on one page, which felt overwhelming on mobile. Across all three, error messages were generic: "Please enter a valid date" turned up on every site in some form. Warm, specific error copy costs nothing and changes how the whole form feels.
Where This Would Go Next
Competitor analysis gives a strong baseline, but it can't confirm whether these decisions work for PetCare Plus's actual customers. Usability testing would be the natural next step, particularly around the coverage recommendation and whether showing the quote before capturing an email helps or hurts conversion in practice. That second question sits well as an A/B test. It's a business decision as much as a design one, and worth resolving with data rather than opinion.
Analytics from day one, tracking drop-off per screen and time spent on each step, would keep any future iteration grounded in real usage rather than assumption.
More Work
You Might Like
More Work
You Might Like
More Work
You Might Like
More Work
You Might Like
More Work
You Might Like
More Work
You Might Like
