Design critique: Refund flow, concept round
Author: Maya Torres · Date: 13 October 2026
Design under review
Link: Billing Figma file, page "Refunds v2 concepts" · Stage: early concept
Goals of the critique
Direction is still open. We are choosing between concept A (refund from the appointment) and concept B (refund from the payments list). Feedback on structure and flow is welcome; visual polish is out of scope this round.
Feedback
| Area | Observation | Suggestion | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry point | In concept B, receptionists must know the payment date to find it. Research showed they search by patient name. | Lead with patient search in B, or go with A. | Must fix |
| Partial refunds | The amount field defaults to the full amount; a slip refunds everything. | Default to empty and show the original amount beside the field. | Must fix |
| Confirmation | The final step says "Submit". Refunds cannot be undone with our provider. | Name the action and amount: "Refund £45.00 to Visa 4421". | Should fix |
| Owner limits | The limit message appears only after the receptionist presses refund. | Show the remaining limit on the first screen. | Should fix |
| Receipt | Email receipt option is hidden under "More". | Fine for now; check in testing whether patients ask for it. | Nit |
What's working
- Concept A's "Refund" action sitting next to the appointment matches how receptionists described the moment in research.
- The step count (three screens) is right; nobody wanted fewer.
- Keyboard flow through the amount and reason fields already works in the prototype.
Open questions
- Do clinics with more than one card terminal need to choose a terminal? Jonas to ask three pilot clinics.
- Should the refund reason be required? Ana to check what finance needs for reconciliation.
Decisions
- Go with concept A as the primary path. Keep a refund action in the payments list for owners, using the same three screens.
- Partial refund amount defaults to empty.