From video replies to a Cultural Travel Hub: a TikTok UX pivot

COGS 127 Data-Driven UX / Product Design Spring 2026 UC San Diego Ran Ji

Team: Nicholas Campos, Christian Lee, Chuck Davies, Ran Ji · TA section project

We started with one problem—video replies buried inside TikTok's comment section—and ended up somewhere more interesting: a Cultural Travel Hub that helps young adults actually do something with the content they discover. This is the story of that pivot.

Milestone 4 → Milestone 5: the project evolved from structured video-reply browsing to a practical travel guide experience. This write-up covers the full arc—original concept, research, the moment we changed direction, and the final design.

Overview

The original question

We explored an extension to TikTok (educational prototype; not affiliated with ByteDance) targeting young adults ages 18–30. The starting hypothesis: video replies are buried in comment sections or surfaced inconsistently by the algorithm, making it hard for users who want to follow a response thread. Our first design added a clearer path from comments into a dedicated, structured feed of video replies—with grid scanning and cultural-category tabs.

The pivot

By Milestone 5, user testing pushed us away from reply-browsing and toward something more purposeful: a Cultural Travel Hub—a destination guide combining written summaries, category filters (food, transportation, safety), video grids, and full-screen playback. The shift happened because participants kept saying the travel direction "helps me actually do something," while enhanced reply browsing mainly meant more scrolling.

Why I care (personal stake)

Throughout this project I was wary of features that only optimize time-on-app. The pivot to a travel guide resolved that tension cleanly: success is no longer "did the user watch more videos?" but "did they leave better prepared for a trip?" That shift in success metric is the most satisfying part of the design evolution for me.

My role

I contributed to research synthesis, interaction framing, and our high-fidelity prototype direction across both milestones. This write-up is my own framing of the shared work; raw notes and full deliverables live in our team Google Doc.

User research

Goals & questions

We wanted to understand:

How people currently move from a video into related or response-based content.
Whether "staying on one topic" is something users want, or just something the algorithm occasionally delivers.
How comments and video replies fit into that mental model.
What would make a feature feel useful rather than just engaging.

Methods

We ran two semi-structured interviews with heavy TikTok users (daily usage, self-described "rabbit hole" behavior). We used a think-aloud prompt—open the app, scroll normally, narrate what draws attention—and then concept-tested both the swipe-into-replies idea and, later, the travel hub direction with verbal walkthroughs.

What we heard

Rabbit holes are real and intentional. Both participants described deliberately chasing single topics for long sessions. Manual search was their main tool; they wanted something more fluid.
Comments are a navigational layer. They function as social proof, narrative context, and jumping-off points—not a dead end. People check comments to decide whether to keep watching.
Friction switching from watching to finding. Moving from "I'm interested in this thread" to "show me more like this" meant falling back on search or hoping the algorithm delivered—neither felt reliable.
Positive early reaction to structured reply browsing. The first concept tested well: participants said they would "definitely use it" and felt it would make exploration "more intentional."

What the research revealed later — the pivot trigger

When we tested the Milestone 5 travel hub concept alongside the reply-browsing design, a clear preference emerged. The travel guide felt like it had "a clearer purpose." Users wanted tools that helped them plan and act—not just browse. Specific feedback that shaped the final direction:

Written guidance alongside video mattered; text formatting and visual hierarchy were noticed immediately.
Grid layouts helped users compare content before committing to a full video watch.
Captions over auto-dubbing was a consistent preference—for accessibility and authenticity.
Specific categories (food, transportation, safety) made the experience feel practical rather than exploratory for its own sake.

Design evolution

M4Video reply threading

Our first prototype follows the original hypothesis: from the For You feed, open comments, then enter a structured vertical reply stream. Tabs separate "General" and "Cultural" perspectives; a grid mode lets users scan multiple replies at once before choosing one to watch in full screen.

↕ scroll inside · 8 screens

Figma artboard: full user flow from TikTok For You through comments, video reply feed, reply grids, and cultural categories, connected by red arrows — Milestone 4 full-flow map. For You feed → comments → video reply feed → grid scan → cultural category tiles → full-screen reply.

Screen 1: TikTok For You feed with full-screen video — **1 — For You.** A video hooks the user; they open comments—the on-ramp we heard about in every interview.

Screen 2: Comment sheet over the video — **2 — Comments.** Instead of a dead end, the comment sheet becomes a gateway into reply video browsing.

Screen 3: Video reply feed with General and Cultural tabs — **3 — Video reply feed.** Tabs (General / Cultural) separate broad reactions from community-specific perspectives.

Screen 4: Grid of reply video thumbnails — **4 — Reply grid.** Scan mode: many reply videos at once so the user can choose rather than passively receive the next recommendation.

Screen 5: Cultural category grid with regional imagery — **5 — Cultural categories.** Tiles planted the seed for the travel hub pivot: if culture-based organisation was useful for replies, why not destinations?

Screen 6: Full-screen reply video after choosing a cultural lane — **6 — Reply video (cultural lane).** Full-screen vertical video returns—familiar muscle memory, content tied to the parent thread.

Screen 7: Another full-screen reply video in the same browsing flow — **7 — Continued replies.** The user keeps moving through related reply videos without being kicked back to For You.

⟶ Design Pivot

M5Cultural Travel Hub

After user testing surfaced a clear preference for practical utility over passive discovery, we pivoted to a Cultural Travel Hub: a TikTok-native destination guide for young adults exploring travel or relocation. The design combines:

A Trip Guide page with written summaries and structured visual hierarchy alongside video content.
Category filters (food, transportation, safety, accommodation) so users can browse by need rather than by recency or popularity.
Grid browsing preserved from M4—users compare thumbnails before committing to a watch.
Caption-first localization instead of auto-dubbing, prioritizing accessibility and authentic voice.

↕ scroll inside · 6 screens

M5 Cultural Travel Hub — all screens overview — Overview: For You entry → Search → Trip Guide → filtered grid → full-screen playback.

Screen 1: For You feed — entry point into the travel hub — **1 — For You feed.** Familiar TikTok home; the travel hub surfaces naturally through the existing feed.

Screen 2: Search with country tags and San Diego neighbourhood chips — **2 — Search.** Location-aware tag chips let users jump straight to a destination. Japan path (left) and San Diego path (right) show the same pattern scaling across regions.

Screen 3: Trip Guide — Quick Overview text, Before You Go notes, category chips, video grid — **3 — Trip Guide.** Structured hub with quick-overview prose, before-you-go notes, category filter chips, and a video grid below.

Screen 4: Filtered content grid for Japan and San Diego — **4 — Filtered grid.** 2×2 thumbnail browsing after applying category filters—compare clips before committing to a watch.

Screen 5: Full-screen video playback — Japan food content and San Diego Geisel Library — **5 — Full-screen playback.** Destination content in context, with caption-first localization preserving the creator's authentic voice.

Why this pivot worked. The M4 design solved a real friction point but kept users inside the app loop. The M5 travel hub reframes success entirely: did the user leave more prepared? That's a healthier metric—and it's why the testing feedback felt so different. "Helps me actually do something" is the clearest signal we received all quarter.

User testing

After building the M5 prototype, we ran two informal user tests to validate the direction. Participants were shown the Cultural Travel Hub via screen-share walkthrough—For You feed → Search → Trip Guide → filtered grid → full-screen video.

Participants

Participant 1 — Electrical Engineering student; uses TikTok to search for information and learn about topics. Strong fit: the feature targets turning TikTok into a structured discovery tool.
Participant 2 — Cognitive Science student; watches sports and travel content, has personal travel experience. Could evaluate both entertainment value and practical travel utility.

Findings

The travel hub felt more useful and had a clearer purpose. Both participants preferred the Cultural Travel Hub over the earlier video-reply design.

"It feels like it has a clearer purpose. The old reply concept was entertaining, but the new one feels more useful."

The video-reply concept didn't clearly solve a practical problem; the travel hub reframes the feature around real-world preparation.

Users want to actually do something with the content.

"Because it helps me actually do something. If I'm going somewhere, I need information."

Users weren't looking for more videos to passively watch—they wanted a tool that helps them find useful, actionable information quickly.

Users want text information alongside video. Participants responded positively to the written overview and before-you-go notes on the Trip Guide page. The combination of structured text and video content was perceived as more trustworthy and actionable than video alone.

Text needs clearer visual hierarchy.

"Some parts could be bolded—I want important text to stand out."

Participants found the content useful but wanted better formatting: bold key terms, cleaner bullet-point structure. The issue wasn't the information itself—it was scanability.

The grid view helps users compare before committing.

"The grid is really helpful because I do not have to scroll through videos to decide one by one."

Maintaining the grid as the intermediate step between Trip Guide and full-screen video was validated directly—it supports decision-making rather than passive consumption.

Captions are preferred over auto-dubbing.

"I would prefer captioned videos instead of dubbing. Dubbing can feel weird or distracting. Captions are enough for me."

Caption-first localization should be the default—preserving the creator's authentic voice while serving users who don't share the creator's language.

Users want specific, practical category filters. Both participants responded positively to category chips like food, transportation, safety, and accommodation. Specific filters signal practical utility and help users browse by need rather than by recency or algorithmic recommendation.

What testing confirmed. Both participants preferred the Cultural Travel Hub over the video-reply concept. The feedback was qualitatively different from earlier concept tests: not "this is fun" but "this would actually help me prepare for a trip." That shift in user language is exactly what validated the M4→M5 pivot.

Next iteration priorities

Based on testing: improve Trip Guide page formatting with bold key terms and clearer bullet hierarchy (Finding 4); maintain the grid view between Trip Guide and full-screen video (Finding 5); implement captions as the default translation option, with auto-dubbing as opt-in (Finding 6).

Key insights & reflection

What I learned about design pivots

The pivot wasn't a failure of the original idea—it was the research working as intended. M4's video reply concept had real user enthusiasm. But enthusiasm for a feature isn't the same as evidence that the feature improves someone's life. The travel hub direction earned qualitatively different feedback: not just "I'd use this" but "this would change how I prepare for trips."

The engagement vs. utility tension

I came into this project wary of features that only optimize time-on-app. The final design resolved that concern in a concrete way: grid views and written summaries are optimized for decision-making, not scroll depth. Captions over auto-dubbing serves users who don't share the creator's language. These choices reflect a design stance, not just aesthetic preference.

What comes next

The refined direction calls for improved Trip Guide page formatting, maintained grid browsing, and caption-based localization as a first-class feature. Evaluation should focus on task completion and travel preparedness—not session length.

Limitations (honest). Two semi-structured interviews and two user tests is a small sample. The travel hub direction showed strong early signal, but its information architecture and caption implementation need moderated usability testing before drawing confident conclusions. That's the work still ahead.

Disclaimer: Independent student project for COGS 127. UI is an educational homage; TikTok and related marks belong to their owners.