BANCO GALICIA · 2025–2026 · REDESIGN
Designing accounts from scratch
The Accounts Overview (OWDC) is the most-used screen in the app. 90% of customers enter it every day. It was also the most confusing.
30-second summary
PROBLEM
The Accounts Overview was the daily starting point for millions of customers, but had become a maze: costly for the bank, confusing for customers, limited for growth.
WHAT I DID
I led the full redesign of the section, working with business, data, tech, and QA to move from a static storefront to a scalable, actionable management tool.
RESULT
Design in production, with improvements in account identification, transaction readability, and quick actions. 140 bugs found in QA before launch, 9 high-severity ones avoided. Direct impact on over 52,000 quarterly contact cases.
The problem
The Accounts Overview (OWDC) is the most critical section of the retail banking app. It's the screen where customers go to view their active accounts and, from there, trigger all other actions: transfers, alias management, balance checks, statements. In practice, it's the daily entry point of millions of customers into their relationship with the bank.
But the experience had critical limitations. Users struggled to correctly identify their accounts and find basic actions, which led to errors, frustration, and greater dependence on assisted channels. At the business level, this directly impacted profitability — more contacts, higher support costs, more operations that should have resolved themselves.
The Accounts Overview, instead of being a clear, strategic storefront, had become a maze: costly for the bank, confusing for customers, limited for growth.
Digital competitors (Revolut, Mercado Pago, Ualá) already offered much clearer, more actionable account experiences. Not redesigning the OWDC wasn't just an operational cost — it was a missed opportunity to sustain a competitive image.
The dual challenge
- —Improve the customer experience in managing their accounts.
- —At the same time, ensure greater profitability by reducing support costs.
The research
Process
- —Qualitative research with customers.
- —CSAT and contactability metrics analysis.
- —Industry benchmarks: local banks, digital wallets, global fintechs.
Key findings with customers
- 1.Confusing identification — many users didn't know what type of account they had, whether it had changed, or how many accounts were active in the app.
- 2.Currency separation — far from helping, it caused confusion. Several customers couldn't see their dollar balances and interpreted it as losing control over their money.
- 3.Unclear transactions — descriptions of purchases and transfers were unreadable, eroding trust in the information.
- 4.Limited self-service — basic functions like setting up an alias, accessing statements, or performing quick operations were hard to find or simply didn't exist.
Metrics analysis (CSAT and contactability)
- —5% of detractor comments in retail CSAT were related to accounts. An additional 3% related to packages.
- —Main pain points: duplicate transactions, problems configuring aliases, discrepancies between channels.
- —In packages, customers highlighted lack of awareness about upgrades, unclear offers, and perception of excessive costs.
The business data
Metrics that redefined the project scope.
This combination of a large installed base plus sustained growth revealed a key insight: solving the pain points found in research wasn't enough. The OWDC had to become a business and retention driver, capable of scaling and supporting growth.
Four strategic objectives
- Reduce contactability — fewer calls and queries through assisted channels.
- Increase profitability — enabling upgrades and cross-sell from the accounts section.
- Improve experience metrics (CSAT/NPS) — restoring confidence and transparency in daily operations.
- Scale without forced redesigns — providing a flexible framework to support new features.
52,000+ quarterly cases affected by the proposed features.
The decisions
Five decisions that defined the redesign.
Total balance as the anchor point
I shifted the screen's focus: instead of starting with the account list, the first thing the user sees now is the consolidated total balance (ARS + USD). It's the number-one question customers ask when opening the section. Showing it first, with breakdown below, simplifies the mental model and reduces initial friction.
The consolidated total balance (ARS + USD) as the first information the user sees.
Visual hierarchy by balance, not account type
Accounts are now sorted by amount, not by type (savings, checking, USD). This directly responds to the research finding: customers didn't distinguish their accounts by type, but they did by importance. Type becomes metadata, not hierarchy.
Contextual quick actions per account
Each account has its own direct actions (Transfer, Deposit, Show alias and details). Before, these were hidden behind menus or required multi-step flows. This directly addresses the limited self-service finding and reduces contactability.
Upgrade and cross-sell embedded, not separate
Instead of a separate Packages or Products section, upgrade opportunities appear in context — when the customer is viewing their account. A USD savings account opening banner at the top of the balance, for example. This addresses the profitability objective without adding friction.
Readable, hierarchized recent transactions
Before, transactions were a flat list with cryptic descriptions. Now they have clear visual hierarchy: operation type, amount, status (Processing, Completed), and date. This directly addresses the unclear transactions finding.
The process
A redesign of this magnitude doesn't happen in Figma. Multiple teams had to be aligned, decisions validated with business, and quality maintained during implementation.
Experience & Quality Control
One of the biggest challenges was making the final design match development, due to internal team changes and library limitations. To tackle it, we worked with the QA team to build what we called EQC: a Figma board crossed with a spreadsheet where we detected every difference between design and build.
The result was a replicable framework: we didn't just find and fix bugs — we also left a documented process for future bank redesigns.
EQC board: 140 inconsistencies detected between the delivered design and the production build. Each row carries severity, owner, status, and recommendation. 97 were resolved before launch; 9 high-severity ones were blocked by this process before reaching production.
The impact
The final design went to production with all detected issues resolved or mitigated, adapting to the technical constraints at the time.
Final design achievements
- —Better account identification.
- —Faster reading of recent transactions.
- —Improved discoverability of quick actions.
- —Empty states converted into sales opportunities with banners and calls to action.
- —Improved load times and reduced experience errors.
What I took away as a designer
- —Research is necessary but not sufficient. The impact came from crossing customer findings with business metrics. The decision to sort by balance rather than account type, for example, doesn't come from research alone — it comes from crossing it with the metric showing how many customers have 10+ accounts.
- —EQC as a shared practice between design and QA isn't standard, but it works. I proposed it as a recurring ritual for future major bank redesigns.
What happened next
The redesign is in production and is the foundation on which the next features in the accounts section are built. The flexible framework we designed allows business to incorporate new products or metrics without requesting a redesign — which was strategic objective number four.