Fintech · Interface Design
Stripe Merchant Dispute Flow
Redesigning Stripe's merchant dispute experience to reduce the cognitive burden of chargeback resolution and give merchants clarity, control, and confidence at every step.
Overview
The ProblemDispute handling for merchants is fragmented and cognitively heavy — unclear status, required actions, and likelihood of success make resolution feel overwhelming.
My RoleSolo designer — research, systems analysis, competitive audit, interaction design, and concept prototype with usability testing.
MethodsUser research, Competitive analysis, Information architecture, Progressive disclosure, Usability testing (Maze)
ImpactReduced cognitive load and increased transparency, enabling faster, more confident dispute resolution for merchants.
Context
The Anxiety of the Chargeback
Chargebacks are one of the most stressful experiences a merchant can face. A customer disputes a charge, money is pulled from the merchant's account, and the merchant has a limited window to respond with evidence — or lose the funds permanently.
Stripe's existing dispute flow, while functional, presented this high-stakes process with the same visual weight as routine transaction management. There was no clear hierarchy of urgency, no guidance on what evidence to submit, and no feedback on how strong a merchant's case was.
"I had no idea if I'd submitted enough evidence. It just said 'submitted' and then I waited two weeks."
This quote — from a merchant I spoke to during research — captures the core problem: the system left merchants in the dark at the exact moment they most needed clarity and guidance.
Challenges
What Made This Hard to Get Right
01
Status Ambiguity
Dispute status labels like "Needs Response" and "Under Review" were technically accurate but provided no guidance on what action was needed, by when, or what would happen next.
02
Evidence Uncertainty
Merchants didn't know what evidence was most likely to win a dispute, how much was enough, or whether what they'd submitted was of sufficient quality — until the decision came back.
03
Urgency Not Communicated
Disputes with tight response deadlines sat in the same list view as resolved ones. Merchants managing high dispute volumes routinely missed response windows due to poor visual prioritisation.
Step 01
Research & Benchmarking
Interviewed 5 small and mid-size merchants who had experienced disputes. Audited Stripe, PayPal, Shopify Payments and Adyen dispute flows. Mapped all failure points and emotional lows in the current journey.
Step 02
Redesigning the IA
Restructured the dispute list with urgency-first sorting. Designed a new dispute detail view with a 5-step guided response flow, real-time evidence strength meter, and deadline countdown component.
Step 03
Testing & Iteration
Ran 2 rounds of Maze tests with 8 participants. Iterated on the evidence submission flow, status labels, and the strength meter interaction — which tested significantly better than static checklists.
Solution
Clarity, Guidance, and Control
The redesigned dispute flow introduces a three-layer clarity model. At the list level, disputes are visually sorted by urgency — critical deadlines are surfaced with colour-coded countdown badges. At the detail level, a guided 5-step wizard breaks the response process into clear, sequential actions.
The centrepiece of the solution is an "Evidence Strength" indicator — a real-time feedback mechanism that updates as the merchant adds documents, showing how their submission compares to typical winning cases of the same dispute type.
Plain-language status descriptions replace technical jargon. "Needs Response — 4 days left" replaces "Dispute Open". "Bank reviewing your evidence" replaces "Under Review".
Impact
Measured Results (Concept Testing)
↓62%
Reduction in task completion time for dispute response in Maze testing
8/8
Test participants correctly identified their highest-priority dispute within 5 seconds
↑NPS
Post-task confidence score increased from 3.2 to 4.7 / 5 after redesign
