Design & Experience, UI/UX, Responsible Gaming

An integrated Responsible Gaming tool
designed for the Illinois market.

A built-in limit-setting tool that lets slot players set time and spend limits before play, reducing impulsive, unbounded sessions without getting in the way of the game.

RoleUX/UI Designer
MarketIllinois, US
TeamCreative director, PM, UX/UI, Engineering
2-minute read
Problem
Players had no easy, built-in way to set time or spend limits before playing.
Approach
Researched problem-gambling behavior, built personas, and benchmarked against a competitor tool.
Execution
Designed the flow, UI, and a shared design system so engineering could implement it directly.
Result
Improved on the competitor across 5 UX dimensions, with limits now visible and set upfront.

What research surfaced about at-risk play

Secondary research into problem-gambling behavior, distilled into the patterns that mattered most for this design.

01

Impulsive decision-making and chasing after losses

02

Not setting limits before starting to play

03

Not understanding how the odds work before playing

04

Not taking breaks, staying fixed on play without pause

Three personas grounded the design in real behavior

Built from secondary research into problem-gambling motivations, used to keep the design focused on real risk patterns rather than assumptions.

Persona 01

The Casual Player

Plays occasionally for entertainment; benefits most from visible, low-friction limit reminders rather than hard blocks.

Persona 02

The Frequent Player

Plays regularly and is more prone to losing track of time and spend; needs limits that are easy to set and hard to ignore.

Persona 03

The At-Risk Player

Shows early signs of impulsive, loss-chasing behavior; the primary user the limit-setting tool is designed to protect.

From research findings to a coherent user flow

Translating research into a flow that shows exactly where and how a player sets a limit, and a journey map showing how that moment sits inside the broader play experience.

User Flow
Journey Map
Phases
AWARENESS
FAVORABILITY
SIGN IN
CREDIT TRANSFER
๐ŸŽฏ USER GOAL
SET LIMITS
PARTICIPATION / PLAY
TAKE BREAK
END OF SESSION
Actions
Regular player becomes aware of their own at-risk gambling behavior.
Browses available slot games and favors a genre or title.
Signs in with an existing account to play.
Selects a payment method and adds funds to the account.
Sets money, time, and session limits before play, to avoid overspending.
Plays, builds skill, and tracks spend against the limits already set.
Ends the session, plans to try a different game next time.
Reaches the daily limit and is auto-logged out within 30 seconds.
Feelings
๐Ÿ™
Concerned about consequences
๐Ÿ˜
Overwhelmed by choice
๐Ÿ™‚
Hopeful about credentials
๐Ÿ˜•
Uncertain about payment
๐Ÿ™‚
Assured, limits set in advance
๐Ÿ˜„โ†’๐Ÿ˜ 
Excited to play, then disappointed over losses
๐Ÿ™‚
Relaxed, keen for the next game
๐Ÿ˜Œ
Relieved, satisfied with the outcome
Opportunity
Surface responsible gaming tools early
Highlight popular games, personalize suggestions
Keep onboarding simple
Flexible, secure payment options
Improve the limit-setting experience itself
Engage with discounts and offers
Engage with discounts and offers
Better leisure facilities across every zone
Touchpoints
Internet, social media, word of mouth
Slot machine, gaming server
Slot machine / iVIEW / Mobile App
Slot machine / iVIEW / Mobile App
Slot machine / iVIEW / Mobile App
Slot machine, gaming server
Slot machine, gaming server
Slot machine, gaming server

Benchmarked against a competitor, dimension by dimension

Five UX dimensions compared directly against a competitor's live product to find where our design could remove friction.

1. Landing page clarity
Confusion before login vs. a clear opt-in path
Competitor
Our Design

Competitor surfaces account info and real-time limits before login, which risks confusing new users. Ours lets players continue without login, or opt in to track and set limits.

2. Hide & show
No privacy control vs. a hide option for real-time data
Competitor
Our Design

The competitor has no way to conceal real-time spend and time data on screen. Ours adds a hide option for players who don't want that visible.

3. Use of labels
Unlabeled data vs. clearly separated, labeled sections
Competitor
Our Design

Competitor's real-time limits aren't labeled, costing users time to interpret. Ours separates and labels limits into two clear sections.

4. Time on task
More clicks to set a limit vs. fewer clicks, upfront
Competitor
Our Design

Setting a limit on the competitor's product takes more clicks. Ours surfaces the set-limits option upfront, reducing steps to complete.

5. Emphasis on call-to-action
Buttons easy to miss vs. buttons designed to be found
Competitor
Our Design

The competitor gives no visual emphasis to its call-to-action buttons. Ours emphasizes "change limits" and "set limits" so they're found quickly.

5
UX dimensions improved vs. competitor
3
Research-based personas
5
Steps in the limit-setting flow
1
Shared design system for dev handoff

Built for engineering, not just design

A dedicated design system so engineering could implement the limit-setting UI consistently, without re-deriving spec decisions per screen.

Design System
Buttons
Normal
Unavailable
Registration / Login
Limit setting
Navigation
ยซโ€น โ€บยป
Other
Icons
$
Icons message
Loading
Success
Error
Info
Keyboards
!
@
#
$
%
&
'
*
+
-
q
w
e
r
t
y
u
i
o
p
a
s
d
f
g
h
j
k
l
โŒซ
ABC/=?^
z
x
c
v
b
n
m
โŽ
Components
$Spend Limits
โฑTime Limits
Limit indicators
70% 70%
Text editor
โ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขโ€ขShow
Keypad
7
8
9
4
5
6
1
2
3
0
.
โŒซ

Two flows, human-centered end to end

The login/registration flow and the limit-setting flow, set limits, enter the amount, confirm, receive a disclaimer, return to the limit page, designed as one coherent path rather than disconnected screens.

Login & Registration Flow
Limit-Setting Flow

Research-first, benchmarked, built for handoff

Research

Grounded the design in problem-gambling behavior

Used secondary research to understand at-risk play patterns, then built three personas to keep design decisions tied to real user needs rather than assumptions.

Map

Modeled the user flow and journey before designing screens

Mapped how a player would realistically reach the goal of setting a limit, and where that moment sits inside the broader play journey.

Benchmark

Compared directly against a live competitor product

Evaluated a competitor's limit-setting experience across five concrete dimensions, landing page clarity, privacy controls, labeling, time on task, and CTA emphasis, to find real, specific gaps rather than generic ones.

Systemize

Handed off through a shared design system

Built a design system alongside the interface itself, so engineering could implement, and later extend, the limit-setting tool without re-deriving decisions per screen.