Senior Content Designer interview task
by Tolu Akinyemi · August 2026
Interviewers
Note: This presentation is optimised
for desktop viewing only.
Approach
I clarified the brief, audiences, user needs and business needs.
I identified the evidence I would use in a live project, then separated what I know from what I need to assume for this exercise.
I identified the main content, hierarchy, accessibility and journey issues.
I rewrote and restructured the two screens, using clear content principles to explain each decision, and considered improvements beyond the supplied copy.
I also set out how I would test the proposed experience and defined how I would know whether it improved customer and business outcomes.
Framing
The brief asks for content improvements and suggestions for NatWest Invest login pages. I’ve treated this not just as a copy exercise, but as a journey-improvement problem.
Hypothesis
I worked with the key hypothesis that the phrase ‘new users’ does not necessarily mean customers who are new to NatWest. The current page suggests they may already be NatWest customers who are not yet registered for Online Banking, which appears to be a requirement for accessing NatWest Invest online.
Audiences
| Audience | User needs | Risk if unmet |
|---|---|---|
NatWest customers with Online Banking access |
| Hesitation, failed login attempts or abandonment. |
Existing NatWest customers without Online Banking access |
| Trying to log in without eligible credentials, choosing the wrong route, or abandoning registration. |
Customers who need help or get stuck |
| Input errors, lockout, repeated failure or avoidable calls and chats. |
Across all audiences |
| Customers may miss important fraud guidance or be less prepared to recognise potential fraud. |
Outcomes
Evidence
These are some of the things I would investigate before designing the solution in a live project.
Note: As this evidence is not available in this exercise, the proposed content is based on what I can reasonably infer. Uncertainties are clearly stated as assumptions or hypotheses.
| Evidence source | Some questions it would help answer |
|---|---|
Journey analytics | Where do customers drop off? Which fields generate the most errors? How often are accounts locked? |
Registration data | How often do customers trying to access NatWest Invest need to register for Online Banking first, and where do they abandon that registration journey? |
Recovery data | Which credentials are most often forgotten? Do customers complete recovery successfully? Does the current customer-number guidance prevent common input errors, and can customers find help when they need it? |
Support request reasons | What language do customers use? Do they confuse NatWest Invest with Online Banking, or misunderstand Online Banking as a prerequisite? |
Existing user research | What is already known about trust, low digital confidence, accessibility and investment customers? |
Service and technical constraints | Is Online Banking registration a prerequisite for existing NatWest customers who want to access NatWest Invest online? Which parts of the login and registration journeys are fixed, and which can be changed? |
Design system patterns | Are there established NatWest patterns for login, registration, contextual help and security messaging that I should reuse rather than creating new ones for NatWest Invest? |
What’s known and what’s assumed
| Type | Statement | Why it matters | If it is wrong |
|---|---|---|---|
Known | The journey serves both existing and new NatWest Invest users. | Login and registration need distinct priorities and clear language. | – |
Known | The current journey uses a customer number, then selected PIN digits and password characters. | Content has to support a security-sensitive, multi-step task without adding friction. | – |
Assumption | NatWest Invest appears to use NatWest Online Banking credentials. | This shapes the heading, intro and recovery language. | If Invest has separate credentials, both screens need different terminology. |
Working hypothesis | ‘New’ or ‘unregistered’ users are existing NatWest customers without Online Banking access. | The content should explain Online Banking as a requirement for accessing NatWest Invest. | They may instead already have Online Banking but be new to NatWest Invest, or be new to NatWest altogether, which would require a different journey. |
Working hypothesis | Most customers do not need customer-number format and location guidance permanently visible, and customers who need it will recognise and use the contextual-help route. | This supports moving supporting guidance out of the default login path while keeping it available on demand. | Keep essential guidance visible or test a more prominent hybrid treatment. |
Assumption | The current sign-up link leads to NatWest Online Banking registration, not an Invest-specific flow. | The registration content should clearly explain that Online Banking is required to access NatWest Invest online. | If the destination is an Invest-specific onboarding or account-opening journey, the registration copy must describe that instead. |
Assumption | I’ve treated the existing two-step authentication structure as the baseline for this exercise. | This keeps the recommendation proportionate without assuming a structural redesign is necessary. | If evidence shows the structure itself causes difficulty, alternatives could be explored. |
Assumption | The display order of requested PIN and password positions can be changed without altering the underlying authentication logic. | This would allow requested positions to be shown in ascending order while preserving the existing security model. | Retain the system-defined order and rely on clear field labels to reduce cognitive effort. |
Assumption | The login journey appears to have two customer-visible steps, with no extra authentication step in the standard flow. | This determines whether a fixed ‘Step 1 of 2 / Step 2 of 2’ indicator is accurate. | Use a progress treatment that does not promise a fixed number of steps. |
Unknown | Whether customers currently confuse NatWest Invest with other NatWest login journeys. | This would validate or challenge the product-identity hypothesis. | – |
Unknown | The leading causes of failed login and support contact. | These should determine which fixes deserve the most attention. | – |
Diagnosis
Four main issues shaped my content direction
The pages say ‘NatWest’, while the journey is specifically for NatWest Invest. Customers may need stronger reassurance that they are in the right place and using the right credentials.
‘Not an online user? Sign up here’ does not explain the relationship between Online Banking and NatWest Invest. It is also presented as a low-prominence link alongside recovery, despite registration being one of the two goals in the brief.
‘Log in’ appears before authentication can complete. On Screen 1, customer-number guidance is always visible and the recovery link is generic, rather than keeping the main path focused and revealing help when it is needed.
The fraud warning, disabled-button behaviour and partial-credential entry raise broader design, accessibility and security questions. Partial-credential entry, for example, may create unnecessary cognitive effort and limit the use of password managers or paste functionality. These need multidisciplinary input, not content changes alone.
Principles
I used these principles to guide my content decisions
| Principle | How it shaped the solution |
|---|---|
Name the product clearly | I named NatWest Invest explicitly on both screens to reassure customers that they were in the right journey. |
Match the label to what happens next | I used ‘Continue’ on Screen 1 and ‘Log in’ only when authentication could complete. |
Match hierarchy and order to the journey | I placed secondary navigation before the final authentication action in the reading order while keeping ‘Log in’ visually primary. |
Disclose information at the point of need | I introduced each credential only when customers needed it, moved customer-number guidance behind contextual help, and surfaced fraud guidance within the active login journey. |
Treat recovery as part of the main journey | I made help and recovery specific to the credential requested, grouping customer-number guidance and recovery behind one contextual help route on Screen 1 while retaining credential-specific recovery on Screen 2. |
Make prerequisites explicit | I explained the relationship between Online Banking and NatWest Invest rather than making customers infer it. |
Give secondary actions appropriate visual hierarchy | I gave registration greater prominence than utility help while keeping login as the primary task. |
Reuse established patterns before inventing new ones | I treated existing NatWest patterns as the starting point and flagged areas that would need validation against the design system. |
Protect trust without overwhelming customers | I separated and elevated the fraud warning into a persistent fraud-prevention callout, while keeping access and legal deterrent content lower priority. |
Reduce cognitive effort | I presented requested credential positions in ascending order to reduce unnecessary scanning and mental switching. |
Use precise, concise language | I removed repetition and used more precise terms, such as digit instead of number for PIN positions. |
Decisions
| Element | Current | Proposed | Reason | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heading | Login to NatWest | Log in to NatWest Invest | Names the product explicitly and helps customers recognise that they are in the right journey.Principle: Name the product clearly | Recommend |
| Step indicator | (none) | Step 1 of 2 | If the standard journey consistently contains two customer-visible steps, this makes the total journey length explicit.Principle: Reuse established patterns before inventing new ones | Recommend; validate against existing NatWest patterns and whether the journey can potentially introduce extra authentication steps |
| Intro | Welcome to NatWest. To log in, please use your Online Banking customer number, pin and password following the instructions below. | Use your NatWest Online Banking customer number to continue. | The heading names the product; the step indicator shows the journey length. This line only needs to confirm which credential to use, without introducing PIN and password before they’re needed.Principle: Disclose information at the point of need | Recommend |
| Field label | Customer number | (unchanged) | Already clear and consistent with the existing pattern.Principle: Reuse established patterns before inventing new ones | Keep as is |
| Placeholder text | none | none | It would repeat the field label without adding useful information.Principle: Use precise, concise language | Do not add |
| Helper text | This is your date of birth (ddmmyy) followed by your unique number which identifies you to the bank. | Your customer number starts with your date of birth (DDMMYY), followed by your unique number.(Moved into the Customer-number help disclosure). | Makes the customer-number format easier to understand and removes unnecessary wording.Principle: Use precise, concise language | Recommend |
| Tip | TIP - if you’ve got the mobile app, you’ll find your customer number shown there. Just tap the profile icon. | You can also find it in the NatWest app. Tap your profile icon.(Moved into the Customer-number help disclosure). | Gives customers a shorter, direct way to locate their customer number.Principle: Use precise, concise language | Recommend |
| Primary button | Log in | Continue | The action does not log the customer in yet; it moves them to Screen 2.Principle: Match the label to what happens next | Recommend |
| Customer-number help(Now contains helper text and tip content) | Forgotten any of your log in details | Need help with your customer number?Expanded help:Your customer number starts with your date of birth (DDMMYY), followed by your unique number.You can also find it in the NatWest app. Tap your profile icon.Still need help with your customer number? [recovery link] | Groups format and location guidance with a route to further help in one contextual disclosure. This keeps the main login path focused while making support available when customers need it.Principle: Disclose information at the point of need; Treat help and recovery as part of the main journey | Recommend; validate against customer-number error/recovery data and established NatWest disclosure/help patterns |
| Registration | Not an online user? Sign up here | Not registered for Online Banking?You’ll need it to use NatWest Invest.Secondary CTA[Register for Online Banking] | Clarifies who the route is for, explains why Online Banking is needed, and gives registration appropriate secondary prominence.Principle: Make prerequisites explicit; Give secondary actions appropriate visual hierarchy | Recommend; validate with product and design, and confirm the prerequisite. |
| Fraud-prevention callout(new element) | Remember, we will never call you and ask for your full PIN, password or card reader codes. (part of the bottom security paragraph) | Title: Stay safe from fraudBody: We’ll never call you and ask for your full PIN, password or card reader codes.Link: How to protect yourself from fraud | Separates and elevates the customer-safety message so it is visible within the active login journey instead of being buried at the bottom of the page. The descriptive link gives customers a clear route to further fraud-prevention guidance.Principle: Protect trust without overwhelming customers; Disclose information at the point of need | Recommend; validate with product, design system, fraud/security, accessibility and legal/compliance. |
| Authorised-access / legal notice | Only individuals who have a NatWest account and authorised access to Online Banking should proceed beyond this point. For the security of customers, any unauthorised attempt to access customer bank information will be monitored and may be subject to legal action. | If you’re a NatWest customer and authorised to use Online Banking, you can continue.We monitor unauthorised attempts to access customer information. These may result in legal action. | Separates the access requirement and legal deterrent from the customer fraud warning, allowing them to remain present without competing with the primary task or safety message.Principle: Protect trust without overwhelming customers | Needs legal, fraud, security and compliance sign-off |
Decisions
| Element | Current | Proposed | Reason | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heading | Login to NatWest | Log in to NatWest Invest | Maintains product identity and consistency with Screen 1.Principle: Name the product clearly | Recommend |
| Step indicator | Step 2. | Step 2 of 2 | If the standard journey consistently contains two customer-visible steps, this confirms that the customer is on the final step.Principle: Reuse established patterns before inventing new ones | Recommend; validate against existing NatWest patterns and whether the journey can introduce additional authentication steps |
| PIN instruction | Enter the following numbers from your PIN | Enter these digits from your PIN: | Uses the more precise ‘digit’ and removes unnecessary directional wording, making the instruction shorter and more direct.Principle: Use precise, concise language | Recommend |
| PIN field labels | Enter the 1st numberEnter the 4th numberEnter the 3rd number | 1st digit / 3rd digit / 4th digit | Reduces repetition and is easier to scan. Accessible names should retain full context, for example, ‘First digit of your PIN’.Principle: Use precise, concise language | Recommend; accessibility testing required |
| Password instruction | Enter the following characters from your password | Enter these characters from your password: | Matches the PIN pattern, removes unnecessary directional wording and makes the instruction shorter and more direct.Principle: Use precise, concise language | Recommend |
| Password field labels | Enter the 5th characterEnter the 6th characterEnter the 10th character | 5th character / 6th character / 10th character | Uses the same concise pattern as the PIN fields to reduce repetition. Accessible names should retain full context.Principle: Use precise, concise language | Recommend; accessibility testing required |
| Credential input order | PIN example: 1st / 4th / 3rdPassword example: 5th / 6th / 10th | Present the requested PIN digits and password characters in ascending order. | Puts requested positions in a predictable sequence, with the aim of reducing unnecessary cognitive effort without changing which positions the authentication system selects.Principle: Reduce cognitive effort | Recommend; validate with security, engineering and existing NatWest authentication patterns |
| Primary button | Log in (disabled state) | (unchanged label) | This is the step where authentication can complete, unlike on Screen 1. Log in remains the visually dominant primary action.Principle: Match the label to what happens next | Recommend |
| Secondary button | Back | Back to customer number | Makes the destination clear rather than relying on a generic label.Principle: Match the label to what happens next | Recommend; confirm the purpose of the existing action. See Appendix A. |
| Action order | Log in → Back | Back to customer number → Log in | Places secondary navigation before the final task action in the logical reading order, while keeping Log in visually dominant as the primary action.Principle: Match hierarchy and order to the journey | Recommend; validate against established NatWest form and navigation patterns |
| Recovery link | Forgotten your PIN or password | Forgotten your PIN or password? | Already specific to the credentials requested on this screen; I've retained it and corrected the punctuation.Principle: Treat recovery as part of the main journey | Keep; confirm the recovery route |
| Disabled-button behaviour | – | Review the disabled-button behaviour against NatWest’s established validation and accessibility patterns. | Customers should be able to understand what is required before they can log in, without adding helper copy unless it provides information the form does not already make clear.Principle: Reuse established patterns before inventing new ones | Needs interaction design and accessibility review |
| Fraud-prevention callout | Remember, we will never call you and ask for your full PIN, password or card reader codes. (part of the bottom security paragraph) | Title: Stay safe from fraudBody: We’ll never call you and ask for your full PIN, password or card reader codes.Link: How to protect yourself from fraud | Keeps the customer-safety warning visible at the point where PIN and password characters are entered, with a clear route to further fraud-prevention guidance.Principle: Protect trust without overwhelming customers; Disclose information at the point of need | Recommend; validate with product, design system, fraud/security, accessibility and legal/compliance. |
| Authorised-access / legal notice | Only individuals who have a NatWest account and authorised access to Online Banking should proceed beyond this point. For the security of customers, any unauthorised attempt to access customer bank information will be monitored and may be subject to legal action. | If you’re a NatWest customer and authorised to use Online Banking, you can continue.We monitor unauthorised attempts to access customer information. These may result in legal action. | Maintains the same hierarchy and separation of customer-safety, access and legal messages as Screen 1, without hard-coding an unapproved legal wording variation.Principle: Protect trust without overwhelming customers | Needs legal, fraud, security and compliance sign-off |
Recommendations
Validation
Measurement
| Outcome | How I’d know it worked | What I’d watch for |
|---|---|---|
Easier login | More successful logins, fewer drop-offs and lockouts, and fewer input errors at the partial-credential step | Any increase in fraud or account compromise |
Better fraud awareness | Customers notice and understand that NatWest will never call and ask for their full PIN, password or card reader codes, and can find further fraud-prevention guidance when needed | The callout being ignored, creating false reassurance, or introducing unnecessary distraction or login abandonment |
Easier help and recovery | More customers find the guidance they need or recover their details successfully, with fewer related support contacts | Any increase in customer-number input errors, difficulty finding help, or exposure of sensitive account information |
Better Online Banking registration | More eligible customers complete registration | Customers entering registration unnecessarily |
More accessible journey | Disabled customers can complete the journey, including the partial-credential step, and recover from errors using assistive technology | New barriers for customers using screen readers, keyboards, zoom, password managers or paste functionality |
Appendix A
I considered keeping ‘Log in’ on Screen 1 because it may already be a familiar NatWest pattern for returning customers. However, the action does not complete login; it moves the customer to the next authentication step.
I therefore changed it to ‘Continue’, so the label more accurately reflects what happens next. I would revisit that decision if evidence showed the existing wording was a well-established pattern and changing it introduced unnecessary hesitation.
I considered separating PIN and password onto individual screens. This came partly from my experience as a NatWest customer using the current partial-credential entry pattern. I have a long password, and I find it tedious to count through it to locate the requested characters, which change each time. That made me consider whether asking for PIN and password separately could reduce the effort required at each step. It also made me question whether the partial-credential pattern itself creates avoidable cognitive or accessibility barriers, beyond the number of screens used to present it.
However, my experience is anecdotal, and adding another screen could introduce extra interaction and make validation, recovery and navigation more complex.
Without research or analytics showing that the combined security screen is causing meaningful difficulty, and without knowing whether the existing flow is an established, tested NatWest pattern, I retained the two-screen journey. I also identified a lower-impact improvement: presenting requested credential positions in ascending order before considering a structural change to the journey. I treated a three-screen version as an alternative to investigate.
I changed ‘Back’ to ‘Back to customer number’ to make the destination explicit. On further review, I questioned whether the more important issue is the wording or whether customers need this action at all.
If customers genuinely need to return to use a different customer number, ‘Use a different customer number’ may describe that intent more clearly than either ‘Back’ or ‘Back to customer number’. If there is no meaningful customer need to return at this point, removing the action could simplify the screen and keep attention on completing login.
I’d confirm what the existing action is intended to support, whether the customer number has already been validated at this point, and how customers currently use it before deciding whether to retain, rename or remove it.
Appendix B
The supplied screens only show the successful login path, but in a live project recovery and error states are part of the same experience. I’d make sure they use the same tone and consistently cover:
Appendix C
I used AI as a supporting tool to pressure-test my interpretation of the brief, explore alternative copy, surface edge cases, and proofread and QA my work. I also used it to help create and refine the mockups and presentation. The final framing, recommendations and content decisions are my own.
Appendix D
I separated user needs from business needs, which helped me identify who the current experience may be underserving.
I challenged unclear product naming, action labels that did not match the journey state, and the existing security hierarchy. I separated the customer fraud warning from access and legal content and gave the safety message greater prominence rather than treating the task as a proofreading exercise.
I separated evidence from assumptions, identified where specialist input is needed, and considered how I would measure both intended outcomes and unintended consequences.
Any questions?