I'm looking for a UI for classifying hotel resort facilities as must-have, nice-to-have, and don't-care. For example, these would be characteristics like pool, gym, restaurant, kids club, etc. The reason for asking people to classify them is to provide better recommendations based on a person's preferences.

Idea #1:

  • Show icons for all facilities in a grid (there's about 15 we track, so e.g. it might be a 5x3 grid)
  • Ask users to click on any facilities that are must-haves
  • User clicks on several must-haves and then clicks Next
  • Remaining icons are displayed, and user is asked to click on any they don't care about
  • After that, all facilities are now grouped into the three categories. Default (i.e. icons never clicked) means "nice to have"

This approach works OK thanks to the small number of categories (3). However the challenge is how to design the UI for when the user changes their mind and wants to edit selections.

Idea #2:

  • Similar to above - start with a grid of facility icons
  • Tell the user to click/tap once for must-have, twice for don't-care, and a third time to return to default (nice-to-have) state
  • Colour icons white by default, green for must-have, and red for don't-care

Idea #3:

  • Show all Icons on a "slider", one per line, defaulting to the middle position, which means "nice to have".
  • Users can slide an icon to the right to make it a must-have, or to the left to mean don't-care.

This idea might be less intuitive to people (?), but it would be much easier if they change their mind or want to change selections.

Any more ideas, or comments on the above?

  • You mean "amenities" when you say "facilities" right? I'm getting confused since I'm thinking you're talking about the hotels themselves when you say "facilities"
    – J. Dimeo
    Feb 24, 2015 at 17:51
  • Why would you default no selection to Nice To Have? To me no click means don't care. If you want to communicate the Nice To Have is the default then start with it selected. And why no don't want. I may specifically not want a pool or a kids club.
    – paparazzo
    Feb 25, 2015 at 13:58
  • @J.Dimeo yes, you might call them amenities instead of facilities. Their use in this context to vary geographically.
    – rgareth
    Feb 25, 2015 at 16:33
  • @Blam I want users to have as few clicks as necessary. Usually, most amenities are nice to have and only a small fraction are must-haves or don't-cares. I considered "don't want" as an option but wasn't sure people would really feel that strongly that they'd boycott a hotel because it had something. I actually originally thought that the true set of classifications would be: don't want, don't care, nice to have, important to have, must have
    – rgareth
    Feb 25, 2015 at 16:36
  • You asked for ideas or comments.
    – paparazzo
    Feb 25, 2015 at 16:45

1 Answer 1


What about showing all of the options in a list that supports drag and drop? Also, I imagine this will allow you more flexibility on the back end since you're not obligating yourself with the verbiage "must have". Users just rank their amenity preferences overall.


download bmml source – Wireframes created with Balsamiq Mockups

If you really want to have the "tiers" you can have static undraggable headers (i.e. everything above this line is "must to have") and users move amenities above and below the lines.

Of the ideas you came up (which are all good), I like #3 the best.

  • I definitely need to allow a "must have" classification. In fact today that's all we have and it's commonly used. I think that prioritising them like you suggest would be OK, but combining that with the headers might make it to complicated.
    – rgareth
    Feb 24, 2015 at 18:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.