During the development of EVgo's mobile app, we spent hundreds of hours interviewing users at charging sites and at our Los Angeles headquarters. We believed deeply in human-centered design principles—put users at the center of every decision, let their needs guide your priorities, validate every assumption through research.
But sometimes, the most valuable lesson from user research is learning when not to take user feedback at face value.
The Fast Charging Conundrum
Our team faced what seemed like a straightforward design question: How should we represent different charging speeds in the app?
We had several options on the table:
- Animal metaphors: rabbits and hares to indicate speed differences between older DC chargers and the newer units (slow, fast)
- Lightning bolts: one, two, or three bolts to show charging power levels
- Technical specifications: display the actual kilowatt speeds (i.e. 50kW, 150kW, 350kW)
This wasn't just an aesthetic choice. As EVgo rolled out increasingly powerful DC fast charging solutions, we needed a visual system that would help users quickly understand which chargers would work best for their needs. The decision would affect everything from map icons to station detail screens to filtering options.
So we did what any good user-centered design team would do: we asked our users.
When Users Can't See the Future
Here's where things got interesting.
Our base of EVgo drivers at the time was heavily composed of Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Bolt owners. These were early EV adopters, the pioneers who took the plunge on electric vehicles when the infrastructure was still nascent and range anxiety was very real.
But these vehicles had a significant limitation: they couldn't take advantage of ultra-fast charging.
The pre-Ultium Chevrolet Bolt topped out around 54 kW. The first-generation Nissan Leaf maxed out at about 44 kW. For context, newer EVs like the Hyundai Ioniq 5, Kia EV6, and Porsche Taycan can charge at speeds exceeding 200-350 kW.
When we showed these Leaf and Bolt drivers our proposed fast charging filters and icons, asking them which approach they preferred and how they thought about charging speed differences, we got a consistent response:
They didn't care.
And why would they? Their vehicles couldn't meaningfully differentiate between a 50 kW charger and a 350 kW charger—they'd get the same charging speed either way. The speed tiers we were designing felt irrelevant to their lived experience. Fast charging filters? Unnecessary complexity. Lightning bolt distinctions? Visual noise.
From a pure user-centered design perspective, this feedback was clear: our users didn't need or want this feature. We should simplify, remove the complexity, and focus on the features that mattered to our current user base.
We brought these findings to Leah Winter, our manager.
"Skate to Where the Puck Is Going"
Leah listened to our research summary. She understood the data and market far better than we did. And she told us to ignore the user feedback.
She was right, of course. The hockey metaphor (often attributed to Wayne Gretzky) perfectly captured the strategic tension we were facing.
EVgo wasn't building an app for the EV market as it existed in that moment. We were building for the market that was rapidly emerging:
- Newer vehicles with dramatically faster charging capabilities were hitting the market every quarter
- Battery technology was advancing, with 800-volt architectures becoming more common
- Charging infrastructure was evolving, with 350 kW chargers becoming standard rather than exceptional
- Consumer expectations were rising as EV ownership moved from early adopters to mainstream buyers
Our current users—bless them—couldn't see beyond their immediate challenges because those challenges were defined by the constraints of their current vehicles. A first-gen Leaf driver thinking about charging speed is like someone with a flip phone in 2006 evaluating smartphone app designs. They simply don't have the context to imagine needs they've never experienced.
If we designed exclusively for our current user base, we'd be building an app that would be obsolete the moment a Leaf driver upgraded to an Ioniq 5.
The Principle: Users Know Their Problems, Not Always the Solutions
This experience crystallized an important nuance in human-centered design that they don't always teach in graduate school:
Users are experts in their current problems, but they're not necessarily experts in future solutions or emerging needs.
Henry Ford's famous (though possibly apocryphal) quote comes to mind: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
This doesn't mean we should ignore user research—far from it. The hundreds of hours we spent with users were absolutely essential. We learned about:
- Anxiety around session initiation
- Confusion about connector compatibility
- Frustration with opaque pricing
- The need for real-time charging progress
- The desire for simplified workflows
These insights, grounded in genuine user pain points, directly shaped features like Autocharge+, VIN scanning, transparent pricing, and live progress monitoring.
But on the question of charging speed representation, our users were constrained by their current context. They couldn't imagine a world where charging speed differences would matter to them personally, even though that world was rapidly approaching.
What We Did Instead
We thanked our Leaf and Bolt drivers for their feedback, and then we designed for the future anyway.
We implemented clear visual indicators for charging speed tiers. We built filtering options that let users sort by power level. This way, a Leaf or Bolt owner would see the chargers that suited their vehicles best. We made sure that as the network evolved and as users upgraded their vehicles, the app would already have the infrastructure to help them take advantage of faster charging.
And here's the validation: as EVgo's user base evolved to include more newer vehicles with faster charging capabilities, these features that our initial users didn't care about became some of the most valued aspects of the app. Users with Hyundai Ioniq 5s, Ford Mustang Mach-Es, and BMW i-series vehicles rely on those speed indicators to optimize their charging strategy.
We skated to where the puck was going, and when it arrived, we were ready.
Lessons for Product Teams
This experience taught me several principles that I carry into every user research project:
1. Context Matters More Than Opinions
Don't just listen to what users say—understand the context that shapes their perspective. Our Leaf drivers weren't wrong; they were accurately reporting their current experience. But their experience was shaped by vehicle limitations that wouldn't apply to future EVgo users.
2. Look for the Power Users of Tomorrow
While our bulk interviews were with Leaf and Bolt drivers, we also made sure to talk to owners of newer, faster-charging vehicles, even though they were a smaller percentage of our user base at the time. These users did care about charging speed differentiation, and they became our window into the future.
3. Balance User Feedback with Strategic Vision
User research should inform decisions, not make them. Product leaders need to synthesize user insights with market trends, technological evolution, and strategic business goals. Sometimes that means building features that current users don't yet value.
4. Design for Upgraders, Not Just Today's Users
In rapidly evolving markets, many of your current users will eventually upgrade. Design with the assumption that the person using a first-gen Leaf today might be driving an Ioniq 6 next year. Will your product still serve them well?
5. Validate Directional Bets Over Time
We didn't just build the fast charging features and walk away. We continued to monitor usage data, track user feedback, and validate that our forward-looking bet was paying off as the user base evolved. Be willing to admit if you skated to the wrong place.
The Paradox of User-Centered Design
Here's the paradox: this story about ignoring user feedback is actually a story about better user-centered design.
We weren't dismissing our users' needs. We were designing for the full spectrum of users—including the ones who didn't exist yet but would soon. We were solving for the job our users would need the app to do in six months, not just today.
True user-centered design means understanding users deeply enough to see beyond their current constraints. It means recognizing when users are describing symptoms of temporary limitations rather than fundamental needs. It means having the courage to build for the future even when current users don't validate that direction.
Gretzky's alleged hockey metaphor was perfect because it captures the essential tension: you have to understand where the puck is now (current user needs), you have to observe where it's moving (market trends), and you have to position yourself where it's going to be (future user needs).
The Broader Implication
This principle extends far beyond charging speed icons. Every product team working in a rapidly evolving space faces similar challenges:
- Fintech teams designing for customers who still primarily use cash and checks, while mobile payments and cryptocurrency loom on the horizon
- Healthcare apps serving patients who are comfortable with in-person visits, while telehealth becomes increasingly standard
- Education platforms built for users accustomed to synchronous classroom models, as asynchronous and hybrid learning reshape expectations
In each case, current users can describe their current problems with perfect clarity. But they may not be able to envision how emerging technologies, changing behaviors, or new capabilities will reshape what they need.
In Conclusion
I'm deeply grateful for the hundreds of hours we spent with EVgo users. Every interview, every observation session, every moment of watching someone struggle with the old white-labeled app—all of it was essential.
But I'm equally grateful for the reminder that user research is a tool for understanding, not a abdication of strategic thinking.
Sometimes, your users can't see beyond their immediate challenges. That's not their failure—it's simply a reflection of their current context.
Your job as a product designer and product manager is to see beyond those challenges with them, to skate to where the puck is going, and to build something that will serve not just who your users are today, but who they're becoming.
The Leaf and Bolt drivers who told us they didn't need charging speed filters? Many of them now drive EVs that can charge at 150+ kW. And they use those filters every day.
That's skating to where the puck is going.
This post is part of a series reflecting on lessons learned during the development of EVgo's mobile app. For more on the human-centered design process behind the app, check out my full case study.