Baran Shajari
Human–AI Research & UX/UI Design
Toronto, Canada
Fast Fix It
I researched, designed, photographed, and published a step-by-step iFixit guide for repairing sticky or malfunctioning keys on the Apple Magic Keyboard for the 12.9-inch iPad Pro. The project focused on reducing user uncertainty through clear sequencing, close-up imagery, safety warnings, and action-oriented UX writing.
2024
Overview
Repair instructions are a form of user experience design. Users arrive with a specific problem, limited technical knowledge, and often a fear of damaging an expensive device.
For this project, I created a complete iFixit repair guide for users experiencing sticky or unresponsive keys on an Apple Magic Keyboard for the 12.9-inch iPad Pro. Instead of treating the task as a simple list of mechanical actions, I approached it as a guided user journey.
The experience needed to help users understand:
whether physical repair was necessary;
which tools they needed;
exactly where to position each tool;
how much pressure was safe;
how the key mechanism was assembled;
and how to reinstall the parts without breaking them.
The final guide combined concise instructions, original step-by-step photography, warnings, and progressive task sequencing. The goal was to make a delicate repair feel more understandable, manageable, and less intimidating for non-expert users.
The published guide begins by recommending that users rule out software-related problems before removing the physical keys, which helps prevent unnecessary repair attempts.
The problem
Users attempting a hardware repair often face two simultaneous challenges:
completing the physical task correctly; and
interpreting unfamiliar technical instructions while worried about causing damage.
Removing a Magic Keyboard key is especially sensitive because the user must apply pressure at specific corners, move the tool in particular directions, and distinguish between small clips, hooks, slides, and internal mechanisms.
Existing advice was often scattered, overly technical, visually unclear, or insufficiently specific about force and direction. A vague instruction such as "remove the key" does not tell a user:
where to insert the tool;
which direction to rotate it;
when to stop applying pressure;
what a successful release feels or sounds like;
or which parts are vulnerable to damage.
The UX challenge was to convert a high-risk physical procedure into a sequence of small, observable, and understandable actions. The guide also needed to support users with different levels of technical confidence.
Research and discovery
I began by breaking the repair into a complete task flow and identifying the moments most likely to cause confusion or damage.
The research focused on four areas:
Understanding the user
The primary user was not assumed to be a repair expert. The guide therefore needed to avoid unexplained terminology and make every physical action visible.
Task decomposition
I separated the repair into smaller stages:
diagnosing the issue;
preparing tools;
loosening the key;
removing the keycap;
removing the internal mechanism;
cleaning debris;
reinstalling the mechanism;
and testing the repaired key.
Risk identification
I identified actions where the user could easily damage the device, including:
applying too much pressure;
lifting from the wrong location;
losing the small metal bar;
confusing clips with slides;
and reinstalling the mechanism in the wrong direction.
Content and visual review
Each step was reviewed for clarity, action order, image relevance, and consistency between the written instruction and the photograph.
The research showed that the most useful repair instructions combine four things:
a precise action;
a clear location;
a direction or motion;
and an explicit warning where needed.
The final guide contains 12 numbered steps covering removal, cleaning, and reassembly.
The solution
The final solution was a publicly accessible, visual repair guide designed around progressive disclosure.
Instead of presenting the entire repair at once, the interface guides users through one step at a time, pairing each action with a relevant image.
The experience included:
A clear introduction
The opening explains the problem, expected time, difficulty, required tools, and situations where troubleshooting should happen before physical repair.
Sequential instructions
Each action appears in the order it must be completed, reducing the need for users to remember multiple steps.
Close-up visual evidence
Photographs show the exact tool position and component being discussed.
Risk-aware UX writing
Warnings are concise and placed at the point of risk.
Observable feedback
Instructions mention tactile and audible indicators such as hearing a “click,” helping users determine whether an action was successful.
Reassembly guidance
The guide does not stop after cleaning. It also explains how to return the internal mechanism and keycap to their original positions.
The design reduced ambiguity by connecting every instruction to a visible action and expected outcome.
Reflection
This project taught me that instructional content is an interface.
Every image, sentence, warning, and transition influences whether a user feels confident enough to continue. A technically correct guide can still fail if users cannot identify where to place a tool or how much force is safe.
The most important lesson was to write for the user’s moment of uncertainty. During a delicate repair, users are not looking for long explanations. They need a precise answer to immediate questions.
I also learned that real-world use reveals edge cases that may not appear during the initial design process. Community comments about different key mechanisms showed the importance of validating instructions across product variations.