Background

What is Lean UX?

Lean UX is a user-centered design approach that integrates principles from user experience (UX) design, Lean startup methodology, and Agile development. It emphasizes a collaborative and iterative process focused on delivering value to users. Therefore, this method allowed us to prioritize outcomes over features. It centered on testing assumptions through minimum viable products (MVPs), gathering early feedback, and continuous iteration. Our class project, conducted for IAD4000 (Interaction Design II) at Kennesaw State University and supervised by Dr. Michael Lahey, followed this process.

Problem Statement

The purpose of Good Shit is to inform others about the importance of gut health. The established domain highlighted that several health-tracking applications fail to educate users and offer a proper structure to record logins of their own digestion health. Our initial problem statement was finalized towards the end of the project once we revalidated our findings. We concluded that:

The health and lifestyle field mainly emphasizes goal-setting for health-conscious individuals. Existing products fall short in explaining why gut health is the way it is. Our solution addresses this gap by allowing users to log bowel movements, identify patterns, and providing unbiased information on gut health. We target those curious about health, not just the health-conscious. Success for us is seeing active user engagement and positive recommendations.

Initial Proto-Personas

In Lean UX, Proto-Personas are hypothetical users embodying our team's assumptions about the potential users of our product and their motivations. These Proto-Personas can evolve within our timeline as the team gains insights from user research.

Following the identification of the business problem, we utilized outcome-to-impact mapping to brainstorm potential business outcomes. This led to the formation of assumptions about successful design features for our product. We applied these assumptions to identify the potential users who would benefit from our product. Team Janice crafted two Proto-personas based solely on these assumptions, understanding that they will change eventually through ongoing research and learning.

Sprint Backlog

The Sprint Backlog is a list of design experiments (MVPs) that the team needs to build and test with users, organized based on priority. After forming our Proto-Personas, we defined the benefits and outcomes by understanding users' reasons for using the app. We then identified solutions, analyzed patterns, and shaped the desired outcome for Good Shit. Combining data from previous steps, we built hypotheses to test assumptions and gain a better understanding of essential learnings. These hypotheses were transformed into a product backlog, guiding the structuring of key statements. This process enabled Team Janice to prioritize and create our Minimum Viable Products (MVPs).

Sprint 1

MVP: User Research

Our team divided tasks for the first week of the sprint. Janice focused on creating a database of common causes of symptoms, Jordan designed screens for doctor's prescriptions and treatment info, Jessie handled the doctor consultation screens, and I worked on the products page, where users can explore popular products that can help with digestion or anything related to gut healing. Each of us developed our prototypes, and before the initial interviews, we merged them. After building our assigned features, we formulated interview questions and conducted interviews with three potential users. One team member moderated the session, while others facilitated and took notes.

Stand-Up Meetings (Daily Scrum)

To maintain responsibility and team alignment, we held short planning meetings every two days throughout the project. As Janice was our Scrum Master, she facilitated discussions, recorded team progress since the last meeting, and noted tasks scheduled for completion before the next stand-up. She kept the team updated on each team member’s responsibilities, progress, and certain challenges or issues the project was facing.

Affinity Mapping

After each interview, we utilized FigJam for affinity mapping, which helped us identify patterns observed by the team. Each team member created sticky notes to organize session notes into categories like lifestyle, doctor experience/relation, and health. As a team, we then validated or invalidated our assumptions, guiding us in progressing with our prototype. In Design Week 1, we interviewed users to understand their needs and test assumptions. Team Janice used these interviews to refine our MVPs by asking questions related to personal aspects, gut health, social life, and awareness.

User Research Observations

After getting feedback and making changes to our app, we interviewed three more people to gather additional thoughts. We followed the same process as in week one, using affinity mapping. Team Janice identified significant patterns highlighted during the interviews, which helped us identify major setbacks and grasp a stronger understanding. Some users helped clarify confusing features, such as the favorite button, removing the "New Arrivals" section, and separating doctor consultations and past visits.

Retrospective Meeting

After our initial sprint, we held a retrospective meeting to review successes, team challenges, and identify areas for improvement in Sprint Two. This three-week sprint and retrospective deepened our understanding of the Lean UX Canvas and prompted a reassessment of our assumptions. Team Janice used these insights to advance to high-fidelity prototypes, focusing on enhancing the user interface and experience. Previously as a team, we didn't value and acknowledge the importance of a design system. We dove into what they were and the purpose they provide to a product.

Therefore, Design systems are organized sets of reusable design elements, patterns, and guidelines that guarantee consistency and efficiency in creating digital products. They consist of components, patterns, guidelines, and assets like color palettes and typography styles. After grasping this understanding, we managed to prioritize this to ensure visual and functional consistency, and uphold a unified brand identity. This phase marked the finalization of the product's design system, establishing a robust foundation for our design approach and brand identity.

Sprint 2

Revalidation

Revalidation played a crucial role in Sprint Two as it revisited the assumptions from the beginning of Sprint One. During this phase, we moved forward with our fresh insights, evaluating successes, failures, and areas for improvement. Team Janice completed the eight-step Lean UX method, selectively revising specific areas. We chose to remove the goal-setting feature and the product page due to low interest and biased comments. Simultaneously, we introduced three new features— a profile page, an effective onboarding process, and an articles section on gut health, aiming to enhance the user experience. Additionally, we updated our product problem statement based on the discovery that users are curious to learn more about the health of their stool.

New Proto-Personas

Concerning our Proto-Personas, Team Janice opted for a complete overhaul due to the mismatch with our observations. Aria and Kelly didn't align with our stated assumptions, leading us to create Alexis and Evan. These new Proto-Personas better emphasize the significance of their interest and awareness in gut health.

User Research Observations

We created features from our Sprint Two backlog for interview sessions, following the same method as in Sprint One—interview sessions, stand-up meetings, affinity mapping, and continuous discussions. In this phase, we introduced usability testing with task-based scenarios for each feature, gaining insights into user feedback and design element importance. Post-interviews, we used FigJam to apply observations and conduct affinity mapping, identifying new categories beneficial to our product. Team Janice consistently discussed and designed our prototype, aiming to deliver a polished high-fidelity product.

Refinement

In the final week of Sprint Two, we focused on completing the prototype to achieve a polished high-fidelity application. We finalized the visual design to establish a robust and visually appealing foundation. Conducting three interviews with task-based scenarios provided valuable criticism and detailed feedback on our flow and prototype, incorporated into our final affinity mapping session. As Sprint Two came to a close, Team Janice refined and completed our high-fidelity app. Collaboratively, we identified crucial improvements that highlighted users' needs and goals. Additional features were introduced to enhance the overall user experience, proving successful in subsequent interview sessions and observations.

Conclusion

Takeaways

Good Shit was my second experience in Interaction Design but as a team designer. While our leader equipped us with her vision, resources, and guidance, the other team members and I focused on creating the necessary. It was an interesting opportunity to work with others and learn about their workflow, knowledge, and opinions. Our leader prioritized communication and honesty, which were a huge influence on our decision-making. Our team had a great connection with each other, which was a plus because it allowed us to be comfortable with our team members.

Lessons learned

Something that I wish that could’ve been different is having trust. Insufficient trust led to being part of the uncertainty in our decision-making. As we made changes, some of our members were concerned about not being able to meet deadlines in our timeline. This led to members being comfortable with the initial designs and not responding well to innovation from our findings.

As previously stated, not having enough time to further our insights led to unresolved questions and concerns. If we had a stronger trust connection, I think our team would’ve been more open, proactive to change and recognized the importance of sharing their concern, and creating or supporting a game plan. Our leader was very considerate and anticipated our team members' concerns by being accommodating and reasonable with our schedules and overall workflow. 

After all, if additional time had been given during this project, we would’ve focused on setting up more user interviews and usability testing to expand on our insights and questions we had. Furthermore, this would’ve helped us to support our design implementation and clearer identification of product problems.

Overall

Creating Good Shit was an exciting and spontaneously fun experience to create a gut tracker application that can actually be extremely valuable and functional for millions of users who are actually interested and would like to learn more about their digestion heath. If this was launched or introduced in the future, I would’ve personally used the application to become more conscious about my gut and be more proactive about my wellness. During this project, I learned the significance of exploring new ideas and design approaches without fear or limitations. It definitely challenged the team but I think it demonstrated to us how each team member responded to change. We accommodated each other and we were pleased with our final outcome! Thankfully, I can apply my knowledge and expertise in the design world!

The Problem

Existing kiosks prioritize transactions over people

Most retail kiosks are built for contactless speed, not for connection. They handle transactions efficiently but miss the moment entirely: the shopper who wants guidance, personalization, and a reason to feel confident in their purchase. Aura was designed to fill that gap, an interactive kiosk that integrates with retail stores to deliver seasonal color analysis, streamlined online order pickup, and item reservation, all within one cohesive, personalized experience.

Research

What we learned before touching a screen

Using Goal-Directed Design, we grounded every decision in qualitative data. The research phase moved through a literature review, a competitive audit, and five in-depth user interviews, each layering our understanding of how people actually shop and what consistently frustrates them.

_{Two of five interviews were clustered into behavioral themes that shaped every downstream requirement.}

The patterns were consistent: users felt overwhelmed by options and under-guided by existing tools. The insight that shaped Aura most is that people don't just want to buy faster; they want to feel more confident doing it.

Modeling

Designing for two distinct users

Based on our research, we built two personas that informed every subsequent decision.

Gabriela — Primary persona
‍
A frequent shopper who values comfort and efficiency. She wants the kiosk to remember her preferences, surface relevant recommendations, and get her in and out without friction, while still feeling like the experience was made for her.

Steven — Secondary persona
‍
A less frequent shopper who needs more guidance. He's open to the color analysis feature but needs it to feel intuitive and non-intimidating, not clinical or overly complex.

^{Research-backed personas that kept design decisions anchored to real user behavior, not assumptions.}

One major insight from the modeling phase: users needed greater control. The complexity of color analysis and pickup flows created anxiety, not confidence. That became the design mandate: reduce friction without reducing depth.

Key Design Decisions

Where the real thinking happened

Camera scan vs. guided quiz — why we built both
‍
The seasonal color analysis could run via camera or a short guided input flow. In a public retail setting, not everyone is comfortable being scanned. Rather than defaulting to automation, we designed a hybrid where users choose their path. This preserved speed for confident users and gave control to those who needed it, without compromising either experience.

Dual pickup pathways
‍
We designed two distinct order pickup flows: direct checkout and try-before-you-buy via dressing room reservation. The second flow was a deliberate bet on reducing purchase hesitation, giving users a low-stakes way to confirm their order fit before committing. This supported both user confidence and potential conversion lift for retail partners.

Information architecture before wireframes
‍
We mapped the full navigation system and user flows before any screens were drawn. This kept the team aligned on structure and ensured the two distinct user journeys, color analysis, and order pickup, never created confusion or overlap in the interface.

Design system as a foundation, not an afterthought
‍
After earlier projects in which skipping a design system led to downstream inconsistencies, I advocated establishing one early. The Aura design system, such as color, typography, and components, anchored our high-fidelity work and kept the visual language coherent across every screen and state.

Process

How we moved through GDD

Research

Literature review, competitive audit, 5 user interviews

‍Established domain context, identified white space in the kiosk market, and collected behavioral data that shaped our personas and requirements.

Modeling

Personas + context scenarios

Translated interview patterns into Gabriela and Steven, then built context scenarios that grounded requirements in real user behavior rather than assumptions.

Frameworks

IA, wireframes, user flows

Mapped the full navigation system before wireframing, a deliberate choice to prevent structural drift during high-fidelity work. Wireframes served as true blueprints, not decorative sketches.

_{Low-fidelity blueprints that defined element placement, user flow, and overall structure before any visual decisions were made.}

Design System

Color, typography, components

Established before high-fidelity screens to ensure visual consistency across every state and screen, and to give the product a cohesive brand identity from the start.

^{A structured set of reusable components, color tokens, and typography that kept every screen visually and functionally consistent.}

Refinement

High-fidelity prototype in Figma

Transitioned from low-fidelity to a fully functional prototype. Focused on simplifying cognitive load, improving screen structure, and ensuring the overall flow felt intuitive for both returning and first-time kiosk users.

Reflection

What I'd do differently

The frameworks phase was where we lost the most time. Underestimating wireframing, treating it as a box to check rather than a structural foundation, filtered into the high-fidelity work, creating rework that ate into our refinement time. If I could do it again, I'd invest more heavily in wireframe fidelity and run at least one more round of usability testing before moving into final screens. The insights we got late in the project could have shaped earlier decisions and produced a tighter, more validated outcome.

^{Dashboard Menu}

^Logout

^Orders

^{View Order}

Overview

The Problem

Organizations struggle to ensure employees meet mandatory vaccination and health requirements for international travel. The result: project delays, team disruptions, and compliance gaps, not from lack of care, but from a lack of clear, centralized tooling. For busy employees, navigating country-specific medical requirements while managing their workload is overwhelming. The process is fragmented, time-consuming, and stressful, with real consequences if action items aren't completed on time.

Solution

What we built

MedPass is a digital passport for corporate international travel, automating and organizing medical documentation through dynamic email notifications and real-time status updates. The app reduces administrative burden, keeps employees informed on exactly what's required, and gives organizations visibility into team health compliance before travel. Our target audience was large corporations and their employees: busy professionals who needed clarity on medical requirements without it disrupting their workload or their team's momentum.

Key Design Decisions

Designing for context, not ideal conditions

‍Corporate travelers are busy, stressed, and not thinking about health compliance, they're thinking about their meetings. Every design decision was made with that reality in mind: clear language, minimal steps per screen, and a flow that respects the user's time and cognitive load.

Information architecture first

‍Before any screens, we mapped the navigation system and user flows to ensure the app served two distinct users: the employee completing requirements and the organization tracking compliance, and getting this right early kept development and design in sync throughout the sprint.

Automation as the UX

‍Rather than relying on users to check in manually, we built dynamic email automation and status updates as core UX features, reducing the mental overhead of tracking requirements by surfacing the right information at the right time.

Beyond Design

Brand & presentation

With the prototype taking shape, Elizabeth and I shifted to packaging the work. I designed the MedPass logo to establish brand recognition and build initial trust with the judging panel, a simple but intentional mark that made the product feel real, not just functional. We created the full presentation deck, coordinated our 4-minute pitch, and ran through multiple practice rounds to tighten our delivery. We both knew that how we communicated the idea was just as important as what we built.

Key Takeaways

Results

Winning first place was such an amazing feeling we felt as a team. We were very proud of each other and how Team Black Cats managed to remain positive and trust the process. Because of our hard work and dedication, Black Cats was awarded first place and received the $5k prize. We were ecstatic with the outcome, and we celebrated our success by having dinner together to celebrate, reflect on our work, and express our gratitude towards each other.

Learnings

Because this was my first hackathon, I was nervous but excited about the experience. I learned so much and was satisfied with the outcome and the people I met. Some major takeaways were:

‍Communicate and comprehend effectively
Working with two individuals who had never worked with UX previously on a cross-functional team forced Elizabeth and me to justify our choices and involve them thoroughly in our user-thinking process. Therefore, communication was key to our team because we had to ensure our each team member needed to understand our approach towards the project.  
‍
‍Ask questions, get answers
It was important to ask questions when we had problems or concerns to move forward with our decision-making. Given our short timeframe, we used our resources and asked our mentors to decide on our design and development decisions.
‍‍
Balance out the strengths and weaknesses
Acknowledging our team's strengths and weaknesses allowed us to work in pairs and tackle the project with what we knew best and the positive impact it would bring. Through this decision, we were comfortable with our responsibilities and trust each other with the process despite the challenges we still faced.

Organize and structure
We had a short timeline to create and submit our deliverables as a team. We took our time to construct a plan and to execute productively to receive the best outcome.‍