Work

About

Contact

Work

About

Contact

Study 02 - Next-Step Guidance

How to make the start feel like mine?

I shifted from one “correct” path to user-led entry points.

Study 02 - Next-Step Guidance

How to make the start feel like mine?

I shifted from one “correct” path to user-led entry points.

Role

Research-led Product/UX Designer

Scope

Research · IA · UI · Prototyping

Scope

Research · IA · UI · Prototyping

Team

Solo (personal project)

Team

Solo (personal project)

Platforms

iOS / Android

Timeline

12.2024–04.2025

Status

lo-fi Prototype

Outcome

Turn the start into a choice — without breaking the Plan → Mission path.

Core loop:

Plan → Grocery → Mission

Summary:

Home shifted from “the app’s start” to “my start” with multiple entry points — Meal Planner stayed primary as the anchor.

Metrics (n=5):

Decision pause: 40% → 20%

Proxy: pause ≥3s before primary CTA

Perceived control (unprompted): 0/5 → 4/5

“where to begin”

Core loop completion: 5/5

reached the Mission page (view).

Metrics (n=5):

Decision pause: 40% → 20%

Proxy: pause ≥3s before primary CTA

Perceived control (unprompted): 0/5 → 4/5

“where to begin”

Core loop completion: 5/5

reached the Mission page (view).

One-line principle:

Design for agency, not compliance.

Anchor: Meal Planner defines the habit loop (see Case 1 North Star)↗

Open evidence (Pretest + 2 iterations) ↓

I2 - Multiple Entry Points

Multiple valid starts converge on Meal Planner

Compare with baseline

Back to I2 "Why" ritual

I2 - Multiple Entry Points

Multiple valid starts converge on Meal Planner

Compare with baseline

Back to I2 "Why" ritual

[ Curiosity entry ] “I knew blue was the next step, but the white (Grocery) button pulled my attention — so I paused.”

[Why this entry?] “I followed the color cues, but I wasn’t sure why I was entering this path — or why I need the Grocery List.”

view Test clip

Perceived meaning signal (n=5)

Back to I2 "Why" ritual

[ Curiosity entry ] “I knew blue was the next step, but the white (Grocery) button pulled my attention — so I paused.”

[Why this entry?] “I followed the color cues, but I wasn’t sure why I was entering this path — or why I need the Grocery List.”

view Test clip

Perceived meaning signal (n=5)

Back to I2 "Why" ritual

The tension

Users followed the flow but didn’t feel in control.

Home implied one “correct” start: Meal Plan → Grocery → Mission. Users could follow it — but didn’t feel in control of where to begin. Mission is where planning becomes an actionable weekly commitment.

What I saw (baseline; n=5):

40% (2/5) Decision pause:

paused ≥3s before the primary CTA.

40% (2/5) asked "Why this flow?":

unprompted.

Grocery read as a gate, not a helpful entry.

What I saw (baseline; n=5):

40% (2/5) Decision pause:

paused ≥3s before the primary CTA.

40% (2/5) asked "Why this flow?":

unprompted.

Grocery read as a gate, not a helpful entry.

Focus:

This wasn’t usability. It was buy-in and perceived control at the start.

Small note

* Prototype test (n=5), moderated. *“Pause” = ≥3s before primary CTA.

Decision → Design Move

Drop the “one right start.” Keep one anchor. Add multiple valid entries.

Considerations:

Trade-off:

Less “sequenced guidance,” more room to explore.

Risk:

Users might browse recipes and never commit to a Mission.

Decision:

Keep Meal Planner as the core valve, add multiple valid starts into it.

What changed (Home as hub):

Meal Planner:

stays primary (anchor)

Discover + Seasonal picks:

become valid starts

Grocery:

downgraded to secondary

What changed (Home as hub):

Meal Planner:

stays primary (anchor)

Discover + Seasonal picks:

become valid starts

Grocery:

downgraded to secondary

Guardrail:

Meal Planner stayed the anchor. Exploration still led back to the loop.

I2 - Multiple Entry Points Map

Compare with baseline

Back to I2 "Why" ritual

I2 - Multiple Entry Points Map

Compare with baseline

Back to I2 "Why" ritual

Decision pause (baseline)

2/5

Decision pause

1/5

Autonomy (baseline)

0/5

Autonomy

4/5

Mission reach (view) (baseline)

0/5

Mission reach (view)

5/5

Coding note:

Decision pause = a ≥3s pause when the next tap isn’t an obvious intention. Pauses used to verbalise feedback were excluded.

view Test clip

Perceived meaning signal (n=5)

Back to I2 "Why" ritual

Decision pause (baseline)

2/5

Decision pause

1/5

Autonomy (baseline)

0/5

Autonomy

4/5

Mission reach (view) (baseline)

0/5

Mission reach (view)

5/5

Coding note:

Decision pause = a ≥3s pause when the next tap isn’t an obvious intention. Pauses used to verbalise feedback were excluded.

view Test clip

Evidence clip (8×): Home → Mission page (view)

Timelapse (8×) of a ~2 min flow

0:00–0:12

Browse Home

0:13

Tap Meal Planner

1:09–1:30

Pause to give feedback

1:30

Enter Mission page (view)

Small note

Mission entry = opening the Mission page (view), not starting a mission.

Back to Signals

Impact

Autonomy increased while mission entry stayed intact.

What I heard (n=5):

4/5 felt more in control.

(“I can explore first…”)

5/5 reached the Mission page (view).

(path intact)

What I heard (n=5):

4/5 felt more in control.

(“I can explore first…”)

5/5 reached the Mission page (view).

(path intact)

Interpretation:

Choice removed the “being controlled” friction without breaking the product’s core sequence.

Next tension:

Exploration was easier. Starting a Mission still needed its own design. (→ Case 3)

Small note

Autonomy surfaced unprompted → I added a one-question follow-up across sessions.

Open evidence (Pretest + 2 iterations) ↓

• Run a 7-day MVP to validate beyond prototype behavior • Track: return rate to hub, first meaningful action, drop-offs, and entry choice patterns • Add one daily micro-check: “Did you feel in control today?” (1 question)

Plan: Meal Plan → Act: Cook Mission → Reward: Food Diary → Repeat.

Disclaimer

This MVP planning is simulated and grounded in my UX process.

Takeaways

• Design for agency, not compliance.

• A hub works when entries converge.

• Prototype signals are real — but method bias matters.

So what

Home isn’t just navigation — it sets the emotional tone for the habit.

Bridge to Case 3

Once the start felt user-led, the next challenge wasn’t exploration — it was follow-through. I moved from “Where do I begin?” to “What gets me to actually start a Mission?” That’s where Vision Board and small wins came in.

Plan: Meal Plan → Act: Cook Mission → Reward: Food Diary → Repeat.

Case Study 2 - Evidence pack

Optional deep dive below.

Research snapshot

How I tested this (directional).

Method

Pretest

What made the start feel like “the app’s start”, not mine?

Pretest

Iteration 1

If the intended start is visually clear, hesitation will drop.

Iteration-1

Iteration 2

What if people choose their own start — and the loop still holds?

Iteration-2

Limitations & Next

What could distort these signals? and What's next?

Limitations & Next

What could distort these signals? and What's next?

Deep Dive

Study 00 Overview

A quick tour of FoDi and why it exists.

View Study

Study 00 Overview

A quick tour of FoDi and why it exists.

View Study

Study 01 Product Strategy

From “I know” to “I do”: why this product bet.

#Product strategy

View Study

Study 01 Product Strategy

From “I know” to “I do”: why this product bet.

#Product strategy

View Study

Study 03 Motivation Design

Why vision wasn’t enough — and what feedback needs to do.

#Motivation design #Behavior design

View Study

Study 03 Motivation Design

Why vision wasn’t enough — and what feedback needs to do.

#Motivation design #Behavior design

View Study