1. Project Overview

The requirements of this project were to design a physical system that addressed a social cause (such as environmentalism, mental health, etc.). We chose to focus on student safety.

As new UW graduate students (and many of us new Seattleites) we encountered a shared problem: feeling unfamiliar with, and often unsafe on, campus. With the M.S. in Human Centered Design and Engineering course schedule being primarily composed of evening classes, there were many instances where we found ourselves commuting from campus late at night and feeling unsafe while navigating campus. Thus, we decided to focus on researching and developing a system that would make students feel safer on campus, especially at night. We initially chose to focus on graduate students as they are typically a population that is both unfamiliar with campus and has commitments that lead them to be on campus during late hours. 

Picture of HCDE 518 Class Members and Instructors

We completed this project for HCDE 518, User-Centered Design, during the Fall Quarter (August–December) of 2025 under the instruction of Professor Doug Pyle. This course fulfills a requirement for the M.S. in Human-Centered Design and Engineering program at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The Team

We completed this project as a four-person team over the course of the quarter. We met in person during Monday class sessions and collaborated remotely throughout the rest of the week. Although we didn’t have specified roles in this project we had overall responsibilities in which we oversaw.

Maham Khawar

Project Manager + UX Research

Chinyere Munonye

UX Research + UX/UI + Interaction Design

Aminta Malcolm

UI Design + Visual Design

Sahana Narendran

UX Research + Interaction Design

2. User Research

For our user research, we chose to do 3 methods: In-Depth Interviews (IDIs), a Survey, and Direct Observation. 

In-Depth Interviews

We conducted In-Depth Interviews (IDIs) as our primary research method to facilitate open, in-depth conversations around feelings of safety on campus. We interviewed 7 participants who were all graduate students among a different range of programs at UW-Seattle. IDIs typically lasted 30 minutes each, where we asked participants questions regarding their typical experiences being on campus at night and how they felt regarding safety.

Why
Because safety is often a sensitive and personal topic, IDIs allow us to create space for participants to share full narratives about their feelings of safety and past unsafe experiences, leading to a deeper understanding of how these experiences influence their commuting behaviors.
Relating to Previous
Building on our initial framing of student safety as a core problem area, IDIs enabled us to move beyond assumptions and gather rich, qualitative insights grounded in real-life experiences and emotions.
Relating to Next
The themes, motivations, and behavioral “whys” uncovered through the interviews directly informed the development of our personas, ensuring they were rooted in authentic user needs, concerns, and lived experiences.

Survey

We conducted a survey as one of our research methods to gather input from a broader group of potential users. We asked around 20 questions that ranged from demographic questions, to questions regarding student safety and to connection/a sense of community with others on campus. We received 21 responses from graduate students at UW–Seattle.

Why
We recognized that perceptions of safety and strategies for feeling safe vary widely, and the survey allowed us to efficiently capture this variability and identify major patterns and insights.
Relating to Previous
Building on the depth of insights gained from In-Depth Interviews, the survey enabled us to scale our findings and validate whether emerging themes held true across a larger population.
Relating to Next
The aggregated patterns and key differences identified through the survey informed the refinement of our personas, ensuring they reflected both individual experiences and broader trends in user behavior.

Direct Observation

We conducted direct observations using character profiles to observe students’ behaviors in natural campus settings as an initial research method. We observed 5+ students on their commute to and  from campus and took notes on their behaviors and actions during the day versus at night.

Why
Observing students in real-world contexts allowed us to capture authentic behaviors related to safety and commuting, providing early, unbiased insights into how students navigate campus.
Relating to Previous
As an initial form of research, direct observations helped ground the project in real behaviors and experiences before engaging participants in more reflective or self-reported methods.
Relating to Next
Insights from these observations informed the focus of our user interviews and later served as a point of reference when developing personas, ensuring they reflected observed behaviors as well as articulated needs, thoughts, and decision-making patterns.

3. Personas

We created two personas that represent potential users of our product.
‍
Why
The personas synthesize key insights from our research into clear, representative user archetypes.
Relating to Previous
Building on findings from interviews, surveys, and observations, the personas ground our design decisions in realistic user needs, behaviors, and motivations.
Relating to Next
As we move into sketching, the personas provide a concrete user to design for, helping us ideate with specific goals, constraints, and contexts in mind.

4. Sketching

Through sketching and ideation we identified three solutions to address our users’ problem: to connect with one another and effectively leverage the existing UW resources in order for them to feel safer on their commute home?

Idea #1: Live Commute Updates (Map and Schedule) 

Why
Guided by our users' issues being limited commuting updates and a low awareness of UW transportation schedules and safety resources, we proposed a solution that, with the help of an electronic board system, would display real-time arrival information for shuttles near key campus locations. Our first sketch of what we would later call Husky Navigator addresses our users' unfamiliarity with the current UW systems and community. This solution bridges the gap between the current UW safety resources and studentsʼ' needs for safety and community.
Relating to Previous
The strengths of this design lies in its ability to provide multiple modes of live updates for the transportation resources. This includes the Husky NightRight Shuttle, a known pain point identified through our survey and in depth interviews. 
Relating to Next
To address the goal of fostering community engagement while improving safety awareness, especially for students commuting in the evening. This adds a level of interactivity and details that is not currently available in the existing UW transportation tool. 

Idea #1: Storyboarding (for Idea #1)

Why
These storyboard sketches were made to explore each of the core flows that expand upon the initial interactive campus map to address our various user needs, from safety to connection. These needs include easy access to the current UW safety resources (Husky NightRide + SafeTrip), as well as for those who walk and commute via public transportation.
Relating to Previous
Storyboarding as a way to understand how our users would interact to address their problems utilizing this solution. 
Relating to Next
Each flow offers one way for users to interact with the interactive campus map solution, while there are numerous possibilities for interaction, finding intentionality through our personas helped to shape the first round of prototypes.

5. Prototyping and Usability Testing

Med-Fidelity Prototype

From there, we created the first med-fidelity prototype of our design which we tested among potential users.

View Med-Fidelity Prototype
Why
We created version 1 of our final design incorporating each of our team member’s initials low fidelity designs including interactions to curate the tasks list for our usability study We created these wireframes to set a foundation to better understand what our users needs would be in the actualization of a design  Given our short timeline, we found that the incorporation of the different styles allowed for us to get feedback from our participants on their preferences for the user interfaces
Relating to Previous
This is relevant because prior to this initial study we had been bouncing ideas around on what the interface would be but did not have a solid idea of how the design would look in a consolidated manner. 
Relating to Next
As we moved to high-fidelity designs , our design team based our changes on the feedback that we received . reducing the amount of texts on each page, updating the user flow to reduce cognitive fatigue and unification on the design ui components + branding that we’d be using for our designs. 

Quotes from Usability Testing

“ Super text heavy. If im walking late and night i want to be able to get through each screen in the shortest amount of time”

“There are 4 screens to use on the homepage. Embedding those options as quick options would be good to use as a quick thing in case i am in a rush”

“Likes the colors and visual aesthetic . Also says track your shuttle. I think that the buttons on the bottom should be bigger for navigation. And instead of feeling unsafe there should be something called emergency”

Top 3 Insights from Usability Testing

Insight #1: Condense Wording (Version 1 vs Version 2)

Condense the wording per screen as in general it was seen as text heavy and participants noted not wanting to pull out their phones multiple times. 

Insight #2: Combine Flows (Version 1 vs Version 2)

We learned that users who are deciding between walking and public transit would need to separately complete each flow in Version 1. Participants expressed that this felt repetitive and inefficient.

Version 1

Insight #3: Make Buttons Accessible (Version 1 vs Version 2)

We learned that buttons placed higher on the screen were harder to reach, especially for users who are shorter in height or have mobility/accessibility needs.

6. Final Protoype

For our high fidelity prototype we created a kiosk design and added  the final flows for the system, incorporating basic interactions considering the feedback that we received from our user usability tests . 
View Final Prototype Here
Why
We created this in order to have an interactive realistic design solution that students could imagine on campus.
Relating to Previous
We based components that worked from our user feedback such as reducing the amount of texts on each page , combining the walking and public transit features since the flows led to the same pages, and included a how it works page 
Relating to Next
 We incorporated insights from our design showcase to include clarity on our live chat functions, and the ways students can safely connect with other students through this solution.