UX Design / Final Compilation & Reflection

on
26.09.2025 - 01.01.2026 (Week 1 - Week 14)
Ng Kar Yee / 0367743
Bachelor of Design (Honours) in Creative Media
UX Design / Final Compilation & Reflection

INTRODUCTION


WEEK 01

On our first day, Mr Sylvain gave us a brief introduction on the module and told us what to expect for the current semester. He gave us a brief introduction on the module information booklet and discussed about the weekly lesson plan. We were introduced to focuses on analysis, design prototyping and evaluation of multimedia, multi-modal and multi-platform user interfaces that are easy to use and support great experience. The learning and teaching approach for the module will be blended learning, with students engaging with contents during lecture and assigned designated topics in flipped classrooms.

EXERCISE⇒ UX CASE STUDY

For the exercise, Mr Sylvain introduced UX Case Study to us where we need to select a case study where UX design played a critical role in the success or failure of the product/service.

EXERCISE INSTRUCTION

Research and Analyze: Research the case study and identify the characteristics of good and bad UX design in the scenario. Consider aspects such as usability, accessibility, visual design, information architecture, and user feedback. Collect screenshots or images to illustrate your points.

Create a Google Slides Presentation: Create a Google Slides presentation with a minimum of 6 slides to present your findings

The presentation should include:
  1. Title Slide: Include a title slide that Introduces the case study and your analysis.
  2. Design audit brief: Provide an overview of the case study and the UX design aspects that were successful or unsuccessful
  3. Characteristics of Good UX Design: List and explain the key characteristics of good UX design that were present in the case study.
  4. Characteristics of Bad UX Design: List and explain the key characteristics of bad UX design that were present in the case study
  5. Conclusion: Summarize your findings and offer recommendations for how the UX design could have been improved in the scenario.
  6. Content: The presentation should be clear, concise with a focus on communicating the key takeaways from the case study and the analysis of good and bad UX design.
  7. Assessment: The assessment of each student's presentation will be based on the clarity and effectiveness of the communication, the depth and quality of the analysis, and the adherence to the presentation guidelines.

WEEK 02 ~ 03

During Weeks 2 and 3, I choose to conduct an analysis on GrabFood, a leading on-demand food delivery platform in Southeast Asia. The study examined how UX design influences user trust, efficiency, and satisfaction within a time-sensitive service.
Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this study was to understand how design decisions affect user behaviour in real-world, high-pressure scenarios such as ordering food. The objective was to analyse the end-to-end user experience across multiple stages, identifying both strengths and pain points.

Focus Areas of Analysis

Usability
  • Observing how intuitive and efficient the ordering flow is 
Accessibility
  • Considering readability, interaction clarity, and inclusiveness
Visual Design
  • Analysing hierarchy, consistency, and affordances
Information Architecture
  • Reviewing how content and options are structured
User Feedback
  • Examining confirmation states, tracking updates, and error handling

FINAL UX CASE STUDY PRESENTATION SLIDE

UX Design Exercise GrabFood Delivery by Rainn

 

PROJECT 1 ~ 3⇒ UX DESIGN ON AR COOK SYSTEM

For projects, Mr Sylvain introduced UX Case Study to us where we need to select a case study where UX design played a critical role in the success or failure of the product/service. We are also needed to research the case study and identify the characteristics of good and bad UX design in the scenario.

WEEK 04 ~ 14

After receiving a brief overview of the course from Mr. Sylvain, we proceeded to form our group. My friends, Winnie, Si Yan, Guo Ying, Melvin and I came together to form a team. We chose to work on the project based on an AR Cooking.

The project focuses on designing an AR-based cooking assistance system for culinary students, delivered through AR glasses. The aim is to enhance hands-on learning by providing real-time, interactive guidance that supports quick, efficient, and skill-building meal preparation in a university culinary kitchen environment.

USER RESEARCH

To develop a strong understanding of user needs, behaviours, and challenges, a mixed-method research approach was adopted. This approach combined qualitative interviews with a quantitative Google Form questionnaire, allowing the team to gather both in-depth personal experiences and broader behavioural patterns. By using two complementary methods, the research captured not only what issues culinary students face, but also how frequently these challenges occur across different individuals.

The primary target audience for this study was culinary students who regularly participate in practical kitchen sessions. This includes students who are required to cook under time constraints, work in shared kitchen environments, and complete practical assessments or examinations. These students were selected as they experience high cognitive load, physical risk, and performance pressure, making them an ideal group for evaluating the potential impact of an AR-based cooking assistance system.

AFFINITY MAPPING

1. Survey-Based Insights

Findings from the questionnaire revealed several recurring challenges experienced by students during cooking practice. Common issues included difficulty remembering cooking steps, managing time effectively, controlling heat and temperature, accurately measuring ingredients, and maintaining correct techniques. 

Many students also reported feeling stressed during practical exams, struggling to follow instructional videos, and feeling reluctant or embarrassed to ask instructors to repeat demonstrations. These responses highlighted how instructional gaps and time pressure significantly affect learning confidence.

Figure 1.0 Affinity Map On Survey-based Insights

2. Interview-Based Insights

The interview sessions provided deeper context to the survey findings. Students shared experiences of physical fatigue, safety concerns, cluttered and crowded kitchen spaces, and inconsistent cooking outcomes. Challenges related to teamwork, task coordination, and plating under pressure were also frequently mentioned. Emotional responses such as anxiety, embarrassment, fear of making mistakes, and stress during evaluations emerged as strong themes, reinforcing the importance of emotional and psychological factors in the cooking learning process.

Figure 1.1 Affinity Map On Interview-based Insights

3. Iterative Affinity Mapping Process

All insights gathered from both research methods were synthesised through an iterative affinity mapping process. We began with unstructured scratch notes, gradually grouping related observations into meaningful clusters. Through multiple rounds of refinement, core problem themes were identified, including cognitive overload, lack of real-time feedback, safety risks, performance anxiety, and time pressure. This process helped transform raw research data into clear and actionable design insights.

Figure 1.2 Affinity Map Mapping Process

3. How Might We (HMW) Questions

Based on the clustered insights from affinity mapping, we reframed key challenges into a series of How Might We (HMW) questions. This step shifted the focus from problem identification to opportunity exploration, encouraging solution-oriented thinking. 

By framing issues as open-ended questions, we were able to explore multiple design directions while remaining grounded in validated user pain points. These HMW questions later served as a critical reference throughout the ideation and feature development stages.

Figure 1.3 HMW Questions

STAKEHOLDER MAP

To better understand the broader ecosystem in which the AR cooking system would operate, a comprehensive stakeholder map was created. This exercise helped identify all individuals and groups involved in or affected by culinary education and kitchen operations.

1. Inside the Organisation

Within the organisation, culinary students were identified as the primary stakeholders. Secondary stakeholders included kitchen lab assistants, culinary instructors, technicians, programme directors, and safety officers, all of whom play roles in managing learning, equipment, and safety. Tertiary stakeholders such as school representatives, cleaners, parents, and insurance bodies were also considered, as they influence operational policies, maintenance, and risk management.

2. Outside the Organisation

Outside the institution, external stakeholders included partner culinary institutes, software developers, designers, AR hardware manufacturers, and food suppliers. Broader tertiary stakeholders such as restaurants, training consultants, future students, investors, and the general public were mapped to understand the system’s long-term educational and industry impact. This stakeholder mapping process clarified overlapping responsibilities, expectations, and constraints across the ecosystem.

Figure 1.4 Stakeholder Map

USER JOURNEY MAPPING

Based on the research insights, three personas were developed to represent different skill levels and learning needs, Hana Lee, a beginner cook who requires clear guidance, reassurance, and structured support. Stella Chan, an amateur cook focused on improving efficiency, consistency, and multitasking. Adora Montminy, an experienced chef seeking refinement, precision, and minimal disruption

User journey mapping was then applied to visualise each persona’s emotional state, pain points, and opportunities across key stages such as preparation, active cooking, and evaluation. This process highlighted moments of frustration, stress, and confusion, allowing the team to align design interventions with real points of friction in the cooking experience.

Figure 1.5 Hana Lee, Beginner Cook

Figure 1.6 Stella Chan, Amateur Cook

Figure 1.7 Adora Montminy Experienced Chef

IDEATION

With a strong research foundation established, the project moved into the ideation phase. We collaboratively reviewed all HMW questions and prioritised those that addressed the most critical user challenges. Particular attention was given to issues related to safety, confidence-building, time management, real-time feedback, and adaptability across skill levels. These prioritised questions were then translated into initial feature concepts for the AR cooking system, ensuring that each idea was grounded in user needs and realistic within a university kitchen environment.

Figure 1.8 Ideations

1. 2×2 Impact–Effort Matrix

To refine the feature set, a 2×2 Impact–Effort Matrix was used to evaluate each concept based on its potential user value and development complexity. This helped the team identify features that offered high impact while remaining feasible within project constraints. Core priorities focused on execution guidance, safety monitoring, feedback mechanisms, and pacing support, ensuring that the system addressed the most pressing pain points faced by culinary students.
Figure 1.9 2x2 Impact Effort Matrix

2. MoSCoW Method

The MoSCoW framework was then applied to categorise features into Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, and Won’t Have. This method supported scope control by distinguishing essential system functions from optional enhancements, preventing feature overload while preserving core user value.

Features that consistently addressed multiple personas and appeared across several HMW questions were selected as common key components. This step ensured coherence across the system and reinforced the relevance of each feature to different user needs and skill levels.

Figure 2.0 MoSCoW Method

PROPOSED MAIN FEATURES

The final proposed features for the AR cooking system include,

AR Step Overlay

Step-by-step visual guidance is projected directly onto the workstation, helping users follow recipes sequentially. This reduces cognitive load, prevents missed steps, and supports multitasking during cooking.

Safety Alert and Orientation Overlay

Real-time visual and auditory alerts warn users of unsafe actions, temperature risks, or proximity to hazardous equipment. This feature reduces injury risk while also easing the monitoring burden on instructors.

Projection Timer and Clock

A hands-free projected timer and clock provide constant time awareness, supporting precision cooking, pacing, and effective task management during assessments.

Basic Real-Time Technique Correction

A minimal computer vision system detects major technique errors, such as incorrect knife grip or improper burner use. This helps users correct mistakes early and reinforces proper habits.

Instructor Oversight Tools

A simplified dashboard allows instructors to monitor essential metrics, including remaining time, current cooking stage, and safety alerts, enabling timely and targeted intervention.

Customisable Interface (Skill Toggle)

Users can adjust the level of guidance displayed, allowing beginners to access full support while more experienced users reduce visual clutter. This ensures the system remains useful as skills progress.

FINAL OUTPUT

The final outputs of the project included a poster, an AR Cook animation video, and a project website, each serving a different communication purpose.

Winnie and Yanny were responsible for the poster design, including UI panels and mascot development. The website was collaboratively developed by Guoying, Melvin, and Winnie. Melvin and I worked together on the storyboard for the animation, ensuring that the narrative clearly communicated user problems and system solutions. Melvin and Guoying handled the animation production, while I was responsible for the sound design and overall refinement of the video.

STORYBOARD

The storyboard was collaboratively developed by Melvin and myself to visualise how the AR Cook system would be communicated through motion and narrative. The primary goal of the storyboard was to clearly translate the UX concept into a time-based sequence that demonstrates user pain points, system intervention, and the resulting improvement in the cooking experience.

Figure 2.1 Storyboard Page 1

Figure 2.2 Storyboard Page 2

Figure 2.3 Storyboard Page 3

Figure 2.4 Storyboard Page 4

SOUND DESIGN 

The sound design was curated to support the storytelling and emotional tone of the animation while remaining subtle and non-intrusive. All sound assets were sourced from YouTube, focusing on royalty-free or publicly available audio that matched the pacing and context of each scene.

The sound list was organised according to the storyboard sequence, ensuring that each audio element reinforced the intended user experience. Ambient kitchen sounds were used to establish realism in the cooking environment, while softer background music was selected to gradually shift the mood from stress to control as the AR system was introduced. Interface-related sound cues were chosen to be minimal and functional, providing clarity without distracting from the visual information.


FINAL POSTER

FINAL ANIMATION

Youtube Link

MIRO BOARD LINK

LINK TO GOOGLE DRIVE SUBMISSION (DOC / PDF)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZkANJtCA-Y8IcMoLM2Q60PBuvL9A40ha?usp=drive_link

FEEDBACK

PRESENTATION FEEDBACK FOR AR COOK APPLICATION

1. General Reception & Structure

The lecturer commended our overall presentation structure, noting that the delivery was clear and effectively resembled a formal business pitch. While the core concept was well-received, we were given several specific questions and challenges regarding our project outcome that we need to address in the next iteration.

2. Defining Skill Levels and User Assessment

A key question raised was regarding the differentiation between our various skill levels (Beginner, Amateur, and Expert). The lecturer noted that our demonstration video only showcased the "Amateur" workflow, leaving the specific differences of the other modes unclear. Additionally, we were challenged on how a user determines which level to choose. We need to consider scenarios where a user might be overconfident—selecting "Expert" only to realize they are struggling—and how our system can help them adjust or assess their true skill level before starting.

3. Managing Multitasking in the Kitchen

The lecturer pointed out that our current video demonstration depicts a linear workflow, where the user performs only one task at a time. However, in a real-world kitchen environment, students are often busy juggling multiple responsibilities simultaneously. We need to refine our UX to demonstrate how the AR glasses manage parallel tasks—such as monitoring a boiling pot while chopping vegetables—without overwhelming the user.

4.  Crisis Management & Emergency Protocols

Finally, we received critical feedback regarding safety and accident management. The lecturer emphasized that even with our implemented precautions and alerts, accidents (such as cuts, burns, or grease fires) are inevitable. Since one of our primary goals is ensuring student safety, we cannot just focus on prevention; we must also include a "Crisis Management" feature. We need to design a way for the interface to guide students through these emergency scenarios effectively when they occur.

REFLECTION

EXPERIENCES

This project marked my first formal exposure to UX design, allowing me to gradually understand how user-centred thinking is applied across different design contexts. The early stage of the course focused on building foundational UX knowledge through a solo case study on GrabFood, which served as an introductory exercise rather than a product development task. Analysing an existing platform helped me learn how UX principles such as usability, information flow, and feedback operate within a time-sensitive digital service.

From Week 4 onwards, the project shifted into the AR Cook system, which was significantly different in scope and complexity. Unlike the GrabFood exercise, this phase involved designing a system from the ground up based on user research rather than evaluation. Working on AR Cook introduced me to a full UX workflow, including user research, affinity mapping, ideation, and feature prioritisation. The transition from analysing an established app to designing a learning-support system highlighted the differences between UX evaluation and UX creation.

Overall, the experience helped me understand how UX design extends beyond interface layout to include user emotions, environmental constraints, and real-world behaviour. As a beginner in UX, this project provided a structured introduction to UX methods while gradually building confidence in applying research-driven design thinking.

OBSERVATIONS

One key observation during this project was the importance of grounding design decisions in validated user insights rather than assumptions. The affinity mapping process revealed that many user challenges were not purely technical, but cognitive and emotional in nature. Issues such as cognitive overload, lack of real-time reassurance, and hesitation to ask for help significantly shaped how the AR system needed to function. This reinforced the idea that effective UX design must address both functional efficiency and emotional support.

Another important observation was how prioritisation frameworks influenced the final outcome. Using tools such as the Impact–Effort Matrix and MoSCoW method helped the team make realistic decisions within project constraints. While many feature ideas were desirable, only those that delivered high user value while remaining feasible were carried forward. I also observed how collaboration across different deliverables required clear role definition; misalignment in one output, such as animation pacing or sound design, could weaken the overall communication of the UX concept. This highlighted the interconnected nature of UX, motion, and narrative design.

FINDINGS

One of the main findings from this project was that UX design for learning environments requires a strong balance between clarity, adaptability, and restraint. Rather than overwhelming users with excessive information, the AR Cook system focuses on delivering the right guidance at the right moment. This aligns closely with UX principles of reducing cognitive load and supporting progressive skill development. I learned that designing for beginners and more experienced users within the same system requires flexibility, not additional complexity.

The project also reinforced the value of structured UX methodologies. Research synthesis, persona creation, journey mapping, and prioritisation frameworks provided a clear foundation for ideation and prevented the design process from becoming feature-driven rather than user-driven. On a personal level, this project strengthened my confidence in conducting UX research, translating insights into design decisions, and collaborating across disciplines. Overall, the experience highlighted the importance of iteration, communication, and user empathy in creating meaningful and practical UX solutions.

Comments

Post a Comment