Designed a single spin mechanic that solves 3 distinct dining anxieties in a two-week sprint.
A two-week class prototype on menu decision fatigue. Three interviews revealed distinct needs behind "picky eating": allergen safety, texture confidence, and decision fatigue. One core mechanic served all three.
Summary
Three interviews showed "picky eating" was three different problems. One spin mechanic addressed all three. Mid-week critique caught a flow flaw with a week left to fix it.
Diners order the same meals repeatedly because trying something new feels like risking $15 on disappointment. "Picky eating" turned out to be three different problems, not one.
High-fidelity clickable prototype where one spin mechanic serves all three user needs. Final critique called out the research-to-design thread as a strength.
Ordering at a restaurant is a small decision with real stakes: money, hunger, and the quiet embarrassment of choosing wrong. So most people stop choosing at all.
Two pain points framed the work
Menu Legibility
physical menus are cluttered and hard to read.
Decision Paralysis
diners order the same meals repeatedly because they're afraid of wasting money.
My three user interviews validated the framing
"I always order the same thing. It's safe." (All 3 participants)
"I don't want to waste $15 on something I hate." (2 of 3 participants)
I designed a mobile app that turns meal selection into a low-stakes choice without compromising safety for allergen-sensitive users.
Spin the Wheel
Random selection based on preferences. The choice feels exciting, not risky.
Readable Digital Menus
Searchable menus with prominent allergen labeling.
Personal History
Track and rate dishes to build confidence over time.
The insight: people are not afraid of new food. They are afraid of wasting money. When the choice feels playful instead of permanent, exploration becomes easier.
Discovery
Week 1, Day 1: I pitched the concept to my professor with one question: "What if choosing food felt like a game instead of a high-stakes decision?" Approval came with one condition: validate the problem through real interviews before designing anything.
Days 2-3: I conducted 3 interviews with restaurant-goers representing different ordering behaviors:
The Aha Moment
"Picky eating" isn't one problem. It's three completely different user needs. Instead of one feature, I needed a flexible system that served all three.
Week 1, Day 1: I pitched the concept to my professor with one question: "What if choosing food felt like a game instead of a high-stakes decision?" Approval came with one condition: validate the problem through real interviews before designing anything.
Days 2-3: I conducted 3 interviews with restaurant-goers representing different ordering behaviors:
The Aha Moment
"Picky eating" isn't one problem. It's three completely different user needs. Instead of one feature, I needed a flexible system that served all three.
Definition
From the 3 interviews, two personas drove the core tradeoffs. Toni needed allergen safety before any dish reveal; Aiden needed the decision made for him without menu paralysis.
Allergy-Aware, Shellfish & Tree Nuts · 24
“I want to try new places with friends, but I spend the whole meal worried I'll accidentally eat something that'll send me to the ER.”
Needs
Friction
Menus rarely list allergens clearly
Decision Fatigued, "Too Many Options" · 31
“I'm not picky about food: I'm picky about decisions. Just tell me what to get.”
Needs
Friction
Overwhelmed by large menus
From the 3 interviews, two personas drove the core tradeoffs. Toni needed allergen safety before any dish reveal; Aiden needed the decision made for him without menu paralysis.
Allergy-Aware, Shellfish & Tree Nuts · 24
“I want to try new places with friends, but I spend the whole meal worried I'll accidentally eat something that'll send me to the ER.”
Needs
Friction
Menus rarely list allergens clearly
Decision Fatigued, "Too Many Options" · 31
“I'm not picky about food: I'm picky about decisions. Just tell me what to get.”
Needs
Friction
Overwhelmed by large menus
Ideation
Week 1 wireframe exploration after the spin-first pivot. Professor feedback validated the core mechanic and pushed safety and flow constraints that shaped Week 2.
Step 1 of 5
Rapid paper exploration of home, search, spin, and review layouts.
Swipe to navigate
Week 1 wireframe exploration after the spin-first pivot. Professor feedback validated the core mechanic and pushed safety and flow constraints that shaped Week 2.
Step 1 of 5
Rapid paper exploration of home, search, spin, and review layouts.
Swipe to navigate
Ideation
Mid-week critique flagged that browse-first would fail Toni and Aiden, so I pivoted before investing in those screens.
Design decision
Rejected
Initial direction: import menu, browse the full menu, then spin. This search wireframe was as far as I got. Mid-week critique flagged failures for Toni (allergies) and Aiden (decision fatigue) before I built more.
Selected
Preferences, then spin immediately, with an allergen interstitial before reveal. Safety for Toni; decisiveness for Aiden.
Mid-week critique flagged that browse-first would fail Toni and Aiden, so I pivoted before investing in those screens.
Design decision
Rejected
Initial direction: import menu, browse the full menu, then spin. This search wireframe was as far as I got. Mid-week critique flagged failures for Toni (allergies) and Aiden (decision fatigue) before I built more.
Selected
Preferences, then spin immediately, with an allergen interstitial before reveal. Safety for Toni; decisiveness for Aiden.
Prototyping
Week 2, Days 1-4: Three critical changes based on critique locked in safety and decisiveness over exploration.
Visual direction drew from gaming UI: loot box mechanics reduce regret ("you didn't choose wrong, chance did"), directly addressing the fear of disappointment from interviews.
Design decision
Rejected
A beautiful animated reveal felt polished, but sacrificed mandatory safety checks Toni needs before any dish appears.
Selected
Sacrificed seamless motion to force a full-screen allergen check before reveal; safety is non-negotiable for allergy-aware users.
Rejected
Letting users explore the full menu before spinning recreated the analysis paralysis Aiden's persona represents.
Selected
Traded open-ended discovery for a highly opinionated spin-first path: preferences, then spin, menu secondary.
Rejected
One final pick carries the full weight of a $15 mistake, matching interview fear of wasting money.
Selected
Sacrificed the gravity of a confident final decision for a loot-box "Spin Again": chance absorbs regret so exploration feels low-stakes.
Week 2, Days 1-4: Three critical changes based on critique locked in safety and decisiveness over exploration.
Visual direction drew from gaming UI: loot box mechanics reduce regret ("you didn't choose wrong, chance did"), directly addressing the fear of disappointment from interviews.
Design decision
Rejected
A beautiful animated reveal felt polished, but sacrificed mandatory safety checks Toni needs before any dish appears.
Selected
Sacrificed seamless motion to force a full-screen allergen check before reveal; safety is non-negotiable for allergy-aware users.
Rejected
Letting users explore the full menu before spinning recreated the analysis paralysis Aiden's persona represents.
Selected
Traded open-ended discovery for a highly opinionated spin-first path: preferences, then spin, menu secondary.
Rejected
One final pick carries the full weight of a $15 mistake, matching interview fear of wasting money.
Selected
Sacrificed the gravity of a confident final decision for a loot-box "Spin Again": chance absorbs regret so exploration feels low-stakes.
Testing & Validation
Week 2, Days 5-7: I finalized the clickable Figma prototype covering the three flows that map to Toni and Aiden's needs.
Validation
Presented to professor and class panel. Critique highlighted:
Gamification approach effectively addresses the identified problem.
Strong user research foundation: personas clearly drove design decisions.
Allergen safety features show thoughtful consideration of diverse user needs.
Mid-week feedback on flow risk was successfully incorporated and resolved.
Step 1 of 3
Search and import restaurant menus with allergen labeling before Toni arrives.
Swipe to navigate
Week 2, Days 5-7: I finalized the clickable Figma prototype covering the three flows that map to Toni and Aiden's needs.
Validation
Presented to professor and class panel. Critique highlighted:
Gamification approach effectively addresses the identified problem.
Strong user research foundation: personas clearly drove design decisions.
Allergen safety features show thoughtful consideration of diverse user needs.
Mid-week feedback on flow risk was successfully incorporated and resolved.
Step 1 of 3
Search and import restaurant menus with allergen labeling before Toni arrives.
Swipe to navigate
A complete 2-week design sprint: pitch, approval, research, wireframing, critique, iteration, and presentation.
Prototype outcomes
Key insights
Evidence notes
This project demonstrates design process quality and decision-making under a short timeline. It does not claim production adoption or live behavior metrics.
Looking back
What I Learned
Pitch First, Design Later
articulating the problem before opening Figma kept me focused on what I was solving.
Small Research, Big Insights
3 interviews surfaced that "picky eating" was three different problems. The right 3 beat 50 generic ones.
Constraints Breed Focus
2 weeks meant I couldn't build everything. Perfecting the core mechanic beat shipping five mediocre features.
Feedback Prevents Failure
the mid-week critique caught a flaw that would have undermined the whole concept.
Borrow From Unexpected Places
gaming UI wasn't aesthetic, it was psychological. Loot box logic reduces regret, addressing the "fear of disappointment" identified in interviews.
What I'd Do Differently
Next case study
Shipped a student-led interactive campus map MVP with search, filters, and accessibility data across 35+ buildings.
UX Lead (University Internship) · Fall 2025 – Spring 2026