Content

Research

DIrection

Ideation

Design

Nudge

Nudge is an app that helps apartment residents get practical assistance and casual companionship.

Nudge is an apartment community app that uses personalized matching and streamlined coordination to help residents discover and act on untapped opportunities for practical help and lightweight companionship in their overlapping daily routines.

THE PROBLEM

Residents want nearby help and companionship without first building relationships. Shared tools, helpers, and people with similar interests are close by, but finding a match, coordinating plans, and feeling safe reaching out remain difficult.

THE GOAL

Connect when needed. Stay undisturbed otherwise. Enable casual interactions without requiring residents to first build or continually maintain relationships, while keeping privacy and participation in their control.

DURATION

4 months

RESPONSIBILITIES

User Research · Concept Testing · Interaction Design · Prototyping · Usability Testing

TRIGGER

Living close didn't lead to connection

I lived among 400+ units, yet barely knew anyone - proximity without interaction.

I INITIALLY ASSUMED

Residents preferred distance and disinterest in neighbors.

THE CONTRADICTION

One fire alarm changed that—rarely-spoken neighbors suddenly connected effortlessly.

Maybe residents might lack a natural, low-pressure reason to interact?

WHAT LED ME TO RESEARCH

Why did connection feel natural in an emergency but hard in everyday life?

Low interaction: lack of interest or lack of suitable opportunities?

PHASE 1

Validate Observations and Understand Neighbor Interactions

RESEARCH GOAL

To validate whether this contrast reflects a broader pattern.

To understand resident behaviors and perceptions of neighbor interaction.

Behavior mapping

3 days, 150+ observations

Capture actual behavior in shared spaces.

Behavior mapping

3 days, 150+ observations

Capture actual behavior in shared spaces.

Intercept interviews

15 residents, 5-10min

Compare observation with residents' own perceptions of neighbor life.

Intercept interviews

15 residents, 5-10min

Compare observation with residents' own perceptions of neighbor life.

Platform analysis

past 3 months posts

Check whether the offline pattern also appeared online.

Platform analysis

past 3 months posts

Check whether the offline pattern also appeared online.

WHAT THE DATA SHOWED

Functional needs draw far more participation than social engagement.

SHARED SPACES OBSERVATION

95% functional behavior

95%

functional behavior

5% social

social

Supporting signal from building manger
"Amenities were often used for work or private parties, while resident events see little participation."

COMMUNITY PLATFORM RESPONSE RATE

40%

Problem-solving

35%

Marketplace

Social / Events

Source: Potrero 1010 community website, three-month post and comment

Shared spaces serve primarily functional needs; social use is minimal, and organized events attract few participants.

Utility-oriented posts drew more responses than activity groups.

Next step: Further research into what drives residents' participation decisions.

WHAT INTERVIEWS COMPLICATED

Residents sought connection, but it rarely took hold inside the apartment.

15 Residents interviewed

11 of 15

No neighbor relationship

They don't know anyone in the apartment.

4 of these 11

Unmet intention

Wanted to know neighbors but had not succeeded.

7 of these 11

Stated disinterest

Said apartment socializing was not important to them.

But

when I dug deeper…

Yet nearly half still browsed nearby events and community updates on Nextdoor or Meetup.

Low interaction had no single explanation.

Some wanted to know their neighbors but could not initiate it
Others considered apartment socializing unimportant; some of them still browsed local events and community updates elsewhere.

HOW THIS CHANGE MY RESEARCH

Stage 1 confirmed that limited interaction among neighbors was common, but had not yet established whether residents saw it as a problem.

Nest step: In Stage 2, I began exploring the motivations and barriers behind these patterns.

NEXT QUESTION

What made interactions difficult to initiate or sustain?

Why did some residents seek connection outside the building instead?

PHASE 2

Uncovering What Residents Actually Need

RESEARCH GOAL

Focus: residents with unmet or ambiguous connection needs.

Understand what shaped their willingness to engage with neighbors.
Identify what kind of neighbor relationship mattered in everyday life.

PARTICIPANTS

10 residents (6 phase 1 follow-ups + 4 new participants)

STAGE 1

I Realized I Was Framing the Question Too Narrowly

Residents wanted connection, yet avoided socializing in their building. This contradiction showed that asking why they didn't socialize was already narrowing the kind of neighbor relationship I was investigating.

Wanting Connection, But Avoiding Socializing

Even when residents wanted connection or companionship, many saw apartment socializing as high-cost and low-reward.

🏠

Home is for recharging

"I just want my own space after work."

🔐

Privacy & safety concerns

"After being harassed, exposing my address felt unsafe."

😅

Social events feel forced

"I don’t like awkward meet-your-neighbor events"

🫥

High turnover cuts investment

"Neighbors move often, I don’t want to invest in short-term relationships."

Some stopped trying altogether; others chose to meet their social needs outside the building.

The Contradiction Made Me Question My Framing

My initial questions may have unintentionally led participants to view neighbor relationships through a high-investment, friendship-like lens.

Participants kept associating neighbor socializing with high-investment behaviors:

🤡

Pressure to perform well

👤

Meeting strangers

ℹ️

Sharing personal information

🫂

Maintaining relationships

🔋

Time and emotional investment

Starting with “socializing” revealed only why high-investment relationships failed, not what residents needed from neighbors.

Zoom out to Explore the Underlying Need

I stepped back to understand what a good everyday neighbor experience would look and feel like—on their own terms.

Instead of …

Why residents avoided socializing?

Ask

"Ideally, what would you want everyday life with the people around you in your building to feel like?"

STAGE 2

Defining the Desired Form of Neighbor Connection

With this broader framing, I explored when nearby connection felt useful, what kinds of interaction felt comfortable, and what boundaries residents wanted to maintain.

WHAT RESIDENTS NEED FROM NEARBY CONNECTION

Many participants preferred a middle layer between unfamiliar neighbors and friends.

Available when useful, without requiring closeness or ongoing maintenance.

Bounded Familiarity

Recognize who lives nearby and develop enough trust to approach them when relevant—without implying personal closeness.

" I don’t need close friends. I just want to recognize who lives around me and know who I could approach if needed.

Ambient Reassurance

Feel that others are nearby and potentially reachable, even without direct interaction.

" When I get tired from working remotely, I want to go downstairs and take a walk with someone.

I don’t need to say anything—it’s enough just to know there’s someone else working nearby.

Practical Help & Resource Sharing

Ask for, offer, or exchange small forms of practical support without creating an expectation of ongoing reciprocity.

" If I buy too much at Costco, I’d like to split it with someone nearby.

It would be great if there were someone I could trust to help take care of my cat when I'm busy.

Activity-Based Companionship

Connect through shared routines or activities when desired. Friendship may develop, but isn’t expected.

" I’d grab coffee with someone nearby—I just don’t want it to feel like a date or a friendship request.

WHY DID LIGHTWEIGHT CONNECTION STILL FEEL DIFFICULT?

Residents lacked a low-risk way to discover mutual fit and coordinate a clearly bounded interaction.

Safety, Privacy & Obligation Risk

Concerns about safety, information exposure, and unwanted social obligations.

Safety, Privacy & Obligation Risk

Whether it was safe, how much information would be exposed, and whether it would create unwanted social obligations.

Relevance, Availability & Intent Uncertainty

Little visibility into who nearby shared relevant needs, interests, or willingness to interact.

Relevance, Availability & Intent Uncertainty

Residents had little visibility into who around them shared a relevant need, interest, routine, or willingness to interact.

Initiation, Coordination & Closure Friction

Initiating risked rejection, silence, or awkwardness; coordinating time, place, and closure took extra effort.

Initiation, Coordination & Closure Friction

Starting an interaction carried the risk of rejection, silence, or awkwardness, while arranging time, place, and a clear ending required additional effort.

FIRE ALARM LOWERING INTERACTION COSTS.

Shared situation

Relevance was self-evident

Co-presence

Willingness didn't need to be visible

A natural topic

A foolproof opening line

No one hosted

No organizer burden

The alarm ended

No ongoing obligation

THE CONTRADICTION

Residents wanted trusted neighbors, yet also wanted clear boundaries and no ongoing relationship upkeep.

INSIGHT

Trust was a means, not the desired outcome.

Residents wanted someone nearby they could comfortably ask for help or companionship and reasonably expect a response from. Trust helped them reach out; reliable support was the goal.

HOW THIS GUIDED THE NEXT STEP

Explore ways to access reliable support without first building a personal relationship.

Turning research insights into a Design Direction

STARTING POINT

Apartment living already holds latent practical and social value in residents' routine overlaps.

Looking across observations, platform activity, and interviews, I found that apartment living naturally created recurring overlaps:

Practical needs

Package pickup

Tools

Pet care
…

Overlapping routines

Dog walking

Workout

Coffee breaks

Remote work

…

Shareable

resources

Shareable

resources

Unused items

Shared purchases

Tools or equipment

…

Shared situations

Spontaneous events,

Local info

…

These overlaps provide natural, legitimate reasons to interact.

What is missing is visibility into when they exist—and who is open to responding.

💡

OPPORTUNITY

Make relevant overlaps and mutual willingness visible and actionable.

EXPLORATION FOCUS

How might we make low-pressure support and companionship discoverable and accessible through routine overlaps—without prior relationships, unnecessary disclosure, or relationship upkeep?

Ideation

Brainstorming from the HMW, I explored mechanisms across 3 barriers identified in research. Ideas were organized by interaction stage, then evaluated for user value, feasibility, and risk.

THREE DIRECTIONS

01 CONTEXT GAP

Make the right signals visible

Relevance | Availability | Intent

02 COORDINATION COST

Reduce the burden of starting

Initiation | coordination | Closure

03 PSYCHOLOGICAL FRICTION

Protect boundaries by default

Safety | Privacy | Obligation

OUTCOME

High-confidence mechanisms formed a shared baseline; High-impact, uncertain drivers became the variables used to build three contrasting concepts for testing.

CONCEPT TESTING

I compared three interaction models

3 concepts that combine feasible mechanisms with promising but untested ones across two scenarios - tool borrowing and lightweight companionship - measuring willingness to act, comfort with visibility, perceived coordination effort, and confidence in exiting the interaction.

METHODS

Moderated testing · 5 participants · Concept cards + storyboard · Wizard of Oz

TESTING FOCUS

VALUE & RELECANCE

Can exchange and companionship start before relationships form?

WILLINGNESS TO ACT

Which model makes residents most willing to post, respond, or join?

PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY

What visibility, identity, consent, and closure safeguards make interactions feel safe?

PRODUCT SCOPE

Should the product start with resource access, light companionship, or both?

WAHT IT SUPPORTED

✅ Refundable deposits, return confirmation, and third-space handoffs increased participants’ confidence in higher-value item exchanges.

✅ Mutual opt-in and temporary, task-focused coordination made one-off help and lightweight activities easier to join.

✅ Clear, time-bound nearby signals and intent tags increased participants’ willingness to respond.

WHAT TESTING CHANGED

Concept testing revealed where the original mechanisms conflicted with higher-priority user needs. I used this evidence to retain the underlying value, revise the interaction model, or deprioritize the mechanism.

KEEP

Time-bound signals
Mutual opt-in
Temporary coordination + clear closure
Intent tags
Deposit-based Borrowing and Returning

CHANGE

Binary public/private → Tiered visibility
Uniform profile → Contextual trust cues
Single-match routing → Auto-recovery fallback
Invisible outcomes → Aggregated community feed

LEAVE OUT

Single-match dead-end dependency
Building-wide exposure for sensitive needs
Default full anonymity without accountability
Threshold waiting for lightweight borrowing

The concepts converged into two entry paths: resource access and lightweight companionship. Both rely on public-first discovery, user-controlled visibility, contextual trust cues, and privacy-safe activity signals; "Quiet Match" remains optional.

Design

I refined the core flows through lightweight iterations, prioritizing critical user tasks, interaction clarity, and key trust-and-safety decisions before consolidating them into a high-fidelity prototype for testing.

USABILITY TESTING & ITERATION

Slide 1 of 8

FINAL DESIGN

From a nearby signal to a clear next step.

The final design aims to help residents quickly discover available nearby resources and support, reduce back-and-forth through structured coordination.

Make nearby support easier to notice.

Today
Prioritizes expiring requests, forming groups, and items available now.

Explore
Surfaces time-fit activities and shared intent nearby.

Exchange
Supports rentals, sales, and paid one-off help.

Today
Prioritizes expiring requests, forming groups, and items available now.

Explore
Surfaces time-fit activities and shared intent nearby.

Exchange
Supports rentals, sales, and paid one-off help.

01 RELEVANCE

From browsing and dead-end chats to instant matches around shared intent.

Live Matches
Uses real-time status to identify shared intent and send system invites.

Time-bound signals
Interest/status signals auto-expire after 3 hours to keep matches current.

Public fallback
Residents can still browse or create activities when no Live Match is available.

Live Matches
Uses real-time status to identify shared intent and send system invites.

Time-bound signals
Interest/status signals auto-expire after 3 hours to keep matches current.

Public fallback
Residents can still browse or create activities when no Live Match is available.

02 COORDINATION

Repeated scheduling, delayed replies → 2-step confirmation

Preset pickup slots
Owners set pickup slots; renters choose one.

Shared-space handoff
Avoid home-address disclosure.

Clear returns
Return details stay pinned, extension need approval.

Held deposit
Released after mutual confirmation; disputed stay on hold.

03 PRIVACY & BOUNDARIES

Connect with clear boundaries

Verified, not fully anonymous
Aliases and system avatars are backed by resident verification.

Visibility & participation
Use matching preferences to control who can see posts and join activities.

Optional icebreaker
Prompts help start conversations.

Temporary space
Open after both agree; close automatically after the activity.

Verified, not fully anonymous
Aliases and system avatars are backed by resident verification.

Visibility & participation
Use matching preferences to control who can see posts and join activities.

Optional icebreaker
Prompts help start conversations.

Temporary space
Open after both agree; close automatically after the activity.

04 COMMIUNITY & PRESENCE

Make the community feel alive - without a permanent feed

Moments helps residents notice one another through low-stakes sharing rather than another profile-building social network.

Rotating prompts
Featured Topics provide a concrete, low-effort starting point for residents unsure what to share.

24-hour expiry
Posts vanish after 24 hours, easing the pressure to maintain a public identity or permanent archive.

Rotating prompts
Featured Topics provide a concrete, low-effort starting point for residents unsure what to share.

24-hour expiry
Posts vanish after 24 hours, easing the pressure to maintain a public identity or permanent archive.

05 CONTEXTUAL TRUST

Build trust from relevant history

Shows verified completion history and transaction-specific feedback

Interaction outcomes
Recent results and feedback show how exchanges went.

Community activity
Completion totals show that real support is happening nearby.

Reflection

In future projects, I’ll question the assumptions behind my research, look beyond smooth flows, and evaluate design trade-offs in context.

RECOGNIZING BIAS IN MY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Asking why residents avoided socializing assumed that socializing was the goal; I learned to first understand what they actually wanted from neighbors.

LOOKING BEYOND SMOOTH FLOWS

A suitable match could still go unanswered; I learned to consider both users’ confidence in receiving a response and alternatives when no one replied.
EVALUATING TRADE-OFFS IN CONTEXT

Greater anonymity could weaken accountability, while group thresholds could delay simple requests; I learned to assess each mechanism’s benefits and costs against the specific need.

Next validation

Future work would focus less on adding features and more on testing whether Nudge’s core model holds across different residents, repeated use, and imperfect interactions.

BROADEN RESIDENT VALIDATION

Test the revised flows with a wider range of apartment residents to examine how trust needs, willingness to participate, and preferred boundaries vary across different living situations.
TEST REPEATED PARTICIPATION

Conduct short, multi-session studies to examine whether residents remain willing to respond after an initial interaction and how previous outcomes shape future trust and participation.
TEST BREAKDOWNS AND RECOVERY

Extend the prototype to cover unanswered requests, cancellations, no-shows, overdue returns, and disputes. Evaluate whether verification, deposits, handoff rules, and recovery paths provide enough clarity and confidence.

Nudge

Nudge is an app that helps apartment residents get practical assistance and casual companionship.

TRIGGER

Living close didn't lead to connection

Validate Observations and Understand Neighbor Interactions

Uncovering What Residents Actually Need

Turning research insights into a Design Direction

Ideation

Design

From a nearby signal to a clear next step.

Reflection

RECOGNIZING BIAS IN MY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

LOOKING BEYOND SMOOTH FLOWS

EVALUATING TRADE-OFFS IN CONTEXT

Next validation

BROADEN RESIDENT VALIDATION

TEST REPEATED PARTICIPATION

TEST BREAKDOWNS AND RECOVERY

Weiyu Huang

Weiyu Huang

Weiyu Huang