Process for Tether
Summary:
Design a nervous system stabilization tool for users in an overwhelmed, disconnected state that delivers personalized interruption without requiring decision-making, enabling a fast return to baseline.
Design a nervous system stabilization tool for users in an overwhelmed, disconnected state that delivers personalized interruption without requiring decision-making, enabling a fast return to baseline.
Objectives:
- Design a system that learns user needs and patterns through behavior, not explicit input.
- Prioritize quick nervous system stabilization through short, effective regulation cycles.
- Reduce cognitive load by removing decision-making at the point of entry.
- Support emotional expression and connection through optional features while maintaining user control and low-friction interaction.
- Design a system that learns user needs and patterns through behavior, not explicit input.
- Prioritize quick nervous system stabilization through short, effective regulation cycles.
- Reduce cognitive load by removing decision-making at the point of entry.
- Support emotional expression and connection through optional features while maintaining user control and low-friction interaction.
Research
Design Tensions
1. Design a system that learns user needs and patterns through behavior, not explicit input.
Learning user preferences requires interaction, but overwhelmed users have low tolerance for engagement and may avoid or abandon the experience.
2. Prioritize quick nervous system stabilization through short, effective regulation cycles.
Users need fast relief, but identifying the right method may require trial and switching, creating tension between speed and discovery.
3. Reduce cognitive load by removing decision-making at the point of entry.
Removing decision-making reduces cognitive load during overwhelm, but can create a loss of control if users feel the system is acting for them.
4. Support emotional expression and connection through optional features while maintaining user control and low-friction interaction.
Enabling emotional expression and connection supports regulation, but can create privacy and safety risks if users feel exposed or monitored.
Learning user preferences requires interaction, but overwhelmed users have low tolerance for engagement and may avoid or abandon the experience.
Users need fast relief, but identifying the right method may require trial and switching, creating tension between speed and discovery.
Removing decision-making reduces cognitive load during overwhelm, but can create a loss of control if users feel the system is acting for them.
Enabling emotional expression and connection supports regulation, but can create privacy and safety risks if users feel exposed or monitored.
Discovery
*Note: This research reflects my thinking at the time of this project.
User Survey
User Survey
To understand what overwhelm looks like for different people and how they regulate themselves during overwhelm, I've conducted a small set of 10 participant surveys.
Biggest Insights:
1. Cognitive overload makes it harder to regulate.
Users cannot identify the right regulation method when they’re overwhelmed. They need personalization without effort.
2. Most regulation takes 1-5 minutes.
Users need fast, effective interruption of overwhelm.
3. Same sensory input can regulate and dysregulate.
Users need control and easy escape.
To understand what overwhelm looks like for different people and how they regulate themselves during overwhelm, I've conducted a small set of 10 participant surveys.
Biggest Insights:
Users cannot identify the right regulation method when they’re overwhelmed. They need personalization without effort.
Users need fast, effective interruption of overwhelm.
Users need control and easy escape.
Competitive Analysis
Competitive Analysis
I evaluated 4 grounding and mental health apps using a structured rubric focused on cognitive load, emotional safety, speed to regulation, and adaptability to user state.
Across all apps, these themes emerged:
1. Apps either oversimplify or overwhelm.
This fails to adapt to individual user needs.
2. Most rely on decision-making during times of duress.
Adding cognitive load when users are least able to process it.
3. Speed to relief is inconsistent, often delayed with multiple steps.
Slows down necessary regulation and creates tension between immediate support and app navigation.
4. Personalization is limited, static, or locked behind a paywall.
The app can feel genreric and create a one-size-fits- all experience.
See full research details here
What the Research Told Me
Clearing the design tensions:
1. Asking users to engage while overwhelmed adds more stress, so the system needs to start helping immediately without asking them what they need.
2. Users need to feel better quickly, but finding what works may take trying different methods, so switching between methods needs to be fast and not interrupt their progress.
3. Helping users without requiring decisions can feel like the system is taking over, so users need to be able to step in, change, or stop what’s happening at any time.
4. Expressing emotions can help users regulate, but can also feel exposing, so users need full control over their expression and their information.
1. Asking users to engage while overwhelmed adds more stress, so the system needs to start helping immediately without asking them what they need.
2. Users need to feel better quickly, but finding what works may take trying different methods, so switching between methods needs to be fast and not interrupt their progress.
3. Helping users without requiring decisions can feel like the system is taking over, so users need to be able to step in, change, or stop what’s happening at any time.
4. Expressing emotions can help users regulate, but can also feel exposing, so users need full control over their expression and their information.
So..
How can we create an emotionally safe experience that adapts to each user in real time without adding cognitive load while maintaining autonomy?
Inside My Design Thinking
Sketches and Wireframes
Screens come after the system is understood. Before a single wireframe gets made, I needed to know exactly how a dysregulated person moves from overwhelm to baseline and what the system needs to do at each step without asking them anything.
Wireframes and visual explorations are in progress.
What you'll see here is that thinking made visible: the interaction model, the core decisions, and the logic that will shape every screen that follows.
For now, this section focuses on the interaction model and system decisions that will shape the final experience.
User Flow
To explore how users move from overwhelm to baseline without requiring decision-making, I mapped the core interaction flow below with these key decisions:
1. Immediate start, no onboarding
2. No decision required at entry
3. Users can switch or exit at any time, maintaining control
4. System learns through behavior, not input
These decisions were made directly to address the tensions identified earlier.
User Flow
To explore how users move from overwhelm to baseline without requiring decision-making, I mapped the core interaction flow below with these key decisions:
1. Immediate start, no onboarding
2. No decision required at entry
3. Users can switch or exit at any time, maintaining control
4. System learns through behavior, not input
These decisions were made directly to address the tensions identified earlier.
Current Evolution
Tether is currently in the system design phase.
The core interaction model, user flow, and key decisions have been defined based on research and design tensions.
Next, I’ll translate this into wireframes and test how effectively users can reach baseline within short interaction cycles.
Tether is currently in the system design phase.
The core interaction model, user flow, and key decisions have been defined based on research and design tensions.
Next, I’ll translate this into wireframes and test how effectively users can reach baseline within short interaction cycles.
I am a prototype!
Stay tuned...
