Family Tree

Prototype link: Prototype link (Please submit a link to a playable prototype, not a link to your design file) Link A link to your team’s prototype, whether that’s Framer, Figma or another design tool. The playable prototype must include at least 6 hi-fidelity screens.

**A video demo with a maximum of 3 minutes: Please prioritize walking through the app you designed, explaining key features – information about your research and design process should be included in the free response answers

**Responses to questions about the user research and design thinking process Describe your project (Max 150 words) Our project proposes a digital app designed to foster low-effort, continuous connection between younger and older generations within a family unit. It centers on a shared, daily or weekly prompt (e.g., a simple question or photo theme) that members answer with minimal input. Responses are displayed collectively, where family members can react with playful, non-verbal acknowledgments (like “watering” a post). Each interaction contributes to the visual, collaborative growth of a shared digital “family tree,” creating a tangible symbol of accumulated engagement over time. Additional features, like a memory gallery and a user-submitted prompt system, aim to build a shared narrative and give agency to all ages. The core design philosophy is to reduce the friction of starting conversations, turning small, manageable actions into a foundation for deeper understanding and preparing for more meaningful in-person connection.

Describe your research process and findings. If you conducted any surveys or interviews, please include the survey form and/or interview questions here. If you conducted secondary research by pulling from online sources, please include a link to your sources. (Max 500 words)

We conducted a mixed-methods research process consisting of a survey and semi-structured interviews to better understand where and why generational gaps are felt most strongly in everyday life. For primary research, we conducted a survey with 24 participants from under 18 years old to over 65 years old, and a semi-structured interview with Participant A (20, female) to gain qualitative depth. Questions explored her specific experiences, emotional effort during interactions, and reactions to proposed solution concepts like button-based responses and visual progress trackers. Our survey revealed that 83.33% of respondents experience generational gaps most noticeably during family gatherings, suggesting that these moments are both meaningful and high-stakes. At the same time, 71% of respondents indicated that they prefer in-person communication, reinforcing the idea that family gatherings themselves are valued rather than avoided. However, despite this preference, over 50% of respondents reported that communicating with people from other generations often feels effortful. This tension highlights a disconnect between valuing in-person interaction and feeling drained or overwhelmed by it. Further results help explain this gap: 58.3% of respondents indicated neutral to strong agreement with the statement “I often don’t know what people from other generations have been up to recently.” In contrast, only 20% agreed that they do not need other generations to know about their current situation, suggesting that the issue is not a lack of interest, but rather a lack of shared context. These findings point to a core problem: intergenerational communication is often effortful not because of conflicting values, but because conversations rely on infrequent, high-pressure moments without enough everyday context beforehand. To complement the survey, we conducted an interview to explore how individuals experience these interactions more deeply. The participant described hesitation in initiating conversations with people outside her generation, a preference for quick and playful interactions, and a desire for low-effort ways to stay connected. The participant responded positively to the idea of visual, collaborative metaphors—such as growing a shared tree—as a way to represent ongoing engagement without forcing direct conversation. As secondary research, we examined existing intergenerational initiatives such as GenLab Collective, which demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative, non-hierarchical approaches in bridging generational differences. This reinforced our direction toward designing shared, participatory experiences rather than discussion-based platforms. Overall, our research validated the core problem—relationships are hindered by a lack of ongoing shared context—and defined the solution parameters: a digital platform must minimize initiation effort using universal prompts, support low-cost interactions (like buttons), and provide visual, collaborative feedback to motivate consistent, pre-emptive sharing that enriches future in-person time. The survey link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSehfmAAJjiBuWvR6Gawc7ICpDc4ymMlmdo2W2Yj5pRsrVIhRQ/viewform Secondary research: google.com/url?q=https://digest.headfoundation.org/2025/05/06/the-generation-gap-trap/&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1769933970316017&usg=AOvVaw1tITL0IGn2dduQ_ilyX1-1 https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.genlabcosg.org/our-approach/&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1769933971692456&usg=AOvVaw3PN7skhIbFUfjOmkCtmhsh

Describe your most important design decisions. What research findings and/or user testing results led you to make these decisions? (Max 500 words) Our design decisions were directly informed by research insights highlighting effort, frequency, and lack of shared context as key barriers to intergenerational connection. Given that family gatherings are both the most common and most meaningful setting where generational gaps are felt, we intentionally chose not to replace in-person interaction. Instead, we designed a system that prepares for these moments by building shared context beforehand. This decision was further supported by the finding that 71% of respondents prefer in-person communication, indicating that digital tools should support—not substitute—face-to-face connection. To address the issue of communication feeling effortful, we focused on lowering the emotional and cognitive cost of participation. Survey results showed that 71% of respondents agreed that short, manageable communication feels sustainable, which led us to design interactions around small, low-effort actions such as button-based responses rather than long-form messages. The interview also gave insight on how simple buttons will also be helpful to make using the app less intimidating; similarly, the participant also described that she would prefer making her own buttons especially if she knew there were responses that she would be consistently using (e.g., for her, she thought that “playing the violin” would be a common answer for typical conversations like “what were you doing this week?” or “what are your hobbies?”), so we have also added that option as well. This approach allows users to engage even when they lack the energy for deeper conversation. Another key design decision was to visualize participation through a shared, collaborative element—a growing family tree. This was informed by interview feedback indicating that playful, game-like elements can reduce pressure and increase motivation. Rather than emphasizing individual performance, the tree grows based on collective engagement, reinforcing continuity and shared ownership across generations. Additionally, we avoided traditional social features such as likes or comments. Instead, we introduced alternative reactions (e.g., water, pollination, sunshine, seed) to allow users to acknowledge others without triggering the obligation to respond or explain. This design choice was grounded in research showing that users value recognition but often hesitate to initiate or sustain conversation. Overall, our design translates research insights into a system that emphasizes small, ongoing interactions, shared growth, and psychological safety. By focusing on preparation rather than confrontation, the design aims to make in-person family interactions feel more natural, comfortable, and meaningful over time.

If applicable, describe how you utilized AI in your design process in detail. Please explain where AI fit into your workflow, which tools you used, and the specific purpose AI served at that stage. Include a concrete example of how AI influenced a design decision. (Max 500 words) AI was used as a supportive tool throughout our design process to facilitate ideation, reflection, and communication, rather than as a generator of final design decisions. During the early ideation phase, AI was primarily used as a brainstorming partner to help explore and pressure-test emerging concepts. For example, it helped us word a more concrete problem statement that made it easier to come up with “How might we” questions to support the design process. AI also supported our writing process by helping translate complex design thinking into concise language for problem statements, research summaries, and page-level explanations. This was particularly helpful when synthesizing survey and interview findings into clear insights that could be shared consistently across the team. Importantly, AI was used to refine clarity and structure, not to fabricate research findings or replace analysis. A concrete example of AI’s influence can be seen in our interaction design for the collaborative “tree growth” feature. Initially, we considered using traditional “like” buttons to allow family members to acknowledge each other’s responses. Through iterative discussion with AI, we explored alternative metaphors that better aligned with our design goals of reducing social pressure and emphasizing reflection over performance. This led us to replace standard likes with symbolic reactions such as “water,” “bee (pollination),” “sunshine,” and “seed.” In particular, the introduction of the “seed” reaction emerged from this process. Rather than signaling immediate approval, the seed represents reflection and future growth—an intentional design choice that supports learning across generations without creating comparison or obligation. This shift reinforced our broader design principle that small, low-effort interactions can still contribute meaningfully to long-term connection. Overall, AI functioned as a collaborative thinking aid within our workflow, helping us iterate faster, communicate more clearly, and examine alternative design directions. Final decisions, interpretations of research, and design outcomes were made by the team based on human insight, user research, and critical judgment.

Built With

• figma