Last Updated: December 2025
Circl
Role
UX/UI Designer
Researcher
Timeline
June - November 2025
Team
Jessica Lee (Myself)
Emily Arens
Yasmine Harvey
Kirita Geeves
Skills
Research and Development, HCI Design, Prototyping, User testing, Visual Design
Tools
It is within our human nature to desire connection with the people around us. Maslow's Hierarchy states that if sufficient human connection is not actualised, the individual will suffer greatly, likely leading to loneliness and depression (Ryan and Deci, 2013).
I found myself perplexed by the fact that despite the psychological desire to seek out close relationships, it is so difficult, and arguably, more so now than ever before.
That's where Circl intervenes.
Project Overview
Circl is a revised dating app aimed to redefine authentic digital connection through facilitating real-life interactions and breaking down existing stigma surrounding online dating. The app features three key points of differentiation; Users will receive a limitation on the amount of matches they can view at once, the app will offer pre-organised date events for the user and their match to attend - and finally, the introduction of an ‘un-matching’ process to mitigate ghosting and toxic cycles of rejection.
Reflection
This project taught me how to work collaboratively in a group in the presence of other strong-minded designers. We often had moments of disagreement but came to a consensus after we backed our ideas with research. I learned that to work in a team doesn't necessarily mean to abide by others' opinions, or force your ideas onto others, but to have to work toward an end-goal; To create a product that is unique, feasible and effectively addresses the problem space. If this requires push back on specific areas, it is important to verbalise this.
We also ran into roadblocks early on in our ideation process and realised that there was an underlying issue with our problem scope. Our problem space encapsulated systemic and complex issues that were too widely spread, and too unfocused to allow for a specific digital concept to solve for. We learned the importance of continually testing our ideas against our insights, and being more willing to pivot when misalignment appears. While our concept fails to address systemic issues, it can influence the contexts and interactions that shape people’s attitudes.
In future, we should prioritise reframing and scoping exercises earlier within our process.
Process
1
Research
2
Ideation
3
Challenging assumptions
4
Prototyping
5
Concept Testing
6
Analysis and evaluation
7
Iterations
8
UI testing
9
Iterations
Problem Space
The social transitions within dating behaviours - understanding how, why, and with what mediums people connect - is more relevant now than ever. The impact of technological disruption and social movements have had a direct impact on dating behaviour, resulting in new challenges and opportunities for our current generation.
13% of people report being involuntarily single.
30% of people find it difficult to maintain relationships.
48% of people struggle to initiate relationships.
92.5% of people think that the current dating scene is more difficult than ever.
Problem Statement
Men outnumber women 3:1 on dating apps with male match rates averaging at 3%, transforming dating into a commodified marketplace of swipes and profiles. This highly competitive system subjects users to repeated cycles of rejection leading to resentment pushing people further into online communities, deepening division rather than fostering mutual understanding and authentic connections.
Solution
Research
Our initial area of research began within the prevalence of ‘rage-bait’ and the rise of extremest viewpoints growing commonplace amongst younger social media users. Finding our problem space too convoluted, we decided to narrow our scope and direct our problem area towards the radical views and rise of ‘incels’. We saw that these ‘incel’ identifying groups were having a real, tangible effect on the modern dating scene (Sparks, Zidenberg & Olver, 2023) and the notion of this led us to a more focused problem space; how a growth in gender-based prejudices have led to a more toxic modern dating culture.
We then asked ourselves; How is this being perpetuated, and what can we do to fix it?
Online Ethnography
80> analysed data fragments
Without access to male-identifying incels, I began looking at Reddit to find spaces where the discourse within this demographic occurred. The deep dive into these forums gave us insight into the raw and unfiltered thoughts behind the gendered resentment held as a radical outcome of dating app usage, as compared to relying solely on existing research papers.
We collected >80 data fragments and analysed each data fragment into: a) Recorded observation, b) Interpretation, c) Underlying Themes, and d) Solution Space.
r/dating_advice 3 mo. ago
ProfessorRoi
Dating apps for man is dead
30 male. I think I’m tired of it now. No matter how thoughtful I am like bringing flowers or planning and being creative on dates, I’m just shelling money at this point. Ghosted a lot, games being payed, always expected to pay every date which I don’t mind the first few dates. But even my exes, when they didn’t make much, offered to at least treat me to ice cream or pay the tip. Sometimes they’d even be like oh you already spent so much today, and it made me want to buy the world for them. But today, I just sit across the table with a woman acting like i’m lucky to be in her presence. When did dating become so transactional? I’ve dumbed it down to coffee dates, and I was called cheap for it. According to woman and their dating experiences, modern men are broke and don’t even have a car. I have a job, a car, and my own place. But I’m cheap if I take you on a coffee date? You can’t get to know me unless you have steak and caviar in front of you? Welp my bills come first especially in this economy. And when I ask my friends how to talk on dating apps, I’m like when did it become rocket science? I can’t be too interested or she’ll back away. And at the same time show interest or she’ll think I’m not serious. What are these games? Not to mention I feel like I’m interviewing them and I get half assed one to two word answers. Not even asking one thing about me. You know what it’s my fault for being on these apps. Ladies, enlighten me. I’ve heard also horror stories on your side.
DonAj20 6 mo. ago
The depressing reality of dating for modern men.
Data fragment example taken from Reddit
Recorded Observation
The Reddit user describes his frustration with the current dating scene, saying his thoughtfulness and spending go unreciprocated, coffee dates make him seem “cheap,” and conversations on apps feel one-sided and transactional
Interpretation
In tandem with the dopamine chase that gambling and online dating encourage, both contexts can eventually leave users fatigued by lack of success, eroded self worth, and increased feelings of isolation.
Underlying Themes
Dating app burnout causes emotional fatigue in the same way that excessive gambling does
Solution Space
Important to mitigate the gamification of swiping and optimise compatibility of each match to reduce rejection rates. Reducing the barrier and perceived 'complexity' of organising dates to allow face-to-face meetings to occur with ease in a low-pressure environment.
Interviews
5 interviews, 20> minutes/interview
3 female, 2 male participants
Interviews helped us understand and empathise with our demographic, and was the most helpful post-ideation, when we were developing our concept. To create an effective matching process for each user, and to understand their likes and dislikes of the current offering of dating apps, we needed to understand their values.
Some of the important findings from our interviews are outlined below.
Commonplace dating app systems enable ghosting and rejection which have harmful effects on users.
The commodification of user swiping that results in the notion of 'what if my next swipe is better?', leads to the dehumanisation of other people on the app, enabling ghosting / the reduced perception of the other person. There are no safeguards to protect people from ghosting or ghosting others.
"[Ghosting] messes with your self perception and confidence ... it sucks because…you have to be okay with that even if you never get any answers, and you just have to move on with your life and try to not let it get to you."
"When you match with somebody new and it's a cool new person ... you'll chat with them until you match with another person and then it's like, "oh that's now where my attention is" and then like you stop texting that last person"
Dating apps perpetuate gendered-resentment
The rejection experienced on apps as a result of the gamification of other users, in conjunction with the uneven ratio between female and male users, results in gendered-resentment - majorly from men to women.
“I think girls sometimes treat guys on dating apps as things with no emotions [as a results of their experiences] ... it does suck having to reap those consequences, especially when you are putting yourself out there and actually trying.”
“On dating apps guys are chasing and then like the girls are kind of receiving that chase and like filtering them out.”
Workshops
5 male participants, 2+ hours
As an all female team, our positionalities meant we struggled to empathise with our male demographic on a deeper level. Therefore, workshops helped to bridge the cognitive and emotional gap, allowing us a nuanced understanding of the male experience.
Oftentimes we find that men struggle to open up about personal experiences, particularly within the presence of other men. The nature of workshops afforded us the opportunity to dig deeper, allowing them to complete probing activities first, and discuss their creations afterward.
A lot of our findings backed up our previous research, allowing us to triangulate.
Screenshot of participants from workshop
High volume of profiles = Lack of effort
With the ability to swipe through a virtually unlimited amount of people on the apps, we found that participants perceived each individual profile as less meaningful due to the notion that there are always 'more options'. This leads to people feeling less motivated to put effort into a single interaction as other people on the app become interchangeable and disposable.
When you have 5 messages going on at once, it’s a lot to maintain. It’s super easy to be super dry.
[With the] quantity of people in the app, no one really wants you and you’re not worth the time
Authenticity of profiles inhibited in abiding to societal norms or in fear of judgement
We found that (although not limited to) men often feel pressure to present themselves in a way that conforms to the socially accepted norms of "what gets swipes", often creating their profile with their friends. As a result, profiles become generic and thus, make it harder for people to form genuine connections.
[There are} unspoken rules in how to make your profile … [which] robs the authenticity kind of
I felt weird trying to condense everything about myself into a profile
Subconscious gamification of dating app and subsequent 'dopamine rush'
Participants reported perceiving the app almost as a game, that rewards through dopamine rushes received when another user 'likes you'. This feeling of validation becomes separated from the intention to date, and the intention of other user, which results in the depersonalisation of other people on the app.
I was on the apps for validation. the match and the messaging wasn’t enough for me to be interested in them.
The matching aspect is exhilarating, when someone who is attractive likes you and it matches
Who are we Designing for?
In analysing and synthesising our research, we had to re-centre the people we're designing for, and we did with Dean.
User persona
Final Insights
After condensing these findings into insights, we were able to form specific, defined criteria to follow when ideating a solution - ultimately creating a checklist of essential features and elements to ensure the effectiveness of our design solution in regards to the real-world needs of our target audience.
Ideation
We underwent Body Storming,Crazy 8s and Worst Possible Ideas in our ideation process which allowed us to further empathise with our demographic, and generate a large amount of concepts that helped us narrow our scope for creating our final concept.
Body Storming
During the process of Body Storming, we employed the role of a male and female communicating through a dating app. We saw that these communications can sometimes lead to superficial and misunderstood interactions, resulting in ‘unwarranted’ or unexpected rejection.
Crazy 8s
We found that in the brief amount of time we had to ideate each concept, we had mostly focused on one issue per idea. This gave us the opportunity to combine concepts in order to create more complex, multi-faceted solutions.
Worst Possible Ideas
We analysed and identified the most harmful aspects of each concept. Through each harmful aspect we were able to understand which principles were important to ensure the success of our final concept
Potential Solutions
AI Event Matching App
The app works by integrating artificial intelligence to recommend the best suited matches to users based on shared interests, lifestyles and personality. An outline of the apps' system can be seen below.
Strengths
User fatigue is mitigated as users are limited in who they can see and match with on the app.
Fear/pressure of one-on-one interactions removed
Users don’t feel as intimidated showing their personalities, knowing that only the app can see their submitted video responses, upholding privacy.
Final goal is to encourage real life experiences through the app.
Weaknesses
Initial motivation required to download a dating app, rather than organically ‘finding a match’
Users may feel frustrated with the minimal choice when looking for matches.
Guided Dating app
This app concept takes on a game system, and is designed for users intimidated by modern dating, 'coaching' them to put 'themselves out there' with a focus on building social and romantic skills. It also seeks to address extremist/sexist views of modern dating by challenging misinformation in an engaging, gamified way
Strengths
Takes intuitiveness of dating app model making it easily accessible to new users
Less intimidating than online dating with real people.
Strong focus on re-education approach as identified to be beneficial through our second insight.
Weaknesses
Potentially too reliant on AI, and could serve as a gateway to AI dependant companionship as users become overly attached to this model.
Minimal focus on facilitating real life meet-ups.
Gamification aspect could potentially reinforce negative ideologies held by anti-feminism extremists, e.g. feeling frustrated with low scores.
Conversation Kiosk
A physical structure located in public spaces, where multiple users can congregate to participate in casual conversations and activities through prompts offered by the kiosk, facilitating conversation and playful discussion. This solution removes the pressure of romantic interest, and instead sparks connection between players in an unforced, organic approach of a collaborative activity.
Strengths
Accessibility through random, broad prompts allowing any users to participate.
Allows users to express personalities without judgement due to lack of pressure or romantic expectation - a fear commonly expressed by users on dating platforms.
Less pressure placed upon ‘quality of conversation’ due to decreased romantic expectations and casual nature of the kiosk.
Weaknesses
Lacks focus on dating and instead, too much focus on platonic relationship building
Solution exists only in a physical setting, limiting accessibility.
Minimal focus on re-educating those impacted by social isolation at the most extreme degrees. The solution may still be too intimidating for identified target groups to interact with.
Decision Making
We constructed a decision matrix to guide our decision to move forward and test 3 of our concepts. Below, each key criteria point is stated, and categorised into 3 categories.
Decision Matrix Criteria
Connection to Brief
Alignment with the Interaction Design Scope
1
5
Alignment with transition
1
5
Alignment with target demographic
1
5
We included criteria connecting to the design brief such as whether it adheres to the scope and requirements of interaction design, if it targets a modern transition, and how well it addresses our target demographic.
Insights
Addresses or healing loneliness
1
5
Supports young adult’s mental health
1
5
Addresses Gendered Imbalances
1
5
Connecting users over commodifying them
1
5
Rebuilds trust through authentic encounters
1
5
We also wanted to see how well the concept addressed each of our key insights.
Other Important Criteria
Low ethical concerns or risks
1
5
Novelty or Uniqueness
1
5
Desirability from team
1
5
Feasibility of idea
1
5
Engagement for showcase
1
5
Merges digital/physical interactions and connection
1
5
We also wanted to measure how well each of the concepts used the affordances of digital and physical mediums, as we discovered that both are equally as necessary in promoting human connection. Additionally, we evaluated ethical concerns and risks, specifically important in the presence of AI, as well as desirability and feasibility (predicting economic success) of the idea.
1
AI Event Matching App
Decision Matrix Score:
65
2
Guided Dating App
Decision Matrix Score:
51
3
Conversation Kiosk
Decision Matrix Score:
60
Concept Development
Going forward with our highest scoring concept; 'AI Event Matching App', we developed our concept further, and ensured every design decision was backed by research and addressed our problem space.
We then underwent several round of rigorous user testing, and iterated at each round, leading to our final concept.
Our proposed design solution is the revised dating app ‘Circl’ - aiming to redefine authentic digital connection through facilitating real-life interactions and breaking down stigma surrounding online dating.
The app proposes 3 key points of differentiation:
User Testing
We mainly aimed to evaluate these key conceptual aspects of our design solution through user testing rather than the UI itself. Though a digital interface was the medium for our tests, we designed our tasks to gather results that gauged how users felt about the 3 concepts.
Therefore, we focused more on our testing protocol and developing our concept, rather than the aesthetics and usability of the screens. This was important as we wanted to save as much time and effort, but still get valuable feedback.
Testing Protocol
Research Questions
Research questions allowed us to better streamline our testing phase, and centre our protocol to address our assumptions, and gain feedback that we're actually after.
How can we best cater to people who are intimidated by modern online dating?
What features of our concept enhance the dating experience in ways that other apps fail to? - Testing our assumption of differentiation
Why is the "event based" aspect of our solution integral to facilitating real life experiences?
How does our concept attract female demographics - who have statistically been more put off by negative dating experiences?
User Testing Structure
Consent Form
Concept Overview
Demographic Screening
Task + Post-task Questions
SUS Survey
Task: Participants will view the 'Profiles Page' (as seen in the image below) on our prototype and think-aloud.
Our solution was to provide only 3 curated matches per week, but we wanted to know whether people thought this was too limiting.
Participants were provided with a scenario and task to go through each of the profile screens. We would have the observer and moderator either filling out the google form or writing down observations during the test.
User Considerations: We created both male and female profiles and ensured to ask users’ their preference before assuming.
Screens viewed by participants
Participant viewing prototype dating profile
Task: Participants will select a prompt, and record a video for their video profile.
Through our primary user research, we received some feedback against the use of videos in the dating app profiles. We wanted to understand the nuances of this feedback and whether we can use it to our benefit. Therefore, we found it important to measure the success rate of this task. To gain deeper insights we asked some follow up questions
User Considerations: We ensured to ask users if they would be comfortable with recording themselves on a likert scale of 1-5, before having them partake in the task. If their response was less than 3 we would skip this task.
Participant filming themselves responding to the given prompt
Task: Participants select an event to attend to with their 'match' on the app interface
We believe that the feature of providing a pre-planned event for users of the app facilitates in-person meet ups for several reasons; a) Provides a safe space amongst others, b) Reduces cognitive effort required from either party to organise the date c) Mitigates pre-conceived gender roles on men to organise dates. We wanted to test the receptivity of this concept with users.
User Considerations: This was one of the only test we were able to conduct with every test user as attitudes toward event based dating were not shaped by past dating experiences.
Participant viewing event page for ‘Bouldering with Mates’
Task: The participant will be asked to view a serious of 'un-matching' messages, crafted to 'let their match down easy'. They will then choose which message they think would be the best to send.
We believe that the feature of providing a pre-planned event for users of the app facilitates in-person meet ups for several reasons; a) Provides a safe space amongst others, b) Reduces cognitive effort required from either party to organise the date c) Mitigates pre-conceived gender roles on men to organise dates. We wanted to test the receptivity of this concept with users.
User Considerations: This was one of the only test we were able to conduct with every test user as attitudes toward event based dating were not shaped by past dating experiences.
Screens viewed by participants
User Sensitive Protocol Adjusments
It was important for us to tailor our testing protocol to each participant. For our specific focus on online dating, it was not possible to test simply employ a ‘one size fits all’ measure to our protocol, and thus, we had to account for all different levels of dating experience for each of our participants.
We underwent pre-test user screenings to understand which tasks they should undertake to best suit each of their dating experiences/sexual preferences whilst undergoing testing.
Graph outlining our user-sensitive testing structure
Reflections on Testing
Overall, our testing session was successful - our testing protocol enabled us to adapt to various different edge cases and to both manage testing time effectively and provide the best tests to participants from our screening questions. The vast majority of our testing sessions were under 15 minutes but most took around 12 minutes overall from start to finish.
In the SUS Survey, we got a much higher average than expected of 86.75 which is categorised as an ‘A’ or ‘Excellent’ usability score. The lowest score we received was a 72.5 and the highest was a 97.5.
People seemed generally excited about the idea and found it at least interesting, even if the product wasn’t currently applicable to their lives - as reflected in our SUS results.
What Could We Improve on?
Despite the validity of our results we still identified a few areas for improvement.
Demographic Survey Refinement
Questioning participants on sexual orientation to gauge which prototype to present, was more intrusive than actually useful. Switching to a simple question about which profiles they wanted to view allowed for adequate testing without making people share things they didn’t have to. Just because a question feels standard in research doesn’t mean it’s justified.
Expanding Prototype to Cater to Queer Users
We only created two prototypes; One with male profiles and one with female, unintentionally overlooking queer participants, and limiting them to binary choices. Because of that, some people couldn’t properly experience the idea the way it was meant to work. In future, I need to think more proactively about edge cases and to design for real diversity, not just the most obvious scenarios.
Follow-up Questions & Timing Inconsistencies
We ended up asking some participants extra questions to dig deeper, which made their sessions noticeably longer than others. Looking back, we could’ve been more conscious of timing and trimmed or combined questions so everyone had a more consistent experience. In future, thinking more critically about clarity and focus of questions will ensure that good user-testing doesn't come at the cost of participant fatigue.
Feedback and Observations
The following are our most important findings from our user testing, targeting concept over UI.
Final Iterations
Drawing on feedback from our user testing, we underwent several iterations, the most significant of which are outlined in this section.
Developing the Matching System
During user testing, we found that some participants were confused about the matching and curation process, decreasing trust and overall experience.
We created a back-end flow that undergoes a series of filtration processes to calculate the best matches.
It begins with categorising the user based off demographical information, analysing and contextualising personality data using AI, filtering potential matches using dealbreaker information, and then a mediator algorithm processes and excludes or includes more profiles to create the final potential matches ranked in order of compatibility.
In order to communicate this, we created an extensive onboarding process, which not only explains the process but allows the user more control, to feel that they are providing the algorithm with ‘enough’ information to give them quality matches, as previously, they had only tested the video recording aspect of profile creation.
Recommendation System Flow Diagram
Toggles for dealbreakers giving more control to users
Sliders for dealbreaker importance
Furthering Connection Through Profiles
We found that although we received positive feedback of the centralisation of a introductory video as the main feature of the profile, the profile page was still lacking in other information.
We wanted to differentiate ourselves further than generic dating apps such as Hinge, that already include video and voice prompt features.
In developing our back-end matching process in tandem with our on-boarding process, we wanted to introduce consistency and further personalisation to the profiles to allow users to gauge an even better understanding of their matches.
Pre-iteration
Post-iteration
Creating Comfortability Pre-recording
We found that users felt initially uncomfortable recording themselves due to a fear of social scrutiny, and reluctance to be perceived as 'cringe'.
We took inspiration from Hinge's approach to audio prompt recordings by providing examples.
We changed the UI to allow for users to access examples, and gave context behind the value and purpose of the video recording process. We found that this overall helped improve comfortability of users in recording.
Closure Process Refinement
The use of generated or AI closure statements undermined the core focus of Circl in promoting a sense of genuineness. Therefore, we needed to rework the solution and test it again with users.
The concept remained quite similar, users would complete a short survey but instead of the app providing its our statement to the user, the app helps guide and prompt users to write their own rejection to help people deal with the rejection.
Optionally, the user can also share their answer in the survey to why they are un-matching them. This was well received by users, but the app could be more involved in this process and still provide a quite minimal closure statement if the user chooses to not write something themselves.
Limiting Matches
Users felt that three matches was too much or too little and lacked flexibility. The wait time for users to receive a new match made them feel like they were wasting time.
In order to address this without moving too far away from the core focus of our product, we included the option to select the quantity of matches received from 1 to 3 matches, with the option to pay to increase the match maximum to 6.
This we felt helped to promote genuine interactions and authentic experiences. We didn’t want to write off the user pain point we identified, but wanted to discourage users to have more then three. Therefore we felt that the paywall was an effective way to achieve this, but would require further testing to affirm.
We also changed the duration to find new matches. We still needed to add a delay, especially to account for recommendation system, but also so that users felt the algorithm was finding quality matches for them. Instead of 7 days, which was too long, users would get their new matches within 24-48 hours.
In-app Event Iterations
Users wanted more flexibility with a variety of intimate date options. We also found a general fear of in-person ghosting, a core feature we try to mitigate.
We added new categories for more intimate dates, as well as larger community events.
Additionally, in addressing fear of in-person ghosting, users will be required to pay in advance to confirm their booking for paid events. The app would then continue to remind users for upcoming events and nudge them afterwards to keep users accountable and review the event they attended.
