JellyBreak

Last year, I participated in UBC UXHub’s yearly design sprint; in 24 hours, my teammates and I ideated, prototyped, and presented a solution to a design challenge to a panel of experienced designers. We first started off with the design challenge below.

In a world that rewards being “always on,” how might we design an experience that helps people set and keep boundaries to make recovery time feel socially safe, rewarding, and easy to sustain?

We started by exploring the problems students face when setting boundaries.

Through six user interviews, we found that the barrier was not simply a lack of time. Students also needed permission, ideas, and a reliable transition out of work.

We found three recurring themes: rest guilt, low-quality rest, and difficulty transitioning.

Rest guilt

Students struggled to give themselves permission to rest unless they were exhausted or had finished everything, because taking time off could make them feel behind.

Low-quality rest

Students often chose breaks that did not restore their energy, such as doomscrolling, because those options were the most convenient in the moment.

Difficulty transitioning

Hyperfocus and forgetfulness made it difficult for students to notice when it was time to move between work, breaks, and other tasks.

So we worked to solve a more specific problem:How might we help users feel comfortable stepping away from work to take breaks that genuinely restore their energy?

Turning research into a direction

Each theme pointed to a different kind of support, so we mapped each theme to plausible solutions.

Rest guilt

↓

Make rest feel warranted through a shared focus-and-break experience

Low-quality rest

↓

Encourage healthier, more enjoyable breaks that restore energy

Difficulty transitioning

↓

Use time-blocking and reminders to assist students in switching between tasks

User flow

With several solutions in mind, my team and I headed to the drawing board to quickly iterate through user flows. We settled on something intentional and research informed; rather than creating another tool to maximize productivity, we explored how a familiar study structure could be reimagined with our findings.

The design philosophy dilemma

Before prototyping our solution, we identified two main design philosophies we could abide by. Each could have benefits, but each carried different tradeoffs.

1. Force breaks

   This assumes self-control is a finite, depletable resource, so the product should step in and make the decision for the user.

2. Promote self-directed breaks

   This protects agency, but relies heavily on a person’s own discipline to notice the need for rest and act on it.

We chose self-directed breaks; our data has shown that students have guilt over resting, meaning they’ve internalized a belief that unstructured time has to be earned or justified.

Transitioning, by contrast, is a noticing problem: hyperfocus and forgetfulness mean students often don’t register that a transition point has arrived at all. So rather than forcing the transition (removing their choice), we decided to use a firm, repeated cue that interrupts attention without dictating the response. Forced breaks could interrupt focus or make the product feel punitive, while a supportive structure can make rest easier to recognize and act on without taking the decision away, especially for building long-term habits.

The Solution

Reflection

Full prototype in motion