Common Ground
Less ambiguity. More common ground.
Project overview
I explored queer men’s satisfaction with dating apps, then designed and tested a prototype around the needs they identified.
- My role
- UX research & design
- Methods
- Generative survey · In-depth interviews · Affinity mapping & thematic analysis · Moderated usability testing
- Study scope
- 53 survey respondents · 10 interviewees
10 initial usability participants · 9 returning for follow-up - Tools
- Qualtrics · Figma · Canva
What changed
Research-informed prototype changes.
- Replaced three ranked goals with one optional priority.
- Made relationship status, structure, and goals visible and filterable.
- Added Pass and likes with context to Discovery.
In the nine-person retest, most participants successfully navigated priority selection and Discovery’s relationship preference settings.
The starting question
How satisfied are queer men with current dating apps, and what could be improved?
51% of survey respondents (27/53) said dating apps did a poor or very poor job helping them find what they wanted.
Who I heard from
The generative survey gathered feedback from 53 queer men. I recruited through my university and online channels.
What interviews revealed
I affinity mapped all ten interviews and used thematic analysis. Needs included:
- Show someone what caught your interest in their profile.
- Pass on unwanted profiles in Discovery.
- Explicitly disclose relationship structure preferences.
Decision 01 · Prioritization
One priority, room for other goals.
What I learned
54.7% of survey respondents had overlapping goals. Four of ten interviewees favored prioritization or ranking over rigid matching.
Interviews suggested that most had one main intention, even when they were open to several kinds of connection.
“I prefer ranking over hard exclusion for most things.”
What testing changed
Participants disliked having two ways to set the order: reordering items and changing position numbers. Ranking three goals also felt harder than choosing one main intention—often a long-term relationship.
I chose one optional priority so people could compare their main intentions without interpreting different positions in ranked lists. Other goals remain visible.
Example with two selected goals.
Decision 02 · Disclosure
Make relationship context part of the introduction.
What I learned
Six of ten interviewees supported more explicit disclosure. Participants wanted relationship structure preferences stated clearly, before investing time in a connection.
How it shaped the design
I grouped status, structure, and goals in an Alignment card. Setup copy makes clear that answers appear on the profile.
“I wanna know from the start, are you single or not, are you looking for something open or monogamous. I’ve wasted so much time talking to guys who don’t say because most dating profiles don’t make you list it out. It’s a nightmare.”
Visibility message · Setup screen
“Your answer is visible to everyone who can view your profile.”
View the setup screen ↗Decision 03 · Filtering
Keep preferences visible and easy to change.
What I learned
35.8% of survey respondents (19/53) were dissatisfied with filtering or identifying profiles by relationship preferences. In usability testing, the controls were easy to overlook.
How it shaped the design
I added dropdowns and persistent selection chips. People can see their active preferences and change them without changing their own profile’s goals.
Decision 04 · Discovery
A way to move on. A more personal way to connect.
What interviews added
Interviews uncovered two needs the survey hadn’t captured: explaining why someone caught their interest and passing on unwanted profiles in Discovery.
“Sending a message or like a little note when I like someone lets me point out why I think we’d be a great match or why they caught my eye. I think it helps me see who really wants to get to know me.”
How it shaped the design
Pass dismisses a profile. Like opens an optional note to explain what caught someone’s interest.
Follow-up · Nine returning participants
What the retest showed.
Most participants successfully navigated priority selection and Discovery’s relationship preference settings when repeating the usability tasks. Follow-up interviews described a more intuitive flow.
- One main intention
- Participants again described one main intention alongside openness to other connections.
- Likes with context
- Participants were satisfied with the option to explain their interest.
- Visible preferences
- Participants appreciated seeing and filtering relationship status, structure, and goals.
Familiarity with the earlier prototype may also have helped task completion.
Reflection
What I’d do differently.
- Broaden qualitative recruitment. Include more queer men with varied relationship experiences.
- Test the simpler interaction sooner. Start with one priority before investing in a more elaborate ranking system.
- Check understanding with new participants. Test how people interpret the Alignment card, beyond whether they like it.
Explore Common Ground.
Follow the setup journey, then explore discovery and preferences.