Confer App: Design Process

Figure out what activities can start or encourage forming a relationship

And determine how it important pair-choice was

4 participants (graduate students from Keio University and Stanford), we chose pairings, pairs could not see their partner

[Hello! You have been mutually “zapped.” I am here to facilitate your initial conversations] 

Group A: For the next 5 minutes please play the following game: Have one person start a word, and then the other one will finish it. For example: “SW” “EET"

Group B: You will be shown a picture. Please choose which image describes you

100% of participants: Enjoyed the experience but would want a way to filter their partners

75% of participants: Would want to use/have and thought the activity helped break the ice   

However, none thought it was enough to form/sustain a relationship

“I had met her once and I had really wanted to talk with her more... through the activity I could get to see her humor. It was fun.”

We wanted to find out how people would choose their partner

And compare different degrees of facilitation

6 participants (Stanford graduate students), they chose partner by giving us their top two choices, we then matched them based on mutual preferences 

Participants sat in the same area

[Hello! You have been mutually “zapped.”] 

Group A: You will be shown a picture. Please choose which image describes you: (feel free to elaborate)

After a few rounds, they were given a series of thought provoking questions.

Group B: You will be shown a picture. Please choose which image describes you: (right or left but feel free to elaborate)
Please say “next” to bring up the next image

Group C: Please begin chatting

There was awkwardness in starting but also uncertainty in ending a conversation.

Games/prompts where users work towards a common goal/endpoint might inspire more interaction.

Initial interactions need a clear driver(s) of the conversation.

3rd parties can be effective in driving a conversation.

Connecting Mentees and Mentors

1. Fill out an initial application form
2. Verify future conferences attendance and agree to spend 1 hour with match
3. Based on application, algorithm selects compatible matches
4. User selects a match and that person is notified
5. If other person approves of match, third-party bot helps initiate conversation

We wanted to determine what made good matches

And the what long-term benefits resulted

8 participants (four masters students, 3 professors and one PhD student), we had all participants fill out our usability prototype. We then matched them and  observed/recorded their 30 minute interaction. After which, we interviewed each participant separately.

Low Compatibility

Awkward and difficult to provide advice by mentors 

Mentees asked content related questions or for situational advice 

Resulted in no action items 

Overall less productive

High Compatibility

Experience described as pleasant

Mentees asked questions related to processes, mentor experiences, and opinions on future directions 

Conversations resulted in action items (reach out to a specific program, following up on social media) 

Overall more productive 

“There are benefits to meeting people not in your field. It could lead to inspiration [... but] it is better to have a similar interest”

Developed an app mockup in Sketch

Monetary: Donation in their name to a charity or discount on conference

Social: Opportunity to meet someone interesting, make a difference, and feel good helping others

Professional: increase network, find potential future assistant/employee or collaboration opportunities as well as a chance for mutual learning

What about peer-to-peer

How to assure compatibility, quality?

Developing more prompts, such as question or meetup space suggestions

Users wanted language selection option, or experience with non-native language speakers

Issue of Demand > Supply (Mentees > Mentors)