Designing a calmer way to rehearse presentations

Students rehearsed constantly but improved nothing specific. Practice was repetition without reflection, and anxiety, not ability, was often the barrier. I led the discovery and design of a rehearsal product for the DSA market, using coded discovery interviews, SUS-benchmarked usability rounds, assessor testing, and alpha feedback to shape a calmer rehearsal loop.

  • Main quest
Project
Genio Present
Role
Senior UX Designer, leading product design within a cross-functional trio
Area
Rehearsal experience, reflection, and feedback
Status
Launched and sold into DSA

Snapshot

Problem
Students were creating slides, speaking into the mirror, and running the same speech repeatedly, but they were not improving anything specific or building confidence over time.
Users
Students preparing for academic presentations, with a rehearsal model that could also extend to scenarios like job interviews and acting.
Goal
Define what a credible DSA rehearsal product should do to build confidence rather than become another presentation delivery aid.
Outcome
Launched and sold into the DSA as a new rehearsal proposition. SUS improved from 69.5 to 76.2 across testing rounds, all nine alpha testers said it would replace their current rehearsal method, and the core rehearsal-reflection-feedback loop has stayed intact since launch.

Questions driving the project

What I needed to understand

  • What tools or devices do you currently use to practise and receive feedback on your presentations?
  • What are your biggest challenges when you are trying to improve your presentation skills?
  • What specific features would you find most helpful in a presentation practice tool that you don't have today?
  • How does presentation anxiety currently impact your studies or academic performance?
  • What would you expect to be able to do with a product specifically designed for rehearsal?

What I needed to validate

  • Would structured reflection support better rehearsal or feel too prescriptive?
  • How much guidance would support students without increasing anxiety?
  • Could AI and peer feedback work together without replacing human judgement?

Challenge

Swipe, use the arrows, or press left and right.

Challenge card 1 of 4: Business trigger. Expand Genio beyond note taking into a new DSA opportunity around presentation anxiety.

01

Business trigger

Expand Genio beyond note taking into a new DSA opportunity around presentation anxiety.

The company had a strong note-taking position in the DSA market, and assessors were asking what else could support the students they saw.

Presentation anxiety kept surfacing as an unmet need.

Existing accommodations often helped students avoid presenting, while tools like speaker coaches and teleprompters focused on delivery rather than the practice before it.

The discovery needed to define what an MVP should do to become a meaningful accommodation that built confidence, not another delivery aid.

Research

Methods

  • Eight moderated discovery interviews with target-persona students
  • Clip-level coding into a tagged insight repository
  • V0 prototype testing in live user calls
  • Three rounds of SUS-benchmarked usability testing
  • Market-fit testing with DSA assessors and assistive-technology trainers
  • Nine-person alpha programme with repeat sessions and synthesis report

Key insights

  • Students practised repeatedly into mirrors, at partners, and against timers, but did not know what to improve.
  • Anxiety was the real problem, and it was not necessarily linked to ability.
  • Students wanted feedback, but peers often softened comments because honest critique felt socially uncomfortable.
  • Repetition was the coping strategy, so the product needed to support loops and redoing weak sections rather than one-off capture.
  • Recording comfort varied, so audio-only rehearsal needed to be first-class rather than a fallback.
  • Timestamped reflection was a clear differentiator because students wanted feedback tied to specific moments.
  • The first prototype exposed setup confusion, especially around recording and screen sharing, which drove an immediate redesign.
  • SUS improved across three rounds: 69.5, 72.9, then 76.2 before launch.

Hypotheses

  • If the rehearsal flow feels private and supportive, students will practise more willingly.
  • If feedback is tied to specific moments, students can improve without feeling judged by a vague overall score.
  • If audio, camera, and screen recording are treated as equal modes, more students will feel comfortable rehearsing.
  • If the core loop is useful without AI insights, the team can protect launch scope without losing product value.

Product direction

  • Design for improving before presenting, not delivering during the presentation.
  • Create psychological safety through a calm, judgement-free experience.
  • Use timestamped notes and reflection to make feedback specific and actionable.
  • Support repeat rehearsal loops without forcing students through long evaluation forms.
  • Treat audio, camera, and screen recording as equal rehearsal modes.
  • Ship the core loop first and keep AI insights as a roadmap layer rather than a launch dependency.

Core flows

Demo video showing the Genio Present rehearsal, playback, feedback, and reflection experience.

Recording setup and modes

Early prototype testing showed setup was the most confusing part of the experience, especially recording and screen sharing.

  • Redesigned the setup flow after the first prototype tests exposed confusion.
  • Made audio, camera, and screen recording equal modes so students were not forced into video.
  • Reduced setup decisions so students could start rehearsing with less cognitive load.
  • Added clearer onboarding and recording prompts after round-one usability issues.

Psychologically safe reflection

Research showed evaluation itself could feel like the threat, so reflection had to feel developmental rather than judgemental.

  • Dropped rich performance-scoring patterns when they risked increasing anxiety.
  • Used short reflection prompts focused on awareness rather than judgement.
  • Moved away from long evaluation forms that created resistance at the moment students needed momentum.
  • Framed feedback as developmental and tied to moments in the rehearsal.

Timestamped feedback and sharing

Students wanted honest feedback without exposure, and timestamped notes were repeatedly requested as a way to make feedback specific.

  • Designed timestamped notes so comments could connect to exact moments in the recording.
  • Explored trusted, asynchronous sharing so students could choose who reviewed a rehearsal.
  • Investigated anonymity and comment controls as ways to unlock more honest peer input.
  • Kept feedback anchored in the recording instead of making it feel like a detached report.

Launch scope

AI insights were valuable, but the launch needed a reliable core loop that could stand on its own.

  • Cut AI insights from V1 to protect launch scope.
  • Used alpha data to de-risk the cut: likelihood to use remained 4.33 out of 5 on the core loop alone.
  • Shipped recording, goals, notes, transcript, and sharing as the core V1 experience.
  • Kept AI as the roadmap draw rather than the launch dependency.

Iteration

What did not work

  • Recording setup was confusing in the first prototype, especially around screen sharing.
  • Camera and microphone setup lacked clear prompts in round one testing.
  • UI elements were cut off on smaller laptop screens in round two.
  • Rich AI scoring risked making anxious students feel judged rather than supported.
  • Longer reflection patterns created resistance at the exact moment students needed momentum.

What changed

  • Redesigned onboarding and setup prompts after round one.
  • Added cross-device responsiveness to the test plan after round two.
  • Ran round three with a literacy-difficulties cohort to test the SpLD target segment.
  • Shifted from performance scoring to lightweight, timestamped reflection.
  • Refined the UI to feel calmer, more private, and less evaluative.
  • Made a confident scope cut by shipping without AI insights.

Impact

  • Launched May/June 2025 and sold into the DSA as a new rehearsal proposition.
  • SUS improved from 69.5 to 76.2 across three usability rounds before launch.
  • A-grade SUS responses more than doubled by round three.
  • All nine alpha testers said the product would replace their current rehearsal method.
  • Ease of navigation averaged 4.44 out of 5 in alpha.
  • Likelihood of use averaged 4.33 out of 5 with AI insights explicitly excluded from launch scope.
  • The evidence let the trio protect the launch date without losing the users the research said mattered.

The product was presented to universities and assessors alongside the note-taking product, and the core rehearsal-reflection-feedback loop has remained intact since launch.

Disability-services staff began using the product as an alternative accommodation for students whose anxiety prevented live presenting, while career teams asked about interview practice, confirming the extensibility of the model.

Outcome

  • Launched and sold into the DSA as a new rehearsal proposition
  • Validated the MVP through discovery interviews, assessor testing, SUS rounds, and alpha feedback
  • Protected launch scope by shipping the core loop without AI insights
  • Kept the rehearsal-reflection-feedback loop intact after launch
  • The research reframed the product from performance scoring to psychologically safe reflection.
  • It shaped a confident V1 scope cut and helped ship a rehearsal loop that all nine alpha testers said would replace how they practised at the time.

Reflection

  • Lead design work is often about changing the frame before changing the interface.
  • The most important shift was moving the team from presentation delivery to presentation improvement.
  • Products in this space need to support emotional safety as much as usability.
  • Cutting AI from V1 was a stronger product decision because the evidence showed the core loop already mattered.
  • The product became stronger when we stopped treating feedback as a report and started treating it as a timestamped conversation around practice.
Back to portfolio