top of page
Safety Buddy
TL;DR The word "Safety" means different things to different people. People can feel unsafe even when there is no apparent danger, if their mind is not at ease. That's where Safety Buddy comes in. It uses a calendar-based system to help prevent users from commuting at night unnecessarily. And when users have no choice but to travel at night, the app uses a community-maintained map to guide them away from potential dangers.
The Brief
People feel most unsafe at night
Results from conducting 12+ user interviews with residents of Bloomington, Indiana showed that people generally feel most unsafe at night, particularly in sparsely populated and dimly lit places.
“The city planning team should install more light poles as currently they are far apart and the lack of lighting makes me feel unsafe”
-Indiana University Student
How might we ensure safety of pedestrians while they commute at night?
How it works
Let’s follow the journey of Jane from the onboarding process through the different scenarios she may encounter on a daily basis.
Onboarding process
Jane chooses her close acquaintances to be her guardians
She uploads her typical weekly schedule and class timings
She picks her preferred mode of transport. This mode is prioritised during the preventive action of the application
Communal map
Jane is headed home but has a choice of three routes.
She filters the search based on lighting condition and the ideal path is shown.
On the way she finds a deserted road so she reports it.
As proof for her fellow pedestrians, she posts an image of the deserted road.
SOS
Jane encounters a dangerous situation. She needs help instantly.
The SOS button directly calls the police. In the meantime her live location gets sent to her guardians.
She has the option to call her guardian and even send a live recording of her situation.
The police are on their way.
Smart watch
Jane uses the SOS feature on her smart watch as it is more accessible.
Her location is sent to her guardians and she calls the police.
She now chooses to walk to a safer spot based on Google Maps data of crowded and well-lit places nearby.
The watch gives her directions to the nearest safe location.
Final Design
Let’s look at the design process that led to this solution!
Design Process
Initial Thinking
Our initial target audience was new residents in the city of Bloomington, and we aimed to reach them through all modes of transportation with a focus on the city bus system. We believed that new residents, particularly students, would be unfamiliar with the city and its bus routes.
Through subsequent research and interviews, we decided to focus only on pedestrians at night.
Target Users
We chose to target people of the city of Bloomington who:
-
Frequently travelled at night
-
Were constantly in situations that required them to walk alone
Research
Research Phase
For our research phase, we planned to use surveys to help frame our interviews. We also employed a fly-on-the-wall technique which included putting ourselves in the situations of the target users. We ran a competitor analysis iteratively as a benchmark for our designs.
Research Goals
-
Identify the main safety-related issue for people in Bloomington
-
Collect research data related to mode of transport, demographics, location and age
-
Review existing solutions and their features
-
Identify user needs
Research 1 - Competitor Analysis
The main drawback of existing solutions is the lack of versatility. Safety is a multifaceted issue that requires a wide range of approaches to address. Unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all approach of existing solutions simply doesn't cut it when it comes to tackling the nuances and complexities of different scenarios.
Key finding: Safety means different things for different people, and solutions need to be more effective in covering various scenarios
Research 2 - Surveys and Interviews
We conducted a survey and interviews with a diverse group of people in Bloomington to gather information about their commuting habits and safety concerns. We also spoke with IU students, professors, and the IU Police Department to gain a deeper understanding of the specific issues that make people feel unsafe and the measures currently in place to protect them.
What is your preferred mode of transport?
What is your preferred mode of transport?
What is your preferred mode of transport?
69%
prefer to take the bus
25%
feel unsafe due to bad lighting
-
No respect for bikers and pedestrians
-
Homelessness
-
Bad lighting
User Needs
User Needs
01
Users need to regular updates on neighbourhood information like traffic, crowds etc.
02
Users need to be able to stay connected with their emergency contacts.
03
More light poles needed for student safety during nighttime travel.
04
New students need bus schedules and increased bus frequency for convenience and safety.
Analysis Phase
At this point, we had completed primary research, and our secondary research was ongoing. We had gained a lot of insights from our research but realised that it would be unfeasible to solve multiple problems at once. Our user group was too broad and we needed to narrow down on the main user pain points.
Goals through analysis
-
Streamline our exact user group
-
Find our target mode of transport
-
Identify our main safety focus
-
Find what users are familiar with and incorporate familiarity into our design
Affinity Mapping
Key User Pain Points:
-
Low lit or dark locations
-
Isolated and deserted places
-
Uncertainties in a user’s journey
Design Phase
The insights we gained from the analysis phase helped us key in on our user group and core problem. Having used community-led applications before, we wanted to include a sense of community in our designs.
Design goals
-
Design for multiple devices
-
Design to solve all facets of safety
-
Take advantage of existing technology such as safety posts and google maps
Concepts
Design 1 - Concepts and Interventions
Our goal was to be creative and varied with our approach towards solving the problem. We wanted to focus on including the notion of communal safety while taking a holistic approach towards safety.
Scenario 1 - How might we increase the notion of communal safety for pedestrians?
Nick is walking home late at night
He notices a deserted street. He feels anxious
Nick opens the Safety Buddy app
He alerts other nearby pedestrians of this potentially unsafe situation
Other pedestrians receive the alert and select an alternate route thereby avoiding the dangerous situation
Scenario 2 - How might we make users feel safer and more confident when they enter unfamiliar areas?
Nick is in an unfamiliar area
He opens the app and tries to find people nearby walking towards his destination
He sends a ‘buddy’ request asking another pedestrian to join him
People near his location receive his request and can accept if they want
Scenario 3 - How might we help people reach a relatively safer location when they’re feeling unsafe?
Lucy enters an area where she feels unsafe due to less lighting and people
She opens her app/ wearable device where she taps a button
When Lucy taps the button, the nearest lamp post in a safe area lights up
Lucy spots the light and walk towards it. She is now in a safer location and feels comfortable.
Scenario 4 - How might we help pedestrians communicate with their emergency contacts quickly?
Nick is walking home late at night
Nick feels he is being followed someone. He starts to panic
Nick pulls out his phone and shakes it
The Safety Buddy app begins to record live footage of Nick’s situation
An alert is immediately sent to Nick’s emergency contacts along with the video recording and location
Key finding: Some concepts such as the buddy concept in scenario 2 could lead to unwanted consequences. Care must be taken that user information does not fall into the wrong hands
Narrowing down our design
After thorough peer reviews, we decided to discard some of our concepts. Namely, the concept of “Buddy System”, while novel and useful, led to some potential issues.
01
Dangerous people could pose as “buddies” on the app and compromise safety of the user
02
Sensitive information such as direction of travel and location of home could fall in the wrong hands
03
Users could unnecessarily label a place as dangerous in order to marginalise a group of people
Takeaways
Challenges
-
Our biggest struggle was narrowing down our target user group and the specific core issues
-
Safety is such a broad topic that we went back and forth as to what aspect of safety to tackle
-
Maintaining novelty while innovating over existing solutions
Critical Question
Who do you define as a dangerous person?
Is it an armed person? Or someone perceived to be dangerous? What impact does our design have on marginalised groups of people?
What would we have done if we had more time?
-
Not being able to conduct usability testing was our biggest regret
-
We would have worked on integrating the police department better
-
Incorporating smart systems and IOT like smart light poles and speakers to provide large scale safety to entire cities
-
We would have improved on our visuals
Takeaways
bottom of page