Project Snapshot
Research
Surveys, interviews, and forum analysis to understand how people use AI in public.
Synthesis
Personas + adoption matrix mapping privacy comfort against tech enthusiasm.
Concept
Wearable "voice bubble" paired with an e-ink companion for discreet feedback.
Provocation
How might AI support people in public without forcing them to shout commands or stare at glowing screens all day?
Context & Problem
Voice assistants thrive at home yet feel awkward in public. People worry about being overheard, judged, or constantly monitored. At the same time, they crave ways to reduce screen dependency. That tension—privacy versus convenience—became the core design brief.
- Privacy-conscious users mute microphones in public spaces.
- Screen-weary commuters want ambient computing without notification overload.
- Always-on wearables raise questions about consent, trust, and etiquette.
Research & Insights
Discovery
Surveys and interviews surfaced demand for a "whisper mode"—people wanted assistance without broadcasting their requests to strangers.
Forum listening
Privacy communities voiced distrust of invisible listening. I translated that into visible states and tactile feedback indicating when the wearable is active.
Persona framing
Three personas—privacy skeptic, convenience seeker, digital minimalist—helped stress test how each feature balanced trust versus utility.
Concept Development
Silencio1 pairs a directional audio wearable with an e-ink card. The wearable generates a localized sound field so users can whisper commands and hear discrete responses. The e-ink surface displays calm cues—timers, summaries, confirmations—without triggering screen fatigue or attention debt.
Voice bubble
Directional speakers + bone conduction isolate sound to the wearer.
Privacy cues
Light halo and haptics show when the microphone or AI is active.
Screen alternative
E-ink companion offers transcripts, navigation arrows, or reminders without distracting animations.
Critical Design Framing
The thesis positioned Silencio1 as a provocation, not just a product concept. Using speculative design frameworks, I questioned whether frictionless AI is desirable and how public norms might shift if silent conversations with machines become commonplace.
- Explored technological determinism versus social constructivism lenses.
- Mapped second-order effects: Does private AI reduce social interaction or protect it?
- Outlined policy prompts about consent, recording, and equitable access.
Outcomes & Learnings
- Speculative design can surface latent anxieties earlier than usability tests.
- Balancing privacy and convenience requires tangible cues users can trust.
- Designing for public space demands cultural sensitivity, not just feature lists.
- Combining qualitative research with critical theory strengthens storytelling.
Key takeaway
Asking "should we" is as important as "can we." The concept helped stakeholders interrogate assumptions about ambient AI before committing to a roadmap.
Reflection
Silencio1 taught me to use research and storytelling to challenge default narratives about technology. That lens now informs my AI evaluation work, where I probe not only whether we can automate an interaction, but how it reshapes trust, etiquette, and human connection.