[DORM · RESPONSIVE WEB CONCEPT]
DORM is a research-led web concept that helps university students choose accommodation based on the conditions that affect daily life: accessibility, health, sleep, noise, hygiene, study routines, environmental comfort and roommate compatibility.
The goal was not to promise a perfect match. It was to reduce preventable incompatibilities, explain unavoidable trade-offs and give students meaningful control within limited dormitory capacity.
[01 · PROBLEM & CONTEXT]
Students selected a preferred and a backup dormitory through the current accommodation portal. Some later received temporary access to a list of available beds; others were placed directly by staff. At the point of selection, students could see availability — but not the physical conditions of the room, the living routine of its current resident or the reasoning behind the final placement. Missing a short selection window could mean losing the opportunity to choose altogether.
International students entered through a separate application route and were frequently directed towards the same buildings. Without visible allocation criteria, this reinforced the perception that identity influenced access more than individual need.
CURRENT-STATE JOURNEY
The problem was larger than an outdated interface. It concerned how limited accommodation was classified, communicated and distributed.
[02 · ROLE, SCOPE & CONSTRAINTS]
I designed posters and feedback materials, collected student responses and spoke with residents, accommodation staff and members of the international office. I also brought the findings to the university ethics committee as part of a wider effort to make recurring accommodation problems visible.
I later translated this evidence into a focused product concept for room discovery, roommate compatibility and placement transparency. My role covered research synthesis, service framing, allocation principles, user flows, information architecture and the student-facing web experience.
MY ROLE
PRODUCT SCOPE
CONSTRAINTS
RESEARCH LIMITATIONS
The project had direct access to student experiences but limited access to official allocation data, internal decision-making and live room inventory. Of the 86 survey respondents, 94.2% were international students and 84.9% were living in university accommodation at the time — so the findings were used to identify recurring needs, not to define the behaviour of every student group.
[03 · RESEARCH & DISCOVERY]
Students reported unclear rules, communication barriers, inconsistent service, forced relocations and limited control over roommate assignments. Placement was experienced not as a single booking step but as part of a service in which decisions were difficult to understand or challenge. Long-term Master's and PhD students described repeated room changes as disruptive to both daily life and academic work.
Interviews included routine reconstruction — walking through a typical day — and critical-incident mapping around roommate conflict, room changes, shared spaces and communication with staff. Survey findings were treated as reported evidence; repeated interview patterns and contextual observation were used to explore why those problems occurred. Cultural explanations remained hypotheses until they could be translated into observable behaviours.
RECURRING PROBLEM AREAS
Sleep, noise, cleaning, guests, cooking, temperature and personal boundaries shaped whether students could live together. Sharing a cultural background could make communication easier, but it did not guarantee compatibility. Physical conditions intensified these differences: a small kitchen, poor ventilation, limited common space or a noisy floor could turn a manageable routine into a daily conflict.
REFRAMING THE OBSERVATIONS
| Initial observation | Design variable |
|---|---|
| “Too loud at night” | Quiet hours and noise tolerance |
| “Uses the kitchen for hours” | Cooking duration and group size |
| “Not clean enough” | Shared cleaning behaviour |
| “Always brings friends” | Guest frequency and social expectations |
| “Keeps opening the window” | Temperature and ventilation preferences |
| “We are culturally incompatible” | Communication, boundaries and daily routines |
[04 · KEY INSIGHTS]
Students saw the result of placement, but not the reasoning behind it.
DESIGN IMPLICATION
Explain why each option was recommended and why a final decision was made.
Empty beds were filled before major compatibility risks were considered.
DESIGN IMPLICATION
Protect essential needs before presenting the available inventory.
Sleep, noise, hygiene, routines and boundaries affected daily life more directly than nationality.
DESIGN IMPLICATION
Match observable living patterns rather than demographic assumptions.
Because the sample was weighted toward international residents, this is treated as a design direction to validate, not a universal conclusion about all students.
A suitable placement could still fail through unexplained relocation or inconsistent staff decisions.
DESIGN IMPLICATION
Make changes, overrides and transfer options visible and traceable.
[05 · BEHAVIOURAL ARCHETYPES]
One resident may relate to more than one profile. Each statement condenses recurring research patterns; none quotes an individual participant.
Composite statementI can adjust to almost any room, but not to being woken or interrupted on a regular basis.
Composite statementI enjoy having people around, but I would rather live with someone who is comfortable with the same level of social activity.
Composite statementA room being available does not necessarily make it suitable for me. Temperature, ventilation and noise have a direct impact on how comfortably I can live there.
Composite statementMy schedule changes throughout the week. That does not make me a difficult roommate, but it does require clear communication and coordination.
[06 · STRATEGY]
Accessibility, health and safe environmental requirements must be addressed before lifestyle compatibility is considered. Room and building preferences can then be optimised among the remaining options — and what could not be met is explained.
[07 · PROBLEM FRAMING]
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Students are placed into university accommodation through a process that offers limited control and little explanation, while overlooking predictable differences in routines, environmental needs and shared-living expectations. This creates avoidable conflict and weakens trust in the allocation process.
HOW MIGHT WEHow might we help students make informed accommodation choices, even when availability is limited?
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
[08 · KEY DECISIONS]
| Design question | Rejected | Selected | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| What should students browse? | The full room inventory | Filtered eligible options | Prevents unusable choices and reduces overload |
| How should compatibility be shown? | A precise match percentage | Matched needs and visible trade-offs | Avoids false certainty |
| What should drive roommate matching? | Nationality or cultural similarity | Observable routines and behaviours | Reduces stereotyping |
| Should room or roommate come first? | One fixed sequence | A hybrid matching flow | Supports empty, partially occupied and shared applications |
| What happens without a strong match? | Automatic placement with no alternative | Best available option with transfer priority | Protects accommodation without removing agency |
| Can staff change the result? | Hidden manual changes | Limited and documented intervention | Supports emergencies without returning to opaque decisions |
Before students explore their options, the system identifies one of three matching paths.
ALL THREE CONVERGE INTOExploreCompareRankSubmit
[09 · PROPOSED EXPERIENCE]
That is the point where the existing service provides the least useful information.
INCLUDED IN THE MVP
LATER PHASE
EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED
[10 · WHAT COMES NEXT]
STATUS
DORM is a concept. Research, strategy and the product structure are done; user flows, wireframes, the first interactive prototype, usability testing and refinement are the next steps. Nothing below has been measured yet.
The first prototype will test whether students can understand why an option was recommended, distinguish essential needs from preferences, identify trade-offs before submitting a choice, and know what to do when no ideal match is available.
PROPOSED PRODUCT OUTCOMES — NOT MEASURED AT THIS CONCEPT STAGE
If developed further, the product would aim to reduce mismatch-related room-change requests, improve students' understanding of placement decisions and increase satisfaction during the first weeks of residence.
The upcoming wireframes treat keyboard navigation, screen-reader-compatible match explanations and placement decisions, and status information that does not rely on colour alone as core interaction requirements.
Next project
