The first step I took was to think about the product conceptually and its social and cultural implications. As I mentioned, the OrCam Learn device trains the student in reading by allowing the user to hear the text without reading it. This raises the issue of "functional independence" which is the conflict inherent in any educational technology - losing specific skills and adopting technology to divert resources to other activities.

The core value of the design should address this conflict to some extent. So, the first thing I did with the product team was to map the user's passive and active activities with the device. As I mapped it, I realized that there are three primary levels of learning: listening, reading, and understanding the content. Understanding is the main output, and it should be considered as the link between passive education and active learning.

After brainstorming, I conducted research by conducting in-depth interviews with parents of children with ADHD and dyslexia to understand the needs of both the primary and secondary users. I also interviewed teachers to gain insight into the perspective and conditions of the students. I wrote the interview scripts and questions and the product manager, Michael, conducted the sessions. I came up with three major conclusions:

(1) The parents don't want to know the metrics of their child's difficulty reading because they need help understanding what to do with them.

(2) Parents will be happy to know if there is an improvement in their child's reading performance.

(3) The parent wants to see progress in the child's efforts relative to his previous activity. To summarize the main conclusion, the parent cannot deal with complex analytics because he does not know how to turn them into necessary action. Because of this, we decided to give the parent three goals the child must accomplish to improve his learning.

Collecting and analyzing the student's performance is an important tool for identifying difficulties and targeting areas for improvement. However, this data may be difficult for parents to understand and interpret, as it is tailored to teachers who work with different learning methods. Our UX challenge was to simplify the data as much as possible, making it easy to understand without the need for explanations. I decided to redesign the analytics according to our chosen strategy. I highlighted the three main operations at the top of the hierarchy and moved the analytics that teachers prioritize, such as difficulty level and reading fluency, to a secondary order.

On the main screen, the three primary operations are the ones that are most prominent. I replaced performance analytics with effort analytics on the inner screen. The details of the actions are a detail of the student's performance, but the parent does not have to access them. The primary value here is the value of money we want to give the parent.

The usability test process included evaluating the entire onboarding process and testing the understanding of the features. Initially, I believed that the interface we created was quite intuitive, but we realized that there was a significant gap between what I had planned and the actual outcome.

After identifying areas for improvement, I analyzed and coded the components to identify any repetitive behavior. My main research insights were:

(1) The parents do not want to know the metrics of their child's difficulty reading because they do not know how to interpret them and what actions to take.

(2) Parents are happy to know if there is an improvement in their child's reading performance.

(3) Parents want to be able to help their child practice reading at home.

(4) The parent wants to see progress in the child's efforts relative to their previous activity.