Designing for Independence: Building an Adaptive Learning Experience for Neurodiverse Children
Four product pivots. One unwavering design philosophy. A healthcare-EdTech app built for children the market forgot.
Some products are hard to design because the problem is complex
Others are hard because the constraints are severe, the users are vulnerable, and the cost of getting it wrong is real - not in the abstract sense that UX writers invoke on portfolios, but in the sense that a poorly designed interaction could genuinely distress a child who already finds the world overwhelming.
LevelUp Genie sits firmly in the second category. The product helps neurodiverse children - those living with ASD, ADHD, developmental delays, and sensory sensitivities - learn everyday life skills independently. Brushing teeth. Washing hands. Getting dressed in the morning.
These are tasks most adults perform without a second thought, but for the families we were designing for, they are daily negotiations. A parent who has to physically guide their child through a morning routine every single day is not failing. They are working against a product gap: there is almost nothing in the consumer market designed specifically for this population.
"This case study is about how we built something that could genuinely close that gap - and how we got there through four distinct product directions, each one teaching us something the next version needed."
Design Lead - but that title covered more ground than usual
I was not brought in to execute a defined spec. There was no clear product vision when I joined. Everything - including what the product actually was - got shaped through the work.
Product Thinking
Consistently in the room where feature decisions were made. Pushed back when a proposed direction did not serve the actual user.
UX Strategy
Before wireframes, established why this product needed to be designed differently from mainstream children's apps.
Accessibility Advocacy
Accessibility was not a checklist. It was the design philosophy. Defined what sensory-safe interaction design meant in practice.
Stakeholder Alignment
Navigated four major directional pivots - communicating not just what changed, but why.
Feature Prioritization
Shaped which capabilities made it into the final product. Not every idea that appeared in brainstorming belonged in version one.
Design Direction
Led interaction design, visual system, and design system development across all four product versions.
There is a common misconception about designing for children
That it means making something colorful, loud, and full of rewards. For neurodiverse children, that design philosophy is often actively harmful.
Consider what the mainstream "engaging" children's app actually delivers: unpredictable transitions, high-contrast animations, ambient sound effects layered over voice prompts, notifications, blinking elements. For a child with sensory processing differences, this is not engagement - it is overload.
The behavioral science points in a different direction: predictability reduces anxiety; concrete, sequential instructions reduce cognitive load; visual schedules work because they eliminate the uncertainty of "what comes next." Emotional regulation is not a side feature - it is the prerequisite for learning to happen at all.
"None of that was reflected in what existed on the market. The available apps either over-gamified skills or were clinical tools that parents found hard to configure and children found cold and confusing."
Six principles that governed every decision
Before anything was designed, I established the design philosophy that would act as a north star throughout - and a benchmark against which to push back when directions deviated from it.
Predictability over novelty
For children with anxiety or sensory sensitivities, surprise is a stressor. Layouts do not shift. Buttons do not move.
One task at a time
When multiple instructions compete for attention, comprehension drops and anxiety rises. Every screen holds one instruction, one choice, one step.
Concrete over abstract
"Do your best" is an abstraction. "Turn the tap, put soap on your hands, rub for ten seconds" is concrete. The product speaks in the second register.
Emotional safety as infrastructure
Before a child can learn a skill, they need to feel safe. The design communicates: you can do this, there is no rush, getting stuck is fine.
Accessibility-first, not retrofitted
The primary user's needs defined the design constraints from day one. Accessibility was the starting point, not a finishing step.
Separate child and parent experiences
Children should never encounter settings menus or dashboards. The parent and child interfaces are distinct products sharing a data layer.
Four directions. One better product.
Most portfolio case studies present a clean arc: research, ideation, refinement, shipping. That is not how this one went. Each shift was a deliberate strategic decision - not a failure of vision, but an ongoing negotiation between users, resources, and business needs.
Direction One: Animated Demonstrations
The initial concept was intuitive. Children with learning differences often respond well to watching a task demonstrated before attempting it. The natural extension: create animated character buddies who would walk through each step of a daily task while the child watched and followed along.
Early in the project, I identified a critical mismatch between concept and production reality. After Effects animation at the quality level needed requires significant labor per deliverable. When I mapped the animation scope against the available timeline and team capacity, the math did not work. The question was not how to animate more efficiently - it was whether animation was the right production strategy at all.
Character exploration - four buddy candidates developed for this direction
COCO the Cat - Full 2D rig sheet with poses and expressions
LEO the Dog - Full 2D rig sheet with poses and expressions
Milo the Monkey - 2D rig sheet with expressions and limbs
Dodo the Dolphin - 2D rig sheet with expressions and limbsDirection Two: 3D Character Animation
The second proposal moved from 2D After Effects to fully rendered 3D characters. The intent was good: 3D characters can feel warmer, more dimensional. The technical argument was that existing 3D assets could be reused across tasks, reducing per-deliverable production burden. I understood the reasoning. I did not agree with the conclusion.
A complete 3D production pipeline involves character design, modeling, texturing, rigging, animation, lighting, rendering, optimization, and integration - each a distinct discipline. As the renders below show, the output quality was high, but the production cost to reach that quality across dozens of task scenarios was not feasible.
LEO in task scene - bathroom environment render
LEO - standalone character render with rigging
Direction Three: AI-Generated Video
The third direction changed the production paradigm entirely. Rather than building an animation pipeline, we would use AI-generated video to create demonstrations of daily tasks. The user rationale was strong: AI-generated video can be photorealistic, making task demonstrations more cognitively translatable. The production rationale was even stronger - compressed timelines, rapid iteration.
I was genuinely enthusiastic about this direction. We moved into it fully - by the time of the next strategic review, approximately 80% of the product had been redesigned around this approach. Then business priorities shifted. This was a product strategy decision, not a design failure. The work was not wasted - it taught us exactly what the product needed to do when the video layer was removed.
AI-generated character stills - buddy characters in real-world task scenarios
LEO - AI-generated character still
Milo the Monkey - handwashing task demo (AI-generated)
AI-animated task demo - movement and character animation