MY ROLE
I was the primary designer leading kids mode, reporting directly to the CPO. I designed and conducted all user research, developed the interaction framework, and led voice design in partnership with ElevenLabs. I collaborated with one PM (focused on safety), two engineers (implementation), and one industrial/UI designer (who executed the parental dashboard UI based on my workflows).
Research & Discovery
What can we learn from existing kids companion toys?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Interviewed 8 children (ages 6–12) that are using companion toys
Interviewed their parents
Reviewed existing kids’ companion toys (e.g. Tamagotchi-style devices)
KEY RESEARCH INSIGHTS
DESIGN PRINCIPLE
From early testing, one pattern became clear: Kids don’t want features. They want ways to play. Rather than designing isolated features, I proposed organizing kids mode around interaction categories — reusable patterns that could scale safely over time.
INTERACTION FRAMEWORK: 4 WAYS TO PLAY
This framework allowed us to prototype quickly while maintaining consistency, safety, and clarity across features.
Prototype & Testing
EARLY VALIDATION
Key Learnings
Kids stayed engaged longer with reactive dialogue than scripted stories
Response speed mattered more than content richness
Framing r1 as a peer increased trust and playfulness
Voice tone had a significant impact on perceived friendliness
These findings reinforced our focus on interaction design over feature complexity.
Voice Design & Engineering Collaboration
A significant portion of my internship involved collaborating with ElevenLabs' voice engineers to develop kid-appropriate voices for r1. I was the sole designer on the Rabbit side leading this partnership.
MY ROLE
Wrote detailed voice characteristic specifications
Created fictional persona archetypes describing who this voice "belongs to"—their age, personality, and how they speak
Generated extensive sample dialogue and content to guide voice training
Conducted comparative testing sessions with children
WHAT I LEARNED
I found that younger children (ages 6-8) preferred higher-pitched, more energetic voices, while one older child found that same voice "extremely uncomfortable" and preferred something more mature and genuine. We ultimately developed two voice options: one more playful and energetic, another more grounded—like an older sibling.
Impact & Takeaways
After months of research, prototyping, and testing, the CEO decided the product direction didn't align with his long-term vision for the company. The project ended up being paused not because it failed in testing but because of a strategic pivot.
Despite not shipping, the interaction framework I developed gave the team a reusable structure for thinking about voice-based experiences designed for more-than-utility functions. The research insights about attention, safety, and imaginative play informed how the team approached other r1 features.
Reflection
I started this project thinking about "kids ages 6-12" as a single group. Research quickly taught me otherwise. A 6-year-old and an 11-year-old have completely different cognitive abilities, social needs, and preferences. The voice testing made this viscerally clear when what delighted one age group made another uncomfortable.
This was my first experience with a project that tested well but was ultimately cut for strategic reasons. It was frustrating, but it taught me that product decisions happen at multiple levels. Good design isn't enough if it doesn't fit the business direction. I learned to hold my work a bit more loosely.
This was my first experience with a project that tested well but was ultimately cut for strategic reasons. It was frustrating, but it taught me that product decisions happen at multiple levels. Good design isn't enough if it doesn't fit the business direction. I learned to hold my work a bit more loosely.