2023.06 — 2024.03
Meeting Ink is an AI-powered app that transcribes meetings and generates concise summaries for easy sharing.
Design a seamless and efficient digital meeting assistant that enhances the note-taking experience by integrating AI-powered transcription, organization, and collaboration features. The goal is to streamline meeting documentation, improve accessibility, and boost productivity for professionals by providing an intuitive, user-friendly interface with intelligent automation.
In today’s fast-paced work environment, effective meeting documentation is essential for productivity, yet traditional note-taking methods can be inefficient and fragmented. Meeting Ink was designed to address this challenge by offering an AI-powered meeting assistant that simplifies the process of capturing, organizing, and reviewing meeting notes.
With features like automatic transcription, smart summaries, and seamless collaboration, Meeting Ink helps professionals stay focused during meetings while ensuring that important discussions and action items are well-documented. The app is tailored for teams and individuals who need a reliable, intuitive solution to streamline their workflow and enhance post-meeting efficiency.
Product Designer
User Flow
Wireframe
Design System
UI Design
Figma
1 PM
1 Android & iOS Engineer
Get to know more about persona, user journey and their pain point
Define questions and problems
Figure out the solution
Validate ideas(Tracking data & User Interview & Usibility Test)
Due to limited time and access to actual users during this project, the following personas were developed using inferred user needs, competitor product research, and common patterns observed across the industry. These hypothetical personas served as a practical framework to guide user-centered design decisions.
Persona 1 — Claire Shen|35|Product Manager|Startup Team
Background & Motivation
Goals & Needs
Seeks an all-in-one, intelligent meeting tool to:
Pain Points
Persona 2: Wendy Kao|28|Freelance UX Designer|Remote Collaborator
Background & Motivation
Goals & Needs
Needs a designer-friendly meeting workflow that enables:
Goals & Needs
1. Inefficient Note-Taking Process
2. Fragmented Meeting Records
3. Difficulty in Reviewing & Organizing Notes
4. Lack of Collaboration & Accessibility
Meeting Ink captures and transcribes conversations in real-time, ensuring that no key details are lost.
Users can focus on discussions without worrying about taking notes manually.
1.2. Collaboration With PM and Engineering — Any Technical, Timeline, or Business Constraints?
PM Alignment:
We clarified the distinction between real-time transcription and post-processing summarization to avoid overengineering that could distract from core functionality.
Engineering Feedback:
1.3. Final Decision-Making Process & Validation
We focused on usability for first-time users and task-oriented interaction. The interface is kept minimal, with advanced features hidden or collapsed.
Instead of relying on user interviews, our decision is supported by the following industry research and UX principles:
Therefore, we designed the core actions—start, stop, and save—as high-priority visual elements, and used prominent status indicators to clearly communicate the recording state. This ensures both a sense of control and task focus for the user.
2.1. Trade-off Analysis — Optimized Meeting Interface for Enhanced Usability
2.1.1. Why Choose Option A Over Option B?
Chosen (A):
Single-column layout with clearly structured sections, bullet-point formatting, and collapsible (accordion) components for mobile-friendly readability.
Not Chosen (B):
Dense, traditional multi-column layout with mixed paragraph blocks and limited visual hierarchy.
Rationale:
The goal of meeting notes is to help users quickly locate key information and clearly capture decisions and action items. We prioritized structured content with headings, subheadings, and bullet points to reduce cognitive load. Visual cues like the symbol further reinforce clarity and actionability.
Trade-off:
While dense layouts may save space, they reduce readability—especially on small screens—causing fatigue and increasing the likelihood of missing information. We prioritized clarity and usability over compactness.
2.1.2. Collaboration With PM and Engineers — Technical, Timeline, or Business Constraints?
2.1.3. How Was the Final Decision Made?
We based the design decision on the following principles:
2.1.4. Validation:
While no formal A/B testing has been conducted yet, this approach is supported by established UX research and competitive benchmarking:
2.3. Trade-off Analysis — Intuitive and Flexible Playback Controls
2.3.1. Why Choose Option A Over Option B?
Chosen (A):
A bottom-fixed playback control bar that integrates key functions (play, pause, progress bar, total duration), with the ability to collapse or expand as needed.
Not Chosen (B):
Floating or overlay-style playback controls (e.g., small pop-up window, side panel) that remain visible but may cover content or appear in unpredictable locations.
Rationale:
Users often need to monitor playback while reading transcripts or notes. A fixed control bar at the bottom provides a consistent, intuitive location for playback functions. Collapsibility ensures the player doesn't interfere with reading when not needed.
Trade-off:
While floating controls maintain constant visibility, they can obstruct important content—especially on small screens—and increase the chance of accidental taps. The fixed bottom layout aligns with user expectations and maintains interface stability, at the cost of slightly reduced persistent visibility.
2.3.2. Collaboration with PM and Engineers — Any Constraints?
PM Priorities:
Engineering Constraints:
2.3.3. How Was the Final Decision Made?
We made the final call based on user experience principles and benchmarking:
2.3.4. Validation
Industry Benchmark Support:
UX Theory Support:
2.4. Trade-off Analysis — Real-Time Playback Speed Adjustment with Clean UI Design
2.4.1. Why Choose Option A Over Option B?
Chosen (A):
A single "1x" button that reveals a discrete step slider for speed adjustment (e.g., 0.5x → 2x). The control only appears when needed and applies changes in real time.
Not Chosen (B):
A dropdown menu, numeric input, or continuous slider allowing highly granular adjustments.
Rationale:
We aimed to create a quick, intuitive, and non-intrusive adjustment experience. The discrete slider allows users to select commonly used speeds without needing to fine-tune unnecessarily. Tapping "1x" cleanly triggers the control, maintaining UI simplicity and reducing distraction.
Trade-off:
While continuous control offers flexibility, it increases interaction complexity and visual clutter. We prioritized task flow and interface clarity, especially on mobile, over maximum customizability.
2.4.2. PM and Engineering Collaboration — Any Constraints?
PM Focus:
PM Focus:
2.4.3. How Was the Final Decision Made?
2.4.4. Validation
UX Research Support:
Industry Benchmark Support:
All meeting notes, transcripts, and action items are stored in a single, organized platform.Users can search and filter past meetings to quickly find relevant information.
Trade-off Analysis — Centralized Meeting Documentation System
3.1. Why Choose Option A Over Option B?
Chosen (A):
Store all meeting-related data—notes, transcripts, and action items—in a single centralized platform with search and filter capabilities for easy retrieval.
Not Chosen (B):
Store meeting content across multiple decentralized tools (e.g., Google Docs, Notion, Email), or manage it in an unstructured format.
Rationale:
We prioritized information accessibility and a consistent user experience. A centralized platform builds trust and reduces cognitive and operational friction caused by switching between tools.
Trade-off:
While decentralized tools may offer flexibility or familiarity, they fragment data, create inconsistency, and make information harder to locate—especially over time. We chose to invest in a unified experience that delivers clear structure and reliable access.
3.2. PM and Engineering Collaboration — Any Constraints?
PM Priorities:
Engineering Constraints:
3.3. How Was the Final Decision Made?
The design direction was based on key UX principles and market trends:
3.4. Validation:
Market Validation:
UX Research Support:
Teams can easily share notes .Integration with popular work tools (e.g., Slack, Notion, Google Drive) ensures smooth workflows.
Trade-off Analysis — Seamless Sharing with Smart Notifications and Multi-Destination Sync
4.1. Why Choose Option A Over Option B?
Chosen (A):
A seamless sharing flow that includes:
Not Chosen (B):
Basic auto-share immediately after meeting ends, with limited integration options and no content preview or control.
Rationale:
We aimed to reduce friction and increase user confidence in sharing meeting content. By introducing a confirmation step, optional previews, and delayed sharing through smart notifications, we accommodate different user behaviors—from fast movers to detail checkers. Multi-platform syncing ensures the notes land where teams actually need them.
Trade-off:
While immediate auto-sharing could reduce steps, it increases the risk of sending incorrect or premature content, especially when AI summaries are still being processed. Our approach trades a bit of extra interaction for significantly higher control, clarity, and flexibility.
4.2. Collaboration with PM and Engineers — Any Technical, Timeline, or Business Constraints?
PM Focus:
Engineering Constraints:
4.3. How Was the Final Decision Made?
We made this decision based on the following UX and business considerations:
4.4. Validation
UX Research & Best Practice Support:
Market Benchmarking:
To evaluate the effectiveness and impact of Meeting Ink – AI Meeting Assistant, we defined the following success metrics across adoption, productivity, user satisfaction, and business performance:
1. Usage & Adoption:
2. User Engagement & Satisfaction
3. Business Impact & Growth
Meeting Ink was designed to help teams streamline meeting documentation, improve clarity, and bridge the gap between discussion and action. Although post-launch analytics were limited at the time of handoff, the expected outcomes were:
The design leveraged mental models from tools like Notion, Asana, and Superhuman to build familiarity while introducing new value. Future validation could include metrics like task completion rate, repeat usage, and team-level satisfaction.
This app uses the Design system of Noise Eraser including button, input, navigation bar, and checkbox.
1. Finding similar product references to draw inspiration from their designs, analogous process setups, and usage logic is crucial to keep the user learning curve low.
2. To make users focus on the primary actions avoid placing distracting information within the UI interface.
3. Before commencing production, the boss often wishes to see results quickly. However, creating a User Experience (UX) requires resources and time. It is crucial to explain the importance of this undertaking and inform relevant stakeholders about the amount of time and resources other companies invest to achieve similar results. If it's not possible to allocate the necessary resources and time, expectations may need to be adjusted.
#AIAudio #NoiseCancellation #VoiceEnhancement #AudioUX #WebAppDesign #AIUX #SoundDesign #ProductivityTech
Account Center Website
#AccountManagement #AdminDashboard #WebUX #SystemDesign #UserManagement #DesignSystem #EnterpriseUX #PlatformUX
#RecruitmentApp #UXDesign #TalentMatching #JobPlatform #B2BDesign #HRTech #MobileUX #FormOptimization #TaiwanUX
Line ID: hmc10116