💔 Moving On — a place to feel your feelings after a breakup, not perform being over it

Executive summary

The scannable version, for anyone who wants the shape of the project before reading the full story.

Where this started

I got here the way most people research a breakup app idea: reading way too many Reddit threads at 1am. What kept jumping out was that almost every app aimed at heartbroken people is secretly a dating app, a journal, or a therapy waitlist wearing a "healing" label — and none of them just let someone be sad for a minute without trying to fix it.

Zooming out, that's a product gap, not just a feeling: people recovering from breakups often feel isolated, overwhelmed, and emotionally exhausted, and existing products either push them back toward dating or route them into paid therapy. Nothing sits in between for someone who just wants emotional support and community.

I followed the design process below in that order on purpose, because each stage needed an answer from the one before it: Empathize to find out what was actually true, Define to turn that into one problem I could design against, Ideate to narrow a long list of ideas into something buildable, Prototype to make it real, and Test to see if it actually held up with real people.

Research first — always

I began with exploratory secondary research, a competitive audit, survey responses, and interviews. The goal was not to prove a market at scale; it was to understand the emotional and privacy needs the first prototype had to respect.

Exploratory sample. The findings shaped this concept and should be read as directional—not as statistically representative market validation.

Research goals & questions

• Goal: understand what people actually need emotionally in the weeks after a breakup, before designing any feature.
• Question: what makes existing breakup-adjacent products (dating apps, journals, therapy platforms) feel wrong for this moment?
• Question: how much does privacy/anonymity change someone's willingness to be honest about how they're feeling?
• Question: is there real appetite for platonic connection with strangers who "get it," separate from dating?

Methods & timeline

Secondary research and a competitive audit in week 1, a Google Forms survey and Reddit analysis in week 2, and 1:1 interviews spanning weeks 2–3, run in parallel with early synthesis so findings could still shape the interview guide.

Interview highlights

Two of the twelve interviews that most directly shaped the design.

Research insights, visually

What already exists (and where it falls short)

I reviewed representative peer-support, coaching, and therapy products to understand common patterns and identify a narrower concept opportunity. This was a directional audit, not a complete market analysis.

My original audit board, built in FigJam

Who I designed for

I didn't want one "average" heartbroken user. I built three people who each pull the design in a slightly different direction — if it works for all three, it's probably actually inclusive, not just labeled that way.

Jasmine M.

27 · Nurse · she/her

"I don't want a date. I need someone who just gets it."

Goals

• Vent anonymously, without judgment
• Connect emotionally, not romantically

Frustrations

• Doesn't want to overwhelm her friends
• Most platforms are built for dating

Adeel R.

32 · Software Tester · he/him

"I want to speak with someone who understands my values."

Goals

• A faith-sensitive, judgment-free space
• Calm routines, not group chat

Frustrations

• Modern breakup advice feels too secular
• Dating apps feel emotionally shallow

Taylor N.

23 · Art Student · they/them

"Sometimes I just want to exist without anyone needing anything from me."

Goals

• Quiet support, low energy required
• Gender identity respected by default

Frustrations

• Overwhelmed by busy group chats
• Hates streaks and gamified healing

Walking through Jasmine's night

Mapping a full journey, not just the happy path, is what showed me exactly where the emotional low point was — and where the product needed to be gentle instead of pushing someone forward.

Adeel's and Taylor's journeys followed this same shape, with faith-based and solo-only filters standing in for the identity filters above.

Sorting the mess into themes

Every quote and note from research got clustered by theme in FigJam. This is the step that turns "I read a lot of forums" into an actual, arguable design direction.

Affinity map — space to feel, privacy, identity-based safety, gentle connection, simple tools

The problem, in one sentence

Opportunity statement

The questions I kept designing against, underneath that one:

• How might we give people space to release emotion without judgment?
• How might we match users in a way that feels safe and intentional, not like dating?
• How might we make people feel seen across gender, faith, and orientation without overcomplicating onboarding?
• How might we give strong privacy while still enabling real connection?

Product vision

Design principles

Choosing the final prototype scope

Brainstorming produced over twenty ideas. I scored each one on impact vs. effort — the high-impact, low-complexity ones made the cut, and I let go of the rest, even the fun ones.

Prioritization (MoSCoW)

The line between Must and Should came straight from the research table above: anything tied to privacy or judgment-free venting was non-negotiable; anything that added delight without addressing a core pain point could wait.

Trust and safety guardrails

Anonymous emotional support can create real harm if safety is treated as a footer link. These were product requirements for any future implementation—not claims that a live moderation system already exists.

Mapping the structure

The nav had to hold four very different needs — solo healing, anonymous venting, platonic matching, and community events — without making any single one feel mandatory.

The core flow

Deliberately short: create a profile once, then branch into whichever path fits that day, with no forced order between them.

It started on paper

Before any color or copy, I sketched the bones of each screen on paper — just layout and hierarchy, so I could argue about structure without anyone getting distracted by a font choice.

Then I gave it structure

Once the layout held up on paper, I rebuilt every screen in grayscale — real copy, real hierarchy, real components — so I could test whether things actually made sense before color got the chance to do any of the work for me.

Landing page

Home dashboard

Vent Room setup

Final prototype screens

The final concept is organized around four needs: private expression, platonic support, guided reflection, and safer community participation. Open any rationale panel for the decision behind a screen.

1Landing & sign up

First impressions matter more here than in most products — the headline is doing one job, which is telling you this isn't a dating app before you even scroll. Sign up asks for the minimum: name, email, password, and pronouns if you want to share them.

Design rationale

Goal

Kill the "is this a dating app?" hesitation in the first five seconds.

Design decisions

Non-romantic headline, minimal sign-up fields, optional pronouns.

Research connection

Directly answers the "not another dating app" theme from interviews.

Accessibility

Labeled inputs, visible focus states, 4.5:1 contrast on all text.

Create your account

2Home

This is the first thing you see after signing in — no streak counters, no "day 4 of your healing journey" pressure. Just four doors: Home, Match & Meet, Vent Room, Healing Tools. I wanted it to feel like walking into a calm room, not opening another app that's trying to hook you.

Design rationale

Goal

Orient a possibly overwhelmed user in seconds, with zero decision fatigue.

Design decisions

Four flat doors, no streaks, no gamified progress bars.

Research connection

Directly reflects the "human first, not gamified" design principle.

Accessibility

Large tap targets, plain language labels, low cognitive load layout.

3Vent Room

Vent Room is one tap from Home, on purpose — no digging for it on a hard day. Inside, you choose whether you want to vent, listen, or just be alone with the page, and before anyone's matched you agree to the room rules: no names, no fixing, no advice unless asked.

Design rationale

Goal

Make anonymous emotional release feel safe within one tap of intent.

Design decisions

Room rules shown before matching, solo/1-on-1 choice, no advice affordance.

Research connection

Built from Emily's "I don't want advice" interview insight.

Accessibility

Plain, non-clinical copy; reduced-motion-safe transitions; clear exit control.

The Vent Room entry point from Home

4Match & Meet

This is the one part of the app that looks a little like a dating app on the surface — browsing profiles, sending a request — and that's exactly why I leaned hardest on tags like "Talk + Listen" or "Woman of Faith" here instead of anything about looks. Matching needs both people to say yes before a chat opens.

Design rationale

Goal

Enable platonic connection without ever feeling like a dating flow.

Design decisions

Identity/comfort tags replace photos as the primary browsing signal; mutual opt-in required.

Research connection

Answers the survey theme that people miss companionship more than romance.

Accessibility

Text-first cards reduce reliance on photos; screen-reader-friendly tag labels.

Profile view — mutual consent required

5Healing Tools

The quiet corner of the app — courses, guided audio, and a mood tracker, all sitting side by side with no required order and no completion badges. Nothing in here is trying to gamify how you feel.

Design rationale

Goal

Offer structure for people who want it, without pressuring people who don't.

Design decisions

Non-linear tool grid, no streaks or completion badges anywhere in the hub.

Research connection

Cut the AI chatbot and streaks that tested well but conflicted with "no pressure to move on."

Accessibility

Audio tools include captions/transcripts; mood tracker usable via keyboard alone.

Inside a healing tool — write, then burn

6Events

Walks, breathwork groups, coffee meetups — the one place the app nudges you offline. Every event card shows its safety tags right up front, and creating one reminds you to pick a public place, because this is where the stakes get real.

Design rationale

Goal

Extend healing into real-world, low-pressure community without hidden risk.

Design decisions

Safety tags surfaced on every card; public-place reminder built into event creation.

Research connection

Balances the desire for community against the privacy concerns raised in interviews.

Accessibility

Location and time info in plain text, not icon-only, for screen readers.

Create an event, with safety filters

7Profile & Settings

Privacy toggles live at the top, not buried under "Account" — because how visible you want to be isn't a one-time decision, it changes day to day. Accessibility and notification settings sit right next to them for the same reason: both are about how much of yourself you're choosing to show.

Design rationale

Goal

Make privacy feel like an ongoing choice, not a one-time setup step.

Design decisions

Privacy toggles promoted above generic account settings.

Research connection

Responds directly to "privacy matters more than almost anything else."

Accessibility

High-contrast mode and font-size controls live in the same reachable spot.

Personal info

From v1 to final

The mid-fidelity round was not the finish line. Moderated sessions revealed where labels and hierarchy were asking users to work too hard, so I revised the prototype before documenting the final concept.

Design system

A small, warm palette on purpose — nothing here was meant to feel clinical, urgent, or "app-store cheerful."

Spacing, grid & components

• Spacing scale: 4px base unit (4/8/12/16/24/32/48px) keeps rhythm consistent across cards, pills, and sections.
• Grid: 1080px max content width, 24px side padding, single-column on mobile below 640px.
• Components: pill buttons, soft-shadow cards, rounded inputs (12–20px radius), and a consistent icon-chip pattern for tool logos.
• States: hover lifts cards 3px with a softened shadow; focus states use a visible 2px coral outline for keyboard users.

Accessible color pairings

Accessibility decisions

I treated accessibility as a design constraint, while separating what is implemented in this case-study page from what would still require engineering and formal testing in a live product.

Implemented in this case study

• Keyboard-visible focus states, a skip link, semantic landmarks, descriptive image text, and reduced-motion support.
• Body and supporting text colors adjusted for readable contrast against cream and white surfaces.
• Responsive layouts, horizontally scrollable tables, and zoomable prototype screens for smaller displays.

Requirements for a live product

• Large touch targets, complete keyboard operation, screen-reader labels, logical focus order, and accessible error handling.
• No color-only status signals; safety and availability states pair text, icons, and color.
• Optional identity fields, plain non-clinical language, reduced-motion controls, adjustable text, and high-contrast settings.

Did it actually work?

I used a small moderated study to identify usability breakdowns, not to claim statistical validation. The most useful evidence was where people paused, misread optional fields, or needed facilitator help.

• The "vent / listen / solo" choice confused people. 3 of 5 participants hesitated here in round 1. I added a one-line description under each option explaining what happens next.
• Photo upload felt mandatory, even though it wasn't. 2 participants tried to upload a photo despite wanting to stay anonymous. I made "Skip for now" visually equal to "Upload photo," not a tiny link underneath it.
• People thought faith and gender fields were required. They only relaxed once they spotted "(optional)" in small helper text. I moved that word onto the field label itself.

How I'd measure success, post-launch

Because this remained a concept, these are proposed product-health signals—not achieved outcomes. I would pair usage data with safety and user-reported benefit.

What I'd tell you if we grabbed coffee

This project asked for a different kind of restraint than most apps I've worked on. Nearly every feature that tested well emotionally — streaks, gamified milestones, AI-guided prompts — had to be weighed against whether it would actually help someone heal, or just make the product feel more "sticky." The four features in the final prototype came straight out of the affinity themes, not from what would look most impressive in a portfolio.

The biggest thing I took away: inclusivity here wasn't a feature, it was the whole premise. A faith filter, a gender-comfort setting, an anonymous mode — none of that is an add-on bolted onto a generic breakup app. It's the reason Jasmine, Adeel, and Taylor can all open the same product and feel like it was actually built for them.