In v0.3 the alert looked resolved, but I had left the journey after ‘Not now’ unfinished. I went back to drawing in v0.4 and followed the sequence across the phone and the shared display. In the prototype, declining support returns the traveller to the screen they were using. The design has to answer what they can do after each choice, including when they leave an exercise or decide to ask for help later.
When I tried raising my heart rate with my Fitbit, the reading reached the app while the prompt was difficult to trigger. Working through the device connection and resting-rate setup led me to add setup guidance. The home reviews later gave me a different view of that work because one reviewer found connecting more difficult. Separately, the family review led me to make the type clearer and cut words. Those are changes I can show with a dated screenshot or a side-by-side comparison of the screens.
I added the flight-and-location text so a traveller could update family from Grounded. I also added spoken breathing and the exercise that asks for one thing to see, hear and feel. Those changes gave me new things to check in the journey, including whether the message explains the location clearly and whether someone can leave an exercise and find their next instruction.
<aside>
For each change I want to be able to point to the earlier problem, show what changed on screen and explain what I have checked since.
</aside>
When I mapped the app, I could see three different starting points. The airport can confirm a gate change, the wearable can prompt an offer of support, and the traveller can open support on their own. In the earlier sketches those branches could read like a sequence everyone was expected to complete. On a journey that may mean asking someone to stop when they would rather keep going. I used the return to the route to make that choice practical.
My questionnaire gave me another reason to think carefully about the route option. P05 described loud, open lounges. That made me consider what someone would want to know before choosing a different path. In the design study I called the route ‘alternative’ and marked sound and crowding as unknown. That wording gives the traveller the information I have and makes the missing context visible.
The example BA256 gate change from B12 to A04 lets me demonstrate the sequence consistently. The live flight lookup is a separate part of the working build. The walkthrough also includes illustrative map and shared-display material, so I need to make clear what each screen is showing. In the next review I want to see whether a traveller can name the new gate, say what they would do next and find their way back after declining support.
Studio Practice draft, pp. 40–43 and 49–63.