UXCharan / The case study studio
63 original UX/UI project briefs for students, career changers and practising designers. Choose a problem, investigate it, design your response and share your work with Saicharan for feedback.
Pick a topic you can research.
Build on evidence, not assumptions.
Send your work and one clear question.
Apply feedback and tell your story.
Choose Beginner for a focused flow, Intermediate for multiple states or roles, and Advanced for complex systems. Time ranges are planning suggestions. These are fictional practice scenarios to validate—not claims about real services. Briefs are freely accessible; review arrangements are discussed separately.
63 briefs
A fictional clinic confirms a time but leaves preparation, arrival instructions and rescheduling scattered across messages. Explore how a first-time visitor can understand what happens next without needing repeated calls.
In a fictional family, different people arrange transport, visits and paperwork. Investigate where responsibilities become unclear and how a shared plan could preserve the care recipient’s control over what is shared.
A hypothetical video service offers only a spinning loader before the call. Explore how people could understand delays, test their setup and recover from connection problems without assuming the clinician is available immediately.
A fictional directory lists providers but makes cost, format and availability difficult to compare. Investigate what information helps someone choose a suitable introductory conversation without asking them to disclose sensitive experiences.
Imagine a person with appointment documents across email, paper and phone folders. Explore an organisation flow that makes the right document findable and makes temporary sharing understandable, using synthetic documents only.
A fictional household tracks payments through chat messages. Investigate how members can understand who paid, question an entry and settle a balance without creating pressure or exposing unrelated purchases.
A hypothetical budgeting tool assumes the same salary every month. Explore how a freelancer could distinguish confirmed income from expected income and plan upcoming commitments without presenting uncertain money as guaranteed.
A fictional payment prototype shows a generic error after confirmation. Investigate how a person could understand pending, failed and completed states and seek help without accidentally repeating a payment.
Imagine subscriptions whose renewal dates and cancellation steps are scattered across services. Explore a dashboard that helps people distinguish reminders from completed cancellations and review upcoming commitments.
A fictional freelancer sends invoices manually and loses track of client queries. Explore how payment progress, revisions and reminders can stay understandable to both sides without assuming every delay is deliberate.
A hypothetical learner returns after a week away and cannot remember the last useful step. Investigate how a course can help someone resume learning with context rather than simply marking video playback progress.
A fictional course shares feedback across comments, calls and messages. Explore a review workspace that separates questions, required changes and suggestions, while helping students show what changed in a revision.
A hypothetical scholarship form reveals required documents late in the process. Explore how applicants can understand eligibility, prepare evidence and recover from an interrupted application without implying an award is guaranteed.
A fictional learning community matches people by topic alone, ignoring schedule and expectations. Investigate a lightweight way to form compatible groups and leave or re-match without social pressure.
A hypothetical course distributes mixed PDFs, videos and exercises with unclear labels. Explore a resource library where learners can find suitable formats, understand download sizes and resume learning when connectivity is limited.
A fictional store presents long specification lists without explaining differences. Investigate how buyers compare options for their own constraints, while keeping trade-offs, full costs and unavailable information visible.
A hypothetical retailer confirms a return request but hides the next steps. Explore a flow that distinguishes request acceptance, collection, inspection and refund progress, with clear routes when something goes wrong.
A fictional craft marketplace accepts free-text custom requests that lead to misunderstandings about size, price and delivery. Investigate how both parties can agree a specification before work starts.
A fictional grocery service silently replaces unavailable items. Explore how shoppers could express preferences and review substitutions while pickers work under time constraints.
A hypothetical resale marketplace mixes vague condition claims with incomplete photos. Investigate how a listing can communicate known defects, evidence and unanswered questions without pretending the platform has verified every item.
A fictional route planner optimises time but does not explain which parts of a journey are accessible or when information was checked. Explore how a traveller can compare routes and respond to an unavailable lift.
A hypothetical transit app displays precise arrival times even when location updates are old. Investigate a stop view that communicates uncertainty and helps someone decide whether to wait or consider another route.
A fictional travel group spreads dates, budgets and preferences across chat threads. Explore how the group can make an explicit decision while allowing participants to state constraints privately.
A hypothetical charging map lists stations but obscures connector compatibility and information freshness. Explore planning around a compatible stop and a fallback without promising real-time availability.
A hypothetical booking service offers alternatives without showing baggage, connection and cost differences. Investigate how a traveller can compare changes and confirm a replacement without accidentally losing the original support options.
A fictional local service collects reports but gives little indication of ownership or progress. Explore a flow that helps residents submit useful information, spot duplicates and understand updates without exposing their exact home address.
A hypothetical event directory focuses on promotional imagery while practical details are incomplete. Investigate how people assess cost, access, timing and suitability before reserving a place.
A hypothetical service uses unclear status labels after submission. Explore how an applicant can understand whether action is needed, provide a missing document and see what happens next without inventing official eligibility rules.
A fictional volunteer programme manages shifts in spreadsheets and chat. Explore how people can choose a suitable role, understand preparation requirements and withdraw early enough for organisers to respond.
A hypothetical library catalogue does not clearly distinguish a book on shelf, reserved, in transit or ready for collection. Explore discovery and collection around the member’s preferred branch.
A fictional company sends a long welcome document with tasks for several teams. Explore how a new joiner can understand dependencies, locate help and see what is relevant to their role.
A hypothetical expense tool rejects claims with a generic policy message. Explore how submitters and approvers can clarify missing evidence and explain exceptions without repeatedly recreating a claim.
A hypothetical dashboard shows many failed checks without helping an analyst distinguish an isolated issue from a downstream symptom. Explore triage, evidence and ownership using a small synthetic dataset.
A fictional field-service tool loses clarity about whether a job update is saved locally or synced. Explore a handover flow where technicians can record work and resolve conflicts without assuming constant connectivity.
A hypothetical collaboration product makes it difficult to see which access a role grants. Explore invitations, access changes and offboarding with clear consequences and recoverable mistakes.
A fictional directory lists technicians without clarifying inspection fees, scope or service area. Explore how a customer describes a problem, compares estimates and approves additional work.
A hypothetical service posts surplus food with vague collection windows and item details. Explore how a buyer can evaluate a listing and collect on time while sellers manage uncertain availability.
A fictional community relies on chats to lend tools, leading to unclear return dates and condition expectations. Explore a low-pressure agreement and return process that protects both parties’ personal details.
A hypothetical building posts different sorting instructions in several places. Explore a findable guide based on one clearly identified local rule set, with a route for unknown items rather than universal recycling claims.
A fictional dashboard shows complex charts but no explanation of estimated readings or time periods. Explore how a household can inspect changes and compare similar periods without implying that correlation proves a cause.
A hypothetical assistant mixes unsupported claims with sourced passages. Explore an answer interface that makes evidence inspectable and helps users mark uncertainty before using a response in their work.
A fictional assistant can draft a customer message and schedule a task. Explore how a person reviews the exact action, understands its scope and approves or cancels before anything happens.
A hypothetical synthesis tool groups interview excerpts without showing how themes were formed. Explore human review of clusters and traceability back to evidence, avoiding invented quotes or participants.
A fictional writing assistant produces polished text that ignores length, tone or required facts. Explore how a designer specifies constraints, compares drafts and edits the result before using it.
A hypothetical support bot repeats the same answer and loses context when a person takes over. Explore a transparent handoff that lets the customer review what will be shared and understand the next step.
A fictional appointment service switches language inconsistently across steps. Explore language selection, content parity and recovery when a translation is unavailable; test with speakers instead of assuming translated copy works.
A hypothetical careers site times out during uploads and erases progress. Explore a lightweight application that explains file requirements, saves progress intentionally and handles retry without duplicate submissions.
A fictional bill viewer mixes charges, adjustments and due dates without a clear hierarchy. Explore a plain-language summary with access to detailed line items, using synthetic amounts and explaining unknown charges.
A hypothetical app treats every reminder as urgent and hides settings across pages. Explore how people set priorities and quiet periods while understanding which notifications remain active.
A hypothetical service depends on a single recovery channel that some users no longer have. Explore an understandable recovery journey with clear status and support handoff, using mocked verification rather than designing security policy.
In a hypothetical family-health app, an older parent takes several medicines a day while a son or daughter tries to help remotely. Missed doses and unclear stock levels cause worry. Explore a shared, respectful reminder experience that keeps the parent in control.
A fictional payments app lets users approve autopay mandates for subscriptions, but many people don't know what they agreed to or how to stop it. Explore how to make active mandates, upcoming debits and cancellation clear and trustworthy.
Parents want to support their children's homework but struggle when instructions are in English. Explore a hypothetical companion app that helps parents understand the task and guide their child without simply giving answers.
In a fictional 10-minute grocery app, items often go out of stock after the order is placed. Shoppers are surprised by substitutions or partial refunds. Explore how to set substitution preferences and communicate changes quickly and fairly.
A hypothetical city mobility app wants to offer one ticket across metro and buses. Commuters currently juggle cards, cash and multiple apps. Explore planning, paying and validating a multi-modal journey, including delays and transfers.
A fictional public service centre uses walk-in queues that waste whole days. Explore an online slot booking flow that tells people exactly which documents to bring and what happens on arrival.
A hypothetical FMCG company asks field reps to log visits, orders and photos at the end of the day, so data is late and inaccurate. Explore a quick in-visit reporting flow that works on low-end phones and patchy networks.
A fictional residents' association wants better waste segregation, but people are unsure which bin items go into and collection times keep changing. Explore a simple guide and reminder experience for residents and staff.
A hypothetical digital lender uses an automated model to approve or reject small business loans. Applicants who are rejected receive no clear reason or next step. Explore how to explain decisions honestly, show what can be improved, and offer a human review.
A fictional job-matching service is text-heavy, so many intended users can't use it independently. Explore a voice- and picture-led experience for finding and applying to local work, in the user's own language.
A hypothetical workplace tool automatically records meetings and writes AI summaries, but action items get lost and people don't trust the notes. Explore how attendees can review, correct and assign actions so the summary becomes reliable team memory.
A fictional second-hand marketplace sees buyers worried about stolen phones, hidden damage and payment fraud, while honest sellers struggle to prove a phone's condition. Explore how listings, verification and payment can build trust on both sides.
In a hypothetical hospital network, families post urgent blood requests across WhatsApp groups, creating confusion and duplicate calls. Explore a coordinated request and response experience that respects donor eligibility and privacy.
Try a broader search or reset your filters.
A feedback loop, not a finish line
Share a research plan, an early flow, a prototype or a complete case study. Tell Saicharan what you want to improve so the review can focus on your next useful step.
No work is published or featured automatically. You keep ownership of your work; any showcase requires a separate conversation and permission.
Ready for another perspective?
Send a viewable Figma, document or portfolio link. You can request feedback at any stage—even before your first polished screen.
Your name, email, selected brief and work link are sent to Saicharan by email through FormSubmit. Sending a request does not confirm a review time or payment. Read the privacy notice
Share only work you have permission to share. Remove participant names and confidential client information. Your details are used to discuss your review; marketing updates are not requested here.
Prefer to message directly? Open WhatsApp ↗Turn independent practice into guided learning
Learn live online with Saicharan. Explore UX research, interaction design, Figma, testing and portfolio storytelling through the UX/UI course.
Already learning with UXCharan? Include your course details in your message so your review can be coordinated.
Yes. Create your own research and design response, and label it as a self-initiated concept based on a UXCharan practice brief. Link to the brief so readers understand the starting point. Your work remains yours.
No. All 63 briefs are open to students and working designers. Course enrolment is optional. Discuss review scope, timing and any fee by email with Saicharan before a review begins.
Yes. These are open briefs, not exclusive assignments. Your research access, decisions, testing and learning should make your response distinct.
Your request is emailed to Saicharan with the selected brief and your work link. He can then confirm the review arrangements and next steps. Sending an enquiry does not reserve a slot or guarantee a response time.
Only if you separately agree to a showcase. Sending work for feedback does not grant public publishing permission.
Yes. Explain each person’s contribution and disclose material AI assistance. Never substitute generated interviews, quotes or metrics for evidence.
Original practice scenarios, structured around research, exploration, testing and reflection. The following primary sources informed the method and review guidance. They are starting points, not evidence that each hypothetical problem has already been validated.
Editorial review: September 2026. Continue to the resource library →