Problem + Opportunity
Students struggle to navigate large, complex college campuses, especially indoors. Tools like Google Maps only get them to a building entrance, not a specific classroom, elevator, or ramp. This leads to confusion, lateness, and stress.
Our goal was to create a centralized tool offering real-time, accessible indoor navigation tailored to student routines and mobility needs.
Research
Stakeholder Interviews revealed institutional needs around ADA compliance, first-year onboarding, and smart campus expansion.
User Research: 6 interviews and usability tests; 7 survey responses. 100% had missed or been late to class due to navigation issues. 71.4% had recurring confusion inside buildings.
Key quotes:
"Google Maps doesn't help once you're inside."
"I kept walking into the wrong room."
"I'd use this if it told me which elevator to take."
We also conducted a competitive audit of MazeMap, Pointr, and IndoorAtlas, identifying major gaps in accessibility routing, real-time updates, and higher-ed focus.
Market Sizing
TAM (Total Addressable Market): 235M global higher-ed students. At $1.50/user/year, this represents a $352.5M opportunity.
SAM (Serviceable Available Market): 19M U.S. students. Targeting freshmen and students with accessibility needs (~5.7M users) equates to an $8.5M market.
SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market): Big Ten and urban campuses (~500K students). Focusing on 125K high-need users, with a 25% adoption goal, results in 31K users and $47K in Year 1 revenue.
Understanding the Audience
Personas:
First-year students unfamiliar with campus
Students with mobility or sensory needs
Busy students managing tight class schedules
Key Jobs to Be Done:
Find classrooms efficiently
Receive alerts about elevator outages or blockages
Navigate without crowds or stairs
Design Process
Started with lo-fi sketches, followed by mid-fidelity wireframes and a functional prototype. Flows included search, filtering, accessibility settings, and route visualizations.
Design decisions emphasized clarity, customization, and device flexibility. AR and high-contrast options were designed to reduce cognitive load and improve accessibility.
Testing & Feedback
Methods: Task-based usability testing and post-test interviews.
100% completed core tasks (finding routes, toggling accessibility settings)
86% preferred EchoNav over existing tools
Feedback prompted refinements to onboarding clarity, icon labeling, and interaction patterns.
Final Design Highlights
Key Screens:
Home dashboard with personalized routes
Filterable search (e.g., step-free, quiet)
Map view with alternate paths
Accessibility settings and AR toggle
If I Had More Time…
If I had more time beyond our 10-week timeline, I would have focused on deepening the inclusivity, scalability, and real-world validation of EchoNav:
Conduct broader accessibility testing
I’d run usability sessions with students using screen readers, mobility aids, and low-tech devices to ensure EchoNav works seamlessly across assistive technologies and abilities.Pilot a functional MVP with real data
Integrating campus-specific IoT inputs (e.g. elevator outage feeds, foot traffic sensors) would help validate our real-time routing engine in practice.Expand institutional outreach
I would engage with more university accessibility offices, orientation programs, and DEI committees to co-design deployment strategies and better understand institutional barriers.Test alternative business models
Exploring bundled pricing tiers (e.g., per department, per orientation cycle) or grant-funded rollouts would help EchoNav stay sustainable while maximizing its impact.Refine AR guidance experience
With access to ARKit or ARCore and beacon hardware, I would prototype spatial overlays within a real building to test orientation accuracy and user comfort.