Case study, 2024
A team project designing an AI-powered tool to help students create CVs and portfolios that actually stand out.
↑ Live prototype — click through it. Open in Figma ↗
01 — The problem
Students rely on Canva and Word for CVs and portfolios, but templates are recycled across thousands of applicants. The goal: build an AI tool that helps students move faster without producing generic, AI-flavoured output.
02 — Research
We ran semi-structured interviews with five undergraduates across design, architecture, data science, sociology, and commerce, then ran a thematic analysis on the transcripts.
"Their templates are quite similar. If everyone applying for the same job is using Canva, then our style is quite similar."
— Participant 1Worry that AI wording reads as generic to employers.
Documents need to reflect individual style.
Canva and Word — useful but template-heavy.
Formatting, professional phrasing, time pressure.
Workshops cover basics but not layout craft.
Auto colour coordination and AI detection.
03 — Process
Mapped each theme to a feature: ease of use → AI chatbot. Need for originality → AI detector. Customisation → drag-and-drop toolbar.
Each member sketched screens individually; we merged the strongest into a 12-page paper prototype covering the full flow.
High-fidelity build in orange and blue — energy and trust. Component variants let us animate without duplicating pages.
04 — Features
Onboarding
No blank canvas — a chatbot asks for name, field, and style preference, then generates a tailored template.
Authenticity
Scores how AI-generated sections look, and flags wording for humanisation. Tackles the "employers can tell" concern head-on.
Customisation
Drag in sections, images, and layout blocks. An inline "AI suggested text" bar acts as a writing assistant — not a ghostwriter.
Portfolio mode
Upload an existing portfolio for AI-flagged suggestions and an "Animate with AI" feature that turns static work into interactive visuals.
05 — Testing
Live testing via Zoom with five participants. 22 tasks each, followed by a short post-trial interview.
"It was very straightforward and to the point, unlike those other websites that do so much unnecessary stuff. This was so easy to use."
— Participant 106 — Reflection
The biggest tension was simplicity vs. depth. Efficiency users loved the minimal interface; design-led users wanted more control. In a production version this calls for tiered modes rather than one fixed UI.
Every usability issue we caught — unclear drag-and-drop, overlapping help button, fixed placeholders — surfaced in testing. A reminder of how much value even a small think-aloud round delivers.
The biggest surprise: the ethical dimension. AI can quietly help users misrepresent themselves. Designing guardrails like the AI detector became part of the responsibility, not just a feature.