Skip to content
Say hi (opens in a new tab)

Cyber Dive · 2022 to 2024

Cyber DiveProduct Design Lead2022 to 2024

Turning digital policing into partnership

Cyber Dive’s Real-Time App Approvals Cut Family Tech Conflicts by 63%

Metric
fewer family tech conflicts
63%
parent task completion
+41%
usability SUS score
+64%
parents use at least one tool
93%

Product Design Lead · Cyber Dive

Voice note

Cyber Dive · Product Design

Cyber Dive: Turning digital policing into partnership

4 Months, Launched June 2024

02 The 30-second version

The 30-second version

The challenge

73% of children receive smartphones by age 12. Most parental control tools rely on rigid block-or-allow rules, which feel like surveillance and push kids toward workarounds. Families were fighting over apps, not talking about them.

What I did

Designed a transparent approval flow where kids write their reasoning, parents see app details, privacy labels, and community approvals, then respond with approve, reject with reason, or a trial period. A negotiation, not a verdict.

My role

  • Product Design Lead
  • Led UX research, flows, visual design, and user testing
  • 20 participants tested across UserTesting and Maze platforms
  • 4-month timeline, launched June 2024

The team

  • Anirudh PalaskarProduct Design Lead
  • Abhishek JainUX Researcher Intern
  • Ihtisham ArifDev
  • Shivansh AgarwalAOSP
  • Clement BeschuPM

The key insight

Parents and kids both wanted the same thing: to feel heard. The app wasn't a control tool. It was a conversation tool. Every interaction needed to strengthen trust, not erode it.

The constraints

  • TrustKids needed agency. Any solution that felt like monitoring would be rejected.
  • ContextParents needed more than an app name to decide. They needed ratings, reasons, and signals.
  • TimingDecisions had to happen in seconds, not after kids had already been exposed to harm.

03 Key decisions

Key decisions

  1. 01

    Give kids a voice in the request

    The easy path was a one-tap "request" button. But research showed kids felt unheard when denied without reason. We added a required reasoning field so kids write why they want an app. This turned every request into a moment of communication. Parents reported feeling closer to their kids after approval conversations, not distant.

    Give kids a voice in the request

  2. 02

    Show parents what other parents chose

    Most parents aren't tech-savvy. Asking them to evaluate an app based on name and age rating alone felt unfair. We added community signals showing how many parents approved the same app. This gave non-technical parents confidence to make informed decisions without becoming privacy researchers.

    Show parents what other parents chose

  3. 03

    Rejection with reason, not rejection alone

    A silent "no" felt like surveillance. We made rejection require a parent to pick a reason from pre-written options or write their own. Kids saw the reasoning, understood the "why," and came back with better requests instead of resentment. Conflict dropped by 63% in testing.

    Rejection with reason, not rejection alone

The deep dive

04 Context

Context

73% of children receive smartphones by age 12, entering digital worlds before families are ready.

Traditional parental control tools rely on rigid restrictions that feel more like surveillance than support.

These tools create adversarial dynamics, leading to workarounds, arguments, and eroding trust.

The problemDesign a transparent and collaborative app approval experience that reduces family conflict while preserving trust and autonomy.

Where it hurt

  • All or Nothing ControlApps either fully blocked or completely open, leaving no space for nuanced decisions.
  • Reactive SystemsParents discovered issues only after damage occurred.
  • Broken TrustSurveillance-heavy approaches pushed children toward workarounds and hiding behavior.
  • Daily ConflictsEvery app request became a negotiation, creating constant friction.

Context

Most parental control tools treat the family like adversaries. Block, allow, monitor. The tone is policing. Research showed this adversarial frame created workarounds (kids using friends' phones, hiding app downloads) and eroded trust in both directions.

The Pivot

During user interviews, a mom said: 'I don't want to spy on him. I want him to talk to me.' That line reframed everything. We stopped designing a monitoring tool and started designing a negotiation interface. The parental control category became a family communication category.

Results

Task completion rate increased 41%. Usability SUS score improved 64%. Most importantly: 63% fewer reported conflicts between parents and children about app access. The product stopped being something parents forced on kids and became something families used together.

05 Research

Research

Secondary Research

  1. 93% use at least one parental control or safety tool.
  2. 83% believe they’re responsible for child’s online safety.
  3. 71% report their child has experienced online harm.
  4. 66% say technology has made parenting more challenging.

Industry reports and academic papers on digital parentingAdoption, harm, and trust studies

Competitive Analysis

  1. Most tools rely on push/email notifications; approvals arrive late or get missed.
  2. Parents see only app name and age rating. Privacy cues and risk signals missing.
  3. Flows default to approve/deny. Time-bound or conditional options absent.

Studied leading tools using matrix of triggers, context, decision options, and guardrails

Quantitative Survey

  1. Most parents aren’t tech-savvy. They need contextual help at decision time.
  2. Parents want information like age rating, privacy labels, and child’s reasoning.
  3. Denials need to communicate the "why" so children understand.

Structured Maze survey with UserTesting-recruited parentsScreened for smartphone-owning parents of kids 6-16

06 Design pillars

Design pillars

  • 01Proactive GuidanceIntervene before damage, not after.
  • 02Contextual TransparencyGive parents the information they need at the moment of decision.
  • 03Relationship PreservationEvery interaction should strengthen trust, not erode it.

07 User flows

User flows

Child Request FlowI want a voice in the conversation. Explain why apps matter and let me feel my input shapes decisions.

  1. 1Download app from Play Store
  2. 2App gated post-download
  3. 3Child writes reason for wanting the app
  4. 4Request sent to parent
Child Request FlowChild Request Flow

Parent Decision FlowI want confidence in my child’s choices with simple permission management.

  1. 1Receive notification with context
  2. 2View app details, ratings, privacy labels
  3. 3See child’s reasoning
  4. 4Approve, reject with reason, or set trial period
Parent Decision FlowParent Decision Flow

08 Usability testing

Usability testing

Participants
20 participants across UserTesting and Maze platforms
Method
Three-phase: pilot validation, quantitative metrics (heatmaps, completion rates), qualitative feedback

Tasks

  1. Respond to an app access request from your child
  2. Set a conditional approval with time limits
  3. Review and manage past decisions

What broke, and what changed

  • Confusing Reminder Notifications21% of parents couldn’t clearly distinguish reminder notifications from regular ones.Grouped repeated notifications into single card.
  • Confusing Homepage ButtonsUsers often tapped wrong button because CTA labels looked too similar.Introduced animated icon and highlighted banner.
  • Insufficient Data PointsParents said app details weren’t enough for clear choices.Added community-based approval insights.

09 Before and after

Before and after

Before / after
Before: Multiple reminders for same app appeared separately, creating unclear tracking.
After: Grouped repeated notifications into single card, helping parents track active requests easily.

Confusing Reminder Notifications

BeforeMultiple reminders for same app appeared separately, creating unclear tracking.

AfterGrouped repeated notifications into single card, helping parents track active requests easily.

Before / after
Before: Static red notification icon didn’t clearly signal urgency.
After: Introduced animated icon and highlighted homepage banner drawing attention to priority notifications.

Confusing Homepage Buttons

BeforeStatic red notification icon didn’t clearly signal urgency.

AfterIntroduced animated icon and highlighted homepage banner drawing attention to priority notifications.

Before / after
Before: Parents only saw comments from children, making it difficult gauging app safety.
After: Added community-based insights showing how many parents approved same app.

Insufficient Data Points

BeforeParents only saw comments from children, making it difficult gauging app safety.

AfterAdded community-based insights showing how many parents approved same app.

10 Gallery

Gallery

Cyber Dive, screen 1Cyber Dive, screen 2Cyber Dive, screen 3Cyber Dive, screen 4Cyber Dive, screen 5Cyber Dive, screen 6Cyber Dive, screen 7Cyber Dive, screen 8

11 Reflections

Reflections

  1. Trust Yourself

    Speaking up and sharing ideas confidently, because every perspective adds value.

  2. Keep Everyone in the Loop

    Open cross-functional team communication kept goals aligned and reduced rework.

  3. Validate Ideas Early with Developers

    Collaborating with developers early ensured designs were practical and easy to build.

12 Next in the file

Next projectCyber Dive · Aqua X2022 to 2024Aqua XRecovery center operations, rewritten for residentsOpen the case study

All nine case studies