Seenova
- Role
- Product Designer (freelance)
- Timeline
- 2023–25
- Platform
- Creative Communication Agency
- Teammate
- Alireza Gharibi — Rive
Overview
Product logic before the interface — then something operable.
Seenova is a creative communication agency. On a freelance engagement from 2023 to 2025 I framed behaviour, shaped interaction, and left prototypes the team could click through — not decks they could only admire. Design Technologist work: close the loop before the polish pass.
The interface arrived late on purpose. By then the argument was already sharper: who the product was for, what had to be true, and which interactions carried the work.
The Challenge
The product still needed a spine.
Without a clear model of users, jobs and interaction rules, every new screen reopened basic questions. The risk was not ugly UI — it was a product that could not explain itself to the people building it, or to the people using it.
Scope stayed freelance-tight. Detail that sits under NDA stays off this page; what remains is the shape of the work.
Constraints
- Freelance scope — architecture and interaction had to be legible after handoff.
- Product UI detail under NDA; only process shape and an operable file are public.
- No polish pass before the behaviour model was agreed.
- Prototypes had to be operable, not ornamental.
Research & Discovery
Frame the problem before sketching the fix.
Discovery stayed close to the work itself: clarifying who the product had to serve, what each group needed to accomplish, and which interactions were load-bearing. Evidence over ornament. Behaviour over opinion.
Methods
- User and job framing — who it serves, and what has to be true.
- Interaction inventory: paths, states and handoffs that carry the work.
- Prototype-led validation instead of static-screen review.
- Handoff naming — states and flows left in a form engineering can build from.
The invisible decisions that shape how people move through a product matter more than the pixels they notice.
What the evidence changed
- Several early screen ideas were premature — the spine was still missing.
- Load-bearing interactions mattered more than decorative ones; the order of work flipped.
- An operable prototype changed what stakeholders argued about: behaviour, not appearance.
Process
Frame, shape, prototype, hand off.
-
01
Frame the product
Who it serves, what has to be true, and which decisions belong before any screen.
-
02
Shape the interaction
Paths, states and handoffs — the behaviour people take when nobody is watching.
-
03
Prototype until operable
Interactive prototypes the team could click through — not a deck they could only admire.
-
04
Handoff without translation tax
Names, states and flows left in a form engineering could build from — judgment stayed human.
The Solution
A product spine the team could build on.
Interactive prototype
Move over the stage — an operable Rive file instead of a before / after slide. Rive implemented by Alireza Gharibi.
Interactive prototype
Architecture
Who it is for, and what has to be true before a screen makes sense.
Interaction
Flows designed as behaviour — not as decoration layered on late.
Prototype
Something clickable, testable, and wrongable — before production.
Outcomes
What moved.
- Product architecture framed before the interface arrived.
- Interaction model the team could argue with and build from.
- Interactive prototypes — operable, not ornamental.
- Handoff without translation tax — names, states and flows engineering could use.
What held.
- Delaying the interface until the spine existed saved more time than any polish pass would have. Screens answered themselves once the rules were clear.
- Operable prototypes changed the review. Stakeholders argued about behaviour instead of taste.
- Freelance scope is not a reason to leave judgment implicit. Naming states at handoff is what made the work survivable after I left.
