EVO · Cochlear · Nucleus Smart App
The Nucleus Smart App had grown past the experience it was originally designed around. More device combinations, accessories, Remote Care and platform changes were exposing the limits of the existing interaction model.
I helped start EVO and led much of the early audit, research and product-direction work, before moving into connection and controls design.
The Nucleus Smart App was originally built around a simpler product ecosystem. Each new device or capability made the existing interaction model harder to extend cleanly.
Over time it had to support more processors, bilateral and bimodal configurations, off-the-ear devices, accessories, Remote Care and new platform capabilities such as Bluetooth LE Audio.
The brief shifted from refreshing the UI to rethinking a product structure that could absorb new devices and capabilities.
01 / Connecting hearing devices
Connecting a hearing device wasn’t a single happy path. The experience had to account for different device configurations, operating systems, existing pairing states and recovery scenarios.
I mapped the underlying technical logic, explored the experience across those conditions and worked with product, engineering and recipients to turn that complexity into a more consistent connection model.
I mapped how device state, OS pairing and different configurations shaped the existing journey, then used that model to define a simpler future connection experience.
I worked through the interaction model across different device configurations, operating systems and pairing states, looking for patterns we could make consistent without ignoring platform-specific constraints.
These are selected explorations from a much larger set of connection and recovery scenarios.
I facilitated design workshops and stakeholder reviews with product, engineering and clinical teams to work through technical constraints, explore alternative approaches and align on the connection experience.
These sessions helped us identify edge cases, challenge assumptions and refine the interaction model. I then tested key concepts with recipients, using their feedback to inform further iterations.
I brought those paths into a consistent interaction model, using shared patterns for discovery, identification, verification and connection while allowing for platform and device-specific differences.
This representative iOS journey shows one resolved experience within the broader connection system.
Connecting hearing devices meant accommodating different platforms, device types and starting points, without making recipients navigate the underlying technical complexity.
Through iterative design and usability testing, I refined how the experience guides people through device selection, pairing and verification, while allowing them to complete setup or connect additional devices.
01 / Device selection
Different sound processors and hearing aids required different setup instructions. The experience helped recipients identify their device and follow the appropriate connection path, with compatibility guidance when needed.
02 / Guided setup
Technical requirements such as restarting devices and enabling discovery were translated into guided actions. Usability testing helped identify where people overlooked instructions and where additional guidance was needed.
03 / Flexible completion
A clear completion state allowed recipients to finish connecting their device or continue with another. Separating essential connection from optional audio setup also helped reduce confusion identified during testing.
Across multiple rounds of usability testing, we refined device discovery, verification and completion. In the second round, all eight participants understood that selecting “Finish setup” completed the device setup process.
02 / Device Controls
As the Nucleus Smart App expanded across more devices, configurations and capabilities, the control experience became increasingly difficult to extend without adding more complexity.
I led the work to rethink the control model, using product behaviour, recipient research, clinical and technical input, workshops and repeated usability testing to understand what needed to be immediately accessible and how those controls should behave across different hearing setups.
The challenge was to make the right adjustment easy to find and use in the moment it mattered, without exposing the complexity underneath.
Usage data · Recipient research · Workshops · Interaction modelling · Concept testing · Usability testing
I started by analysing how recipients used the existing controls, looking for patterns that challenged our assumptions about which adjustments mattered most.
Sensitivity stood out. Among recipients using it, adjustments were roughly twice as frequent as Volume, despite the control being harder to find and understand.
I also examined programme usage and different hearing configurations to understand which functions were used most frequently and how needs varied across recipients.
The data showed that everyday programme use was concentrated around a few common choices, while the experience needed to accommodate unilateral, bilateral and bimodal users.
The data told us where to investigate, not what to design.
The usage data gave us a signal, but not the reason behind it. Across multiple rounds of research, I looked at how recipients adjusted their hearing in everyday situations, what they were trying to achieve, and where the existing controls got in the way.
We looked beyond individual settings to understand behaviour across volume, sensitivity, programs, audio sources and different device configurations.
14 recipients · 3 regions · bilateral + bimodal · behavioural research
People adjusted their hearing to respond to specific environments and listening situations.
Technical language and hidden functionality made some controls difficult to understand or use with confidence.
Some recipients actively experimented with settings, while others preferred familiar configurations or relied heavily on clinical guidance.
I synthesised the research into a behavioural model showing how changes in context, hearing goals and support needs shaped the actions recipients took.
The research shifted the question from “which controls should we expose?” to “how should the experience adapt to what people are actually trying to achieve?”
I facilitated workshops and design jams to explore how controls could be organised, prioritised and adjusted across different hearing devices and configurations.
We challenged existing interaction patterns and explored unified versus independent control, programs, audio sources, noise filters and more intuitive ways of accessing advanced settings.
The most promising ideas were developed into a more structured interaction model, bringing together devices, audio sources and different adjustment states.
Once the structure had narrowed, the next step was to turn the remaining questions into testable prototypes and see where the model still broke down.
I translated the emerging control model into interactive prototypes and tested them with recipients to understand whether the hierarchy, interactions and terminology made sense.
The studies helped identify where people struggled to find controls, understand device states and distinguish between different adjustments.
Testing highlighted opportunities to clarify feature terminology, distinguish device status from interactive controls, and improve how recipients understood linked and independent adjustments.
These findings informed further iterations, helping us move towards a clearer and more consistent control experience.
The design didn’t move in a straight line. Each round of exploration and testing simplified the hierarchy, clarified how controls should behave across different device configurations, and helped us discard ideas that introduced unnecessary complexity.
The final iterations clarified device states and brought priority adjustments closer to the main experience.
The final direction brought the core controls into a clearer hierarchy while supporting different device configurations and deeper functionality when needed.
Recipients could move between unified and independent control, access priority adjustments quickly, and open programs, audio sources and more advanced settings without overwhelming the main experience.
Unified + independent control · bilateral + bimodal support · programs · ForwardFocus · audio sources
The result was a clearer, more scalable control model designed to accommodate both everyday adjustments and the growing complexity of the wider Cochlear device ecosystem.
I worked with product and marketing to build support for EVO, then carried the direction into detailed connection and controls design.
Identified the app’s limits and wider ecosystem needs.
Product leadership helped secure funding.
Connection and controls moved into repeated testing.
Onboarding entered development.
The supplied ecosystem infographic is a portfolio reconstruction. The connection logic, low-fidelity exploration and iOS onboarding images are original project artefacts supplied for this case study, with their annotations intact. The connection model and decision flows are reconstructed summaries. The connection and controls images are original prototype excerpts. The EVO hero and CHD product-detail images were supplied for this portfolio. Research findings are paraphrased from the November 2024 connection review with eight recipients and the February 2025 controls concept test with five recipients. Participant-level results and confidential technical details are omitted.
Status reflects what I knew when I left Cochlear in May 2025. Onboarding and connection had entered development; controls had been defined and tested. Subsequent release is not confirmed here.
Available for senior contract product design, strategy and consulting.
franswalt01@gmail.com