Picking a restaurant is a coordination problem, not a discovery one. The hard part was never finding restaurants — it's getting five people to converge on one. Group chats stall on the same things every time: too many opinions, dietary needs nobody keeps track of, and the polite deadlock where everyone says "I don't mind, you choose." The decision gets made by whoever gives up last. So the design question wasn't "how do we list places?" It was how do we help a group agree — fast, and without anyone feeling responsible for the choice.
Client:
Self-initiated concept
My Role:
UI / UX Designer
Year:
2026
Service Provided:
UX/UI
I prototyped four ways to bring a group into a shared lobby, each trading speed against clarity: a guided step wizard, a dense one-sheet host screen, a playful card-by-card flow, and a lobby-first model where the group sets filters together. I shipped the wizard's clarity — one decision per screen — but borrowed the lobby-first idea of shared filters. Guests add their own dietary needs when they join, so the host isn't the gatekeeper, and no one gets blamed for the pick.
How it works
Splash — the pitch, "Stop arguing. Start eating." Guests join with a code, no account required.
Filters — distance, budget and dietary needs; anyone in the lobby can add their own.
Lobby — a shared room code with live presence; swiping unlocks once the crew joins.
Swipe — a familiar card deck, but shared, with dietary matches called out ("Matches Tara's vegetarian picks").
Match — names everyone who agreed, then offers directions, a reservation, or a lock-in.
Reflection
NoshMatch is a bet that the problem is social, not about discovery — people don't need more options, they need a faster way to agree. Taken further, I'd want to test how it holds up with larger groups, how the shared filters feel in real time, and whether the sixty-second promise survives contact with a hungry, indecisive crew.