What we need is assistive technologies that complement our deficits. I won't use an app to just log I did something, but I will use an app if it's crucial to do that activity, and it makes it easier for me to do so.
What we need is assistive technologies that complement our deficits. I won't use an app to just log I did something, but I will use an app if it's crucial to do that activity, and it makes it easier for me to do so.
(2) Relying on, and committing to, an app like this has high requirements of diligence for efficacy; in an age of extractive apps, users might doubt even promising apps, and be less prone to adopt or maintain. So there's a yawning participation gap.
Relying on AI for the interactivity/liveness to maintain participation could work, but actually then puts a lot of quality pressure on the AI. The first off tone could prompt escape. How do you scale QA for that?
So, I'd think this needs to be coupled with social factors: testimonials and community building.
Efficacy testimonials would distinguish this from other self-management apps. Allowing users to gift others the app would spread the word. Providing users an in-app way to share feedback could help with QA, particularly if it was validated by others' responses. e.g., "I don't like this phrasing. It sounds like x." reply: "yeah, others agree so we're working on that" or "we'll look into it" Maybe only people who participate diligently get the ability to gift the app to others (but I would steer clear of obvious incentives/kickbacks).
I think the killer feature would be dedication to reporting actual feedback. Admit that it won't work for everyone, require feedback on whether it's working, and post that feedback to all users. Then work on improving it, either by fixing the app or selecting users better. That would given people confidence and mitigate the loneliness. Users should feel that they're not only helping themselves, but helping others like them. To me that commitment to others often gets me over a momentary lack of commitment to my larger self.
One needs to spend less time on devices. Go analogue. Pen and paper. The best tool that I have found is the Bullet Journal Method. It takes time, effort, and there is a learning curve. The ROI is higher than from any app. No other tool has impacted my life and productivity more.
That said, I have found some tertiary apps to be helpful, though my BuJo is my compass. Endel for time boxing/Pomodoro, and sleep. Headspace for guided meditation.
No, it doesn’t have to be aesthetic, with pretty lettering and doodles (as seen in social media).Why are you (indirectly by omission) asking a cohort of people who need information to be direct, to redirect? That's a serious market/message mismatch.
> Our care team has skewed the landing page to be a bit more of "show the benefit" rather than the functionality
That is what the snake oil industry does. Or enterprise sales. Even cults. ("Look at what we say these people say about us!" "We have a solution to your problem! [restated several times in different ways]!"
I am baffled by the term "care team" in this context.
I find that being concrete and credible, instead of asking people who don't know you for trust and unrewarded interest out of the gate, is a much better way to communicate something that is real.
If you do have a way to help ADHD people, I wish you luck communicating that. As an ADHD person myself, I have system creation/adoption fatigue. You seem to be aware of this. So be very direct about exactly what you do that helps, so someone that has tried many things, i.e. a sophisticated customer by necessity, can judge anything you say. (As they say in science, non-testable claims are not worth much. When marketing solutions to serious problems, this relates to the first thing you show people.)
I used Shimmer in 2022. The app had poor UX and frequent bugs, and the core offering (weekly Google Meet sessions with a “coach”) felt like generic self-help and not personalized coaching. The promised between-session support mostly consisted of DM'd article links, even after I raised that concern directly.
The sessions themselves often felt unprofessional, with background noise, unstable connections, and poor audio quality. The coach WFM'd on their couch during call. Given the price (hundreds of dollars per month at the time), the gap between what was marketed and what was delivered was significant.
Hopefully the new product addresses these issues, but I’d encourage people evaluating it to look at Shimmer’s prior execution and customer feedback, not just the announcement.
Can't speak for everyone, but as one guy - I wish lol. I'm just raw dogging life - to use Gen Z (or is it Alpha?) lingo.
(I wanted to add a sarcastic thing to my message but I'm too tired to even do that without sounding rude.)
The landing page sucks. In my first impression my eyes immediately darted to the animated graphics/webms. The text reads like it was written by AI with the sentences in triplets everywhere. Immediately my trust for this site (which was finicky at first) has already gone down. If you can't sustain my attention in the banner, what makes me think you can sustain my attention for the app? Be direct - show me what your app does at a glance. My attention is very scarce and very expensive, don't waste it on vague niceties or depend on me to trust you on what you say other people are saying about your app. I feel like you're trying to cheat me out of own autonomy when you're selling me something (even if it's free, my time = money) that I have no idea what it does until I get to the FAQ. My 2c - put the FAQ in the very top, with the questions "Is this just another AI chatbot?" and "How does Indy fit with ADHD coaching or other support?" in order with minimized distractions. This tells me what your product is and what it isn't at face value.