Zeya Chen Discusses the Vision Behind the NEXUS Life Jacket System

Winning three Gold Awards from IAA this year—both the MUSE Design Award and MUSE Creative Award for the NEXUS intelligent life jacket, as well as the NY Product Design Award for Steelcase's Steelbox platform—validates something I deeply believe in: that exceptional design emerges from the union of creative excellence and scientific rigor. These aren’t just aesthetically compelling products—they’re grounded in behavioral research and real user needs.

These recognitions affirm that the design community values work that goes beyond surface solutions. Whether it’s emergency safety technology or enterprise furniture customization, the common thread lies in designs that balance human behavior, technical constraints, and real-world impact.

Winning three Gold Awards has validated my approach of bridging design practice with research rigor. It has strengthened my credibility in both worlds—being recognized for design excellence while contributing to academic research shows that these two paths are not separate but complementary.

The recognition has also given me a platform to advocate for research-informed design. It demonstrates that work grounded in understanding human behavior resonates with both the commercial design community and academic institutions—proving there is real value in being fluent in both the language of practice and the language of research.

Experimentation is essential—but for me, it’s structured experimentation grounded in research methodology. I don’t just try things and see what works; I form hypotheses, test them systematically, and learn from the data.

For NEXUS, we experimented with different alert mechanisms—visual, auditory, and haptic feedback—to determine what truly captures attention in emergency scenarios. We built prototypes and tested them under simulated stress conditions. What we discovered was surprising: the combination that felt most “urgent” in calm testing wasn’t the most effective under actual cognitive load. People responded better to simpler, more distinct signals. That experimental insight fundamentally shaped the final interface design.

This is where my research background becomes invaluable. I know how to design valid experiments, control variables, and interpret results. For me, experimentation isn’t just creative play—it’s a rigorous process that uncovers what actually works versus what we only assume will.

I draw inspiration from behavioral science research and theories. While most designers look to other design work, I’m inspired by academic studies on human decision-making. Understanding concepts such as loss aversion and cognitive biases helps me design systems that align with people’s natural tendencies rather than work against them.

For NEXUS, insights from behavioral science guided how we communicated critical information—framing feedback around potential loss rather than maintaining status, because research shows that people respond more strongly to avoiding loss than to preserving gains.

Great design requires rigorous investigation, not just creativity. There’s a common misconception that design is primarily about aesthetics or intuition, but the most impactful work comes from a deep understanding of behavioral patterns, technological constraints, and systemic implications.

For the intelligent life jacket, this meant studying how people make decisions under stress, how wearable technology can ensure safety while respecting privacy, and how to design for vulnerable populations most at risk. My research background in behavioral science and privacy technologies doesn’t limit creativity—it uncovers opportunities others might overlook.

The best designers are also researchers, asking critical questions that push beyond obvious solutions.

Each project presented unique challenges.

For NEXUS, the intelligent life jacket, I was designing for emergency situations where users operate under extreme stress while integrating smart technology that feels intuitive rather than overwhelming. Traditional life jackets are passive—but adding intelligence introduces complexity, which can be dangerous in emergencies.

Drawing from my experience with behavioral research organizations and public health initiatives, I approached it scientifically: studying how people process information under stress, what triggers effective emergency responses, and how to design interfaces that remain functional when cognitive load is highest.

We conducted behavioral studies to understand decision-making patterns in crisis scenarios. This research-informed approach allowed us to create something both technologically sophisticated and deeply respectful of human behavior and rights.

For Steelcase’s Steelbox, the challenge was entirely different—creating a furniture customization platform that balances enterprise-level complexity with intuitive user experience. Commercial furniture involves countless configuration options, pricing variables, and workflow requirements.

I needed to understand how design teams make decisions, what information they need at each stage, and how to streamline complex processes without oversimplifying them. The research approach remained the same: observe real behavior, identify pain points, and design solutions that work with human tendencies rather than against them.

I shift between making and thinking. When I’m stuck on a design problem, I often dive into research papers—something completely different from the project at hand. Privacy studies, behavioral economics, HCI research. This cross-pollination of ideas often sparks unexpected connections.

I also believe in the power of physical making. Sometimes I’ll work with my hands on something unrelated—sketching, prototyping with paper, even cooking. There’s something about tactile creation that unlocks different thinking patterns than screen-based work.

But honestly, my best creative breakthroughs come from talking to the people who will actually use what I’m designing. When I’m blocked, it’s usually because I’m solving the wrong problem or making assumptions that aren’t grounded in reality. Getting out of my head and back into the world—observing, listening, testing—almost always reveals the path forward.

Equity and empowerment for underserved communities are at the core of my work. My research focuses on people often overlooked by mainstream technology, and this mission drives my design practice. The intelligent life jacket embodies this belief. Water safety technology has long been one-size-fits-all, yet drowning rates disproportionately affect certain communities. I aimed to create something more accessible and responsive to diverse needs.

I also believe in ethical behavioral intervention to improve transparency in human-computer interaction. Every design decision I make considers privacy, security, and data governance. In an era where products increasingly collect user data, designers have a responsibility to advocate for privacy-preserving approaches. For me, this isn’t just a principle—it’s a research specialization that shapes everything I create.

Develop a research practice alongside your design practice. The designers who create transformative work aren’t just skilled makers—they’re investigators who deeply understand human behavior, technology systems, and societal impacts.

Research doesn’t limit creativity—it reveals possibilities that might otherwise go unseen. When you understand how people actually behave, what concerns they have, and how technologies may evolve, you can design solutions that are both innovative and grounded.

Also, embrace working across disciplines. My background spans product design, UX/UI design, and behavioral research, and each layer adds new dimensions. The most interesting problems exist at intersections—between design and security, between technology and ethics, between individual needs and systemic change.

“What’s something you’ve learned from research that completely changed how you design?”

That personal data management isn’t a technical problem—it’s a behavioral design problem. Most products treat data as something users should “manage” through settings and permissions, but research shows that people don’t think about their data that way. They think about contexts, relationships, and consequences.

My research specialization in behavioral design and personal data management has shown me that giving people more control doesn’t mean giving them more options—it means designing systems that align with how they naturally make decisions about sharing information.

For NEXUS, this meant the life jacket only collects and transmits data during actual emergencies, matching people’s mental model of “help me when I need it; otherwise, leave me alone.” For Steelbox, it meant understanding how enterprise users think about configuration data—not as individual fields to manage, but as design decisions with business implications.

This shift from “data control” to “data behavior” has fundamentally changed how I approach any product that touches user information. When you design around actual human behavior with data, rather than idealized notions of privacy management, you create systems that people actually trust and use.