Helping runners understand their consistency and take the next step within their training plan.
UX/UI
AI Coaching app
“Am I being consistent?” should be easy to answer.
Runners told us they wanted a clearer way to track their consistency. Plan showed the schedule, but it did not give that feedback an obvious home. I needed to make consistency easy to notice, explain what sat behind the score, and help runners decide what to do next.
My role covered the feature experience and interface within URUNN’s existing product language. This case focuses on the consistency-score update to Plan, rather than the broader zero-to-one product.
The design goal: make consistency visible, explain what contributes to it, and connect the explanation to useful plan actions.
Show the signal. Reveal the detail.
The score sits beneath the plan-progress card, where runners already review their training. A dedicated detail view separates the headline score from pace, distance and completion, then offers relevant actions.
01 / Notice — A compact gauge makes consistency visible without replacing the weekly plan.
02 / Understand — Pace, distance and completion explain the dimensions behind the headline number.
03 / Respond — Suggested actions connect the score to adjusting paces, managing the plan and moving runs.
Reconstructed wireframes explaining the design rationale, created for this case study.
Score at a glance
Open score details
Weekly training context
Headline score
Plan progress
Explain the score
Pace · Distance · Completion
Understand the breakdown
Support the next step
Relevant plan actions
See what contributes
User research: questions to validate
Can runners find the score, explain what it means and identify a useful next action? Would a lower score feel informative or discouraging?
Proposed interview and usability guide. Record the participant’s interpretation before explaining the feature; separate observations, quotes and design hypotheses.
From feedback to a useful action.
A reconstructed journey turns the reported need into four questions: where am I, why, what can I change, and how do I return to my plan?
Notice
01
See consistency beside the plan.
Understand
02
Review pace, distance and completion.
Choose
03
Find a relevant adjustment.
Return
04
Continue with the updated plan.
UX flow reconstructed from the feature screens and the reported user feedback.
First week · Explain when the score becomes available, rather than showing an unexplained empty state.
Locked · Distinguish access restrictions from a lack of training history.
Hidden · Keep the plan useful when a runner chooses not to see their score.
Settings · Make the visibility preference easy to find and change.
Start with the question behind the feedback
Make consistency easier to recognise
Users wanted a clear, obvious way to track consistency. Plan already told them what to run; the missing piece was a readable signal of how their training was going. That made Plan the natural place for the feature.
A visible number is only the beginning
A score can be easy to notice and still difficult to interpret. I separated the headline signal from its explanation, so runners could first recognise their score, then explore pace, distance and completion without crowding the weekly schedule.
The research question to explore next
A follow-up interview would start with a recent training week: what was planned, what happened and how the runner judged their consistency. Showing the prototype afterwards would reveal whether the score matches that existing understanding. This is a proposed guide, not a completed interview study.
Turn feedback into a specific decision
For future testing, separate observed behaviour, the runner’s own words and the design interpretation. Confusion about the score calls for clearer explanation; difficulty finding it calls for a hierarchy change. Those should not be treated as the same problem.
Four decisions behind the feature
Keep the score in the training context
I placed the compact gauge below programme progress, keeping it close to the weekly training context. A separate destination would make it easier to miss; showing the full explanation on Plan would compete with the schedule. The summary-and-detail structure balances those needs.
Explain the dimensions behind the score
I paired the headline gauge with pace, distance and completion so the number had context. Runners could move from “how am I doing?” to “what contributes to this?” without overloading the first screen. The interface examples illustrate the design, not measured outcomes.
Connect reflection to a relevant next action
Understanding the score needed to lead somewhere useful. I connected the breakdown to plan actions such as adjusting paces and moving runs. The manage-plan sheet also accommodates illness, injury, holidays and breaks, so the next step can reflect real life.
Give runners control over visibility
I made the score optional. A runner can hide it in Settings while retaining the plan and training controls. That preserves a useful planning experience for people who do not want a score, without making the feature harder for others to discover.
Make the feature work beyond the ideal week
Design the states around the main journey
The feature needed to make sense beyond the default screen. I designed first-week, locked and hidden states alongside the visible score. Each answers a different question: when will it appear, why is it unavailable, or how does Plan work without it?
Carry the decision into plan management
A score is useful only if it leads to a relevant next step. The supporting flow connects to plan management, adding activity and reordering runs. Cancel and Confirm make a change reviewable before it is committed, while the confirmation closes the loop.
Test comprehension before celebrating engagement
A proposed usability check: find the score, explain its dimensions, choose an appropriate plan adjustment and hide the feature. Record misunderstandings as well as successful actions. A low score should be understandable without feeling like a judgement; more taps alone would not demonstrate that.
A three- and six-month learning plan
At three months, I would review discovery, comprehension and the next actions taken. At six months, I would examine repeat use, visibility preferences and continued plan use. Confusion would prompt clearer explanations; unhelpful recommendations would prompt different actions. These are proposed checkpoints, not measured outcomes.
A clearer view of consistency.
From a number to a useful next step.
The design gives the original feedback a direct response: consistency is visible in Plan, its dimensions are explained in detail, and relevant adjustments are close at hand. Runners can understand the signal without losing the training context or control over whether they see it.
The result shown is the designed experience. The next step is to validate comprehension and emotional response with runners, then evaluate use after release.
What successful understanding would look like
A runner can find the score, explain its dimensions, choose an appropriate next action and control its visibility. Those behaviours provide a more useful evaluation than treating a higher score or more taps as success by themselves.
Post-launch performance and three- or six-month impact have not been verified. No uplift or testing results are claimed.