TOOLS

HTML & CSS
Photoshop
Illustrator
+ Powertools

TEAM

Caitlyn Ralph
Zina Bazarbashi

D.N.ATING

a highly efficient speed dating system, that uses DNA data, which includes genetic biologies and personality traits, as well as individuals’ online behavioral patterns, to ensure maximum compatibility between daters.

Background & Context

How would dating evolve in a world with 100% DNA governmental enforced transparency, and over saturation of virtual dating applications?

It’s the future, and there are hundreds of dating apps. People have grown tired of relying on screen based communication to find a significant other and make an emotional connection. However, individuals have become reliant on data and AI to help them make decisions. The dating scene is in need of innovative & efficient ways for people to meet potential partners.

Influence

This concept was a critical take on our history of eugenics, the modern day trend of DNA tracing kits such as 23&Me and My Heritage, and the obscurity of what happens to that data. It was inspired by dating apps and experiments that use DNA for the sake of match-making, like DNA Romance, Pheramor, and Tega Brain & Sam Levine’s Smell Dating. Lastly and most significantly, D.N.Ating was inspired by pre-marital genetic testing that is required between partners who pertain to certain sectors of Judaism.

Form

Speed dating table

Equipped with “swab tubes”, in which each dater is meant to input a short popsicle stick with their DNA, enabling the system to access the data for a compatibility score.

There are also individual screens for each dater to be able to view the details of their DNA compatibility information, as well as buttons strategically placed hidden from the person across. These buttons allow each dater to choose whether or not they want to display the information, and save the score and information of the person seated across from them. Within one dating session, a single dater is only allowed to “save” up to 5 individuals.

User Interface

The DNA based compatibility scores are split into 3 categories: Chemistry, Biology, Traits & Behaviors.

The first two are linked to pheromone data and The last is based on genetically identifiable personality traits -extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness - which one can filter from the top right corner.

The top left corner displays the number of saves that a dater still has. The scores do not reflect interest, and the choice is open for those who do not wish to take it into consideration.

Playtesting

With these potential outcomes, I play tested the scenarios on my peers, which turned into somewhat of a social experiment. Individuals had to role play the scenarios, as I sat them across from each other, had them insert their toothpicks into their individual input tubes, and were told to wait for the results as they introduced each other and have small talk like any other speed dating application. This experiment tested whether they would let their hearts or heads decide: would they agree to display the compatibility scores together? Would they wanted to keep the scores hidden? Once revealed, how would the scores affect their rationale and decision to save the person in front of them to explore a potential relationship?

The results of multiple rounds of play testing resulted in the two speculative narratives written below.

Scenario 1

Awkward Encounters

Nicole & Chris take their seat across from each other, their 8th table of the night. Both are here cause they mean business, they’ve had multiple short relationships, and tried too many dating apps to count, to no avail. But despite their similar backgrounds, they don’t seem to hit it off. Their conversation is laced with awkward pauses and side glances, and the five minute wait for the data result feels like thirty. Not that Nicole is planning on checking it anyway, if there’s no instant connection, then really what’s the point? Chris subtly presses the display button and the look of surprise on her face makes Nicole grow curious.. What’s the harm in checking it.

“Total Compatibility: 80%”

Chris is pleasantly surprised, she doesn’t believe in first impressions, “its ok if it’s a little awkward at first, she’s probably nervous”. Afterall, their Chemistry was at a 61%, that’s above average right?

Chris explores the breakdown of the 87% Health Compatibility:

“91% chance of child with high IQ”

It doesn’t take her long to press save.

Nicole on the other hand is hesitantly eyeing the save button, she didn’t really feel any chemistry even though she’s only used up 1 save so far. She takes a second look at the Traits & Behaviour data: “92% Compatibility”

She presses on one of the higher bars: “83% mutual understanding”

She presses on the lowest: “23% likelihood of tension & fights”

… hmm lower than the last 8 people.

After weighing her options, she finally chooses Chris to be her second save of the night.

SCENARIO 2

Romantic vs. Rational

It’s been almost an hour since this d.n.ating session started and Erica takes her seat at the 10th table of the evening. She quickly inserts a dna stick into the input tube as Peter takes his seat across from her. Peter, not too keen on the whole data aspect of this experience, sheepishly inserts his dna stick into the tube, maintaining eye contact with Erica, with a grin on his face.

All it took was a coy comment from Peter and Erica was smitten with his charm.The attraction was definitely there. Suffice to say they hit it off, and the 5 minutes leading up to the completion of their data analysis felt like 30 seconds. “Compatibility Score Ready.” Erica’s eyes lit up, she looks up at Peter and suggests they push their display buttons on the count of three. He was a Romantic, a skeptic when it came to scientifically proven compatibilities. However, he was sick of meeting people through a screen, and craved what he considered meaningful interaction. An idealist who believed in the need to feel a “spark”, which he had no doubt about feeling with Erica. He agreed though,

1.. 2.. 3.. “Total Compatibility: 62%”.

Huh… This thing can’t be wrong though can it? An initial breakdown of this total displays an 78% Chemistry score, which makes sense. But the Bio & Traits scores land on the lower side, barely around the 30/40 range.

The rationalist in Erica had made her quite stingy with her saves. There are 10 people left to meet at this event and she’s still got 4 saves left out of her five. The only person she saved was a man she had a score of 83% with. A 62% wasn’t really going to cut it. It wasn’t even the relatively high chance of a diseased child that put her off, either, she was never really planning on having children. It was actually the Traits score breakdown that displayed “78% chance of tension due to mutual stubborn strand in DNA”. Erica was here to find the one, that someone she was willing to spend the rest of her life with, and she didn't want to go into it knowing there might be a lot of drama in her future.

Peter’s idealist nature, on the other hand, decided to dismiss the data displayed before him. He knows how he felt when he saw her, and presses “save” for a third time tonight.

This project also took the form of a social experiment, testing my peers’ willingness to trust data to guide their choice for a lifelong partner.