TastePICK Coffee
Tasting without the decision fatigue. A social layer for coffee: discover what others drink, build your own recipe, then let a surprise wheel choose for you in public.
I design for the moment before someone decides — the hesitation, the workaround, the thing nobody wrote down. Currently an MA Communication Design student at Southampton.
Participatory design / Public service / Speculative experience
Fully keyboard navigable
Don't speak for people. Let them speak first.
I started in product design at Tianjin University of Science and Technology (GPA 3.71/5.0) — furniture, a farm vehicle compartment, digital-twin models, one design patent. At Southampton I moved to communication design, and my attention shifted from "does it work" to "who is being represented".
A coffee app, a self-service health booth, a game about Indigenous medicine, a VR piece on vanity, a counter-map of Chongqing, urban ants, an X-ray for museum objects. Wide range, one method: find where someone is stuck, then translate that into something design can actually change.
The current thread is participatory design. London Liming — made with Lime and the youth charity Boyz 2 Men across three London boroughs — asks the young men who ride to author their own image. The paper is accepted at the Journal of Technology Innovation and Engineering.
“Design isn't making the decision
for someone. It's handing it back.”
Tasting without the decision fatigue. A social layer for coffee: discover what others drink, build your own recipe, then let a surprise wheel choose for you in public.
The shame of a gynaecology exam isn't the exam. A self-service booth inside a community hospital that makes privacy, safety and hygiene hold at the same time.
A game about Aboriginal healing: gathering, meditation, purification. You understand the practice by doing it, not by being told about it.
A walk to the end of vanity, in VR. No lecture — three choices and their consequences, until the room shows you what “face” actually costs.
A dumped shared bike reads as “the neighbourhood is going down”. This project doesn't argue with that. It hands the pen over: young riders author their own portrait, in public. Made with Lime and the youth charity Boyz 2 Men across Hackney, Lambeth and Southwark.
A map for a city that refuses to be flat. Chongqing is navigated by systems built for a plane; this counter-map is drawn for the people who climb it every day.
Ants navigate by pheromone trails our surfaces keep erasing. A design study of a user who is not human, in a city that was never planned for them.
An atlas of handwritten notes — the signals we leave on walls, desks and classroom surfaces without ever meaning to communicate.
EARTH+™, 2041. A deployed environmental access system that meters who gets to be outside — six touchpoints, one policy made visible.
One week of tracking: social media, study, steps, sleep. What the numbers say that the routine quietly hides.
A museum interface that scans an object's hidden layers — memory, power, identity — and shows what the wall label leaves out.
Nan Liu · Sole author · Journal of Technology Innovation and Engineering · Accepted
Abstract This article presents London Liming, a proposed co-designed public social display in Hackney, Lambeth and Southwark developed in relation to Lime and the youth charity Boyz 2 Men. It examines how participatory design can challenge stigmatising readings of shared bicycles and young male riders through peer-authored portraits, reversible bicycle wraps, public seating and transparent data notices.
Drawing on semiotics, site-specific and participatory art, and scholarship on mobility justice, the paper describes a design process centred on youth authorship rather than externally imposed representation. The article offers a practice-based design proposition: the workshops and pilot are proposals rather than completed interventions, and their social effects remain to be evaluated.
Keywords participatory design · public display · urban mobility · youth representation · design ethics
Tap to read the abstract, tap again to close
The MA final project is in progress, but the direction has settled: if participatory design is not only a method for collecting opinions, but the form of the work itself — what does that actually look like? In London Liming I was the facilitator. This time I want the distribution of authorship, credit and veto to be the visible structure.
Three lines are open. First, turning the workshop process into a reusable consent toolkit — so participants can withdraw, amend and refuse. Second, treating the visibility of a public display as a variable rather than a conclusion. Third, evaluation: how the ownership of an outcome after participation is actually recorded.
If participants hold a veto, can the result still be called “my work”?
Drag it — let go and it comes back·Arrow keys to adjust, Enter to reset
A one-page summary below — open the original PDF for everything