Project background
Google Calendar and Google Tasks serve over 500M users, but fall short for people with executive-function challenges. A 2025 survey of 1,859 adults with ADHD (Sentisight.ai) found 56.59% struggle with procrastination, 42.28% resist distractions poorly, and 31.35% cannot estimate task duration. Beyond neurodivergent users, 68% of professionals report "digital overload" with task management as a primary stressor (Microsoft 2024 Work Trend Index).
While Google already has Gemini AI and manual subtasks, specialized tools like Tiimo (500,000+ users, Apple Design Awards Finalist 2024) and Trevor AI (60,000+ companies) are capturing users who want intelligent task breakdown — a gap Google is uniquely positioned to close with infrastructure it already owns.
Why this brief: it addresses a genuine accessibility gap where AI can reduce barriers to task completion — strengthening the portfolio case for inclusive design, AI interaction patterns, and accessibility-first thinking.
The design problem
Google Calendar lacks AI-powered task breakdown despite having Gemini integration built in. Users must manually decompose complex tasks and estimate time — a documented barrier for neurodivergent individuals. Facing a task like "write quarterly report," the cognitive load of planning triggers task paralysis before work even begins, pushing users toward paid third-party AI tools that provide the missing intelligence.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Role | UX/UI Designer (solo) |
| Duration | 01.14.2026 – 04.10.2026 (~12 weeks) |
| Platform | Google Calendar — Mobile (Android) |
| Tools | Figma, Gemini/ChatGPT, Google Workspace |
| Scope | One feature area: AI subtask breakdown + time allocation, layered onto existing Calendar task flows |
| Constraints | Must work within Google's Material Design 3 system and existing Calendar/Tasks architecture |
Understanding the barrier
Goal
Understand how users currently plan complex tasks and estimate time, so an AI feature can be designed that reduces cognitive load and supports task initiation.
Methodology
Competitive analysis of AI scheduling tools · 7 semi-structured user interviews (30 min each) · affinity mapping & persona synthesis.
Objectives: map current planning behaviors; identify executive-dysfunction barriers; learn current Calendar/Tasks/competitor usage; explore trust and control attitudes toward AI; define what a "helpful" AI suggestion actually looks like. Participant criteria: uses at least one digital task-management tool; experiences overwhelm, procrastination, or breakdown difficulty (skews neurodivergent/ADHD); a mix of students and working professionals.
Competitive analysis
No source visual exists for this comparison — it's rendered directly as a table.
| Trevor AI | Tiimo | neurolist | Structured | Motion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI task breakdown | Partial | Strong | Strong | Partial | None |
| AI time estimation | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong |
| Auto scheduling | Partial | Partial | None | Partial | Strong |
| Calendar integration | Strong | Partial | None | Strong | Strong |
| Built for neurodivergence | Partial | Strong | Strong | Partial | Partial |
Market gap: no competitor fully integrates AI-powered task decomposition, realistic time estimation, and context-aware calendar scheduling into a single native workflow. Google's advantage: 500M+ existing users, Gemini already built in, and a Tasks feature most people don't know exists.
User interviews
7 participants, 30 minutes each, moderated and remote. 5 of 7 identify as neurodivergent, across a mix of students and working professionals. The guide moved from warm-up and current behaviors, to pain points and barriers, to tool usage and AI attitudes, to reactions to a Calendar-based AI concept.
Research synthesis
Initiation paralysis
Tasks stay vague because breaking them down feels like its own project.
Time blindness
Estimates are consistently wrong; users want help without being boxed in.
Fragmentation fatigue
People "app-hop" between Calendar, Notion, sticky notes & AI chat tools.
Autonomy over automation
AI should suggest, never dictate — an assistant, not a boss.
Awareness gap
4 of 7 didn't know Google Tasks existed, but got interested fast.
Who this is for
29, Remote UX Student. Neurodivergent (ADHD + anxiety), high cognitive/emotional load, low external structure. Needs gentle, editable AI task breakdown; rough time guidance without enforced schedules; adaptive prompts that never highlight failure.
32, Full-Time Professional. ADHD/attention challenges, values speed & simplicity, works in a structured environment. Needs high-visibility reminders and return-to-task cues; fast, low-effort mobile task capture; cross-device consistency.
Framing the problem
- Task initiation & cognitive overload — Calendar focuses on scheduling time, not helping users think through complex or ambiguous tasks, leading to procrastination, overwhelm, and reliance on outside tools.
- Rigid scheduling & time blindness — fixed time commitments come too early; missed estimates feel like personal failure, discouraging planning and eroding trust.
- Fragmentation & loss of follow-through — tasks are managed across scattered tools; low-friction visibility gaps, especially on mobile, cause important work to be forgotten.
Project goals
Core goal: enable users to think through, start, and follow through on complex tasks by using AI to support flexible breakdown, optional time guidance, and low-friction visibility — before and after scheduling.
Feature roadmap
P1 · Must-Have
- AI task breakdown with editable subtasks
- Optional AI time estimation
- In-calendar task visibility
P2 · Should-Have
- Mobile-optimized flow
- Task reminders with snooze
- Quick task capture (brain dump)
- Optional auto-scheduling
- Non-destructive AI + undo
P3 · Could-Have
- Discovery & awareness nudges
- Breakdown detail control
- Forgiving reschedule flow
- Daily planning prompt
- Return-to-task notifications
P4 · Later
- Cross-device parity
- Mobile home-screen widget
- Adaptive AI learning over time
User flow
Simplified happy path: open Calendar, add a task → enter task title → tap "Plan with Gemini" (optional) → Gemini suggests 3–5 subtasks + time → review, edit & select subtasks → schedule date/time — added to Calendar.
Design principle
AI is a shortcut, never a requirement. Users can skip "Plan with Gemini" entirely and add subtasks manually — every AI suggestion stays editable, reorderable, and fully reversible before it touches the calendar.
From sketches to testable flow
Lo-fi wireframes
Tested at this stage: where "Add Task" lives inside the existing nav; how much choice to give users before AI runs; whether Gemini fits without replacing manual entry; what a scheduled task with subtasks should look like.
Mid-fidelity wireframes
Key decisions: users choose what Gemini helps with (subtasks, time, or both); suggested subtasks appear as an editable checklist; manual and AI paths converge on one task-entry screen; the estimated total time surfaces before scheduling.
Mid-fi usability testing
5 participants, moderated and remote, tested via Figma.
| Stage | Sally | Giulia | Dyna | Nicholas | Collin | Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task creation | 5/5 | 2/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 4.4 |
| Subtask creation | 4/5 | 3/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 3.4 |
| Scheduling | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5.0 |
| Final confirmation | 0/5 | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0/5 | 0.0 |
Key issues found: confusing terminology ("My Tasks," "Regenerate"); "Undo" on final confirmation triggered real anxiety; numeric subtask input felt arbitrary; cluttered task-creation hierarchy with an unclear primary action.
Iteration priorities: simplify terminology & labeling; replace numeric input with a clearer control model; strengthen editability & reorder mechanisms; redesign high-anxiety states like "Undo"; improve visual hierarchy & CTA placement.
High-fidelity screens
Note: final polished hero mockups are still being finished for this feature. The screens below are the current best-available hi-fi visuals from the working prototype, shown here as placeholders until the final renders are ready.
Flow: create task → tap "Plan with Gemini" → review AI-suggested subtasks with time pills (select/deselect, regenerate, or edit manually) → collapse into a checklist → add date & time → task lands on the calendar with subtasks attached and fully editable afterward.
Key iterations after mid-fi testing
UI kit & interaction details
Notable interactions: long-press a subtask row to drag-reorder; swipe left on a subtask row to reveal delete; in-place title editing disables while swiped open; time pills are directly tappable to edit duration; Gemini access stays persistent in manual mode too.
Key design decisions
- 48dp constraint — every subtask row needed a checkbox, time pill, and controls to coexist inside Material Design 3's 48dp row height, forcing hard calls on persistent vs. gesture-triggered actions.
- Non-destructive by default — every AI action (regenerate, delete, reorder) needed to be reversible, so users could trust suggestions without fear of losing manual work.
- Two flows, one component — drag-to-reorder wasn't achievable in the main prototype due to Figma variant limits, so a second demo flow was built from cloned instances to show the interaction separately.
Usability testing & revisions
Objective
Evaluate whether users can intuitively create a task, generate and manage AI-suggested subtasks with "Plan with Gemini," and successfully schedule it — within a single continuous flow.
Participants
5, ages 22–40, using at least one task-management tool, experiencing overwhelm/procrastination/breakdown difficulty (skewing ADHD/neurodivergent), a mix of students & professionals.
Tasks given: (1) "You need to clean your room tonight and feel overwhelmed — take Gemini's help breaking it into manageable subtasks." (2) "Now that your task is broken into chunks, schedule it for today at 6pm." Success metrics: 100% task completion rate · 4+/5 confidence rating target · under 3 minutes time-on-task · qualitative errors/confusion & Gemini discoverability.
Results — 5 participants (4 remote, 1 in-person)
| Theme | Severity | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Icon, action & label clarity | High | "+" read as "add detail," not "select subtask" — mentioned by 5 of 5 participants |
| AI integration & workflow | High | Gemini panel felt disconnected from the manual editing flow for 3 of 5 |
| Visual hierarchy & clutter | High | Key controls (time-estimate toggle) missed due to weak separation |
| Save / completion flow | Medium | Multiple "Save" buttons caused 2 of 5 to save the wrong thing |
Revisions
| Area | Before | After | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selection model | "+" icons on subtasks | Checkboxes + "Select all" | Removed ambiguity about whether tapping adds, deletes, or opens a task |
| Anxiety states | Bare "Undo" after saving | Confirmation + explicit scope of what Undo reverts | Undo tested at 0/5 confidence — the highest-severity fix in the study |
| AI vs. manual | Separate, disconnected panels | Persistent, blended Gemini access in both modes | 3 of 5 expected to keep editing without losing AI context |
| Visual hierarchy | Flat list of controls | Grouped sections + clearer primary CTA | Fixes the most-cited issue: missed toggles and unclear "save" targets |
Reflection & final results
Growth as a designer
Working inside Google's Material Design 3 sharpened how constraints get treated — not as limits, but as encoded reasons to work with rather than around. It pushed decisions down to a granular level: not just where a button goes, but what tapping it communicates, and whether that matches how users mentally model the system.
Research insight
5 of 7 interview participants identified as neurodivergent, revealing deep struggles with initiation paralysis and time blindness, and a shared desire for one integrated tool instead of "app-hopping."
Unexpected finding
4 of 7 participants didn't know Google Tasks existed before the study, but got interested fast once shown it. Users also resisted rigid automation more than expected — AI needed to be an assistant, not a boss.
Key challenge
Managing the interaction complexity of the subtask row without violating MD3 standards — too many simultaneous controls (checkbox, time pill, remove icon, drag handle) on a single 48dp row required deliberate persistent-vs-gesture trade-offs. Drag-to-reorder wasn't achievable in the main prototype flow due to Figma constraints, requiring a separate demo flow built from cloned component instances.
Next steps
- Convert the dark mode design to light mode
- Conduct another comparative survey for feedback