The interface used by an operations planner in a command centre, the control panel of a land/air/sea asset (manned or unmanned), or a system dashboard monitoring all of these assets from a central point cannot be designed using identical UX principles. Yet, clarity, simplicity, and reliability remain common and indispensable needs across all use cases.In defence projects, interface design should therefore be grounded in principles that prioritise clarity, simplicity, consistency, instant feedback, and adaptability. This approach not only enhances usability but also makes a critical difference in time-sensitive decision-making processes—because here, we are not dealing with financial loss, but systems that can directly affect human lives.For instance, a radar operator may need to make a decision about an aerial contact within just three seconds. In order to determine whether the contact is friendly or hostile, and to analyse the situation and respond appropriately, the interface must support the user’s memory and cognitive flow. Elements such as colour coding, iconography, layered information hierarchies, and interaction patterns directly influence the accuracy of such decisions.

The interface used by an operations planner in a command centre, the control panel of a land/air/sea asset (manned or unmanned), or a system dashboard monitoring all of these assets from a central point cannot be designed using identical UX principles. Yet, clarity, simplicity, and reliability remain common and indispensable needs across all use cases.In defence projects, interface design should therefore be grounded in principles that prioritise clarity, simplicity, consistency, instant feedback, and adaptability. This approach not only enhances usability but also makes a critical difference in time-sensitive decision-making processes—because here, we are not dealing with financial loss, but systems that can directly affect human lives.For instance, a radar operator may need to make a decision about an aerial contact within just three seconds. In order to determine whether the contact is friendly or hostile, and to analyse the situation and respond appropriately, the interface must support the user’s memory and cognitive flow. Elements such as colour coding, iconography, layered information hierarchies, and interaction patterns directly influence the accuracy of such decisions.

Real User Scenarios

In UX/UI processes, it is crucial to go beyond theoretical approaches and develop user scenarios grounded in real field conditions and operational environments. UX design must adapt and vary according to these scenarios.

Whether it’s a radar operator making a decision within three seconds, a mission planner coordinating three simultaneous operations, or an unmanned system operator reacting instantly to environmental changes—these examples all highlight how user-centric systems must be when designed for individuals working under high stress.

Creating scenarios is a critical pre-design step.

The scenarios discussed in this section are inspired by real mission profiles and are tailored to the needs of users interacting with different system components. The objective is to place the user at the centre of the screen and design an experience that allows fast, accurate, and meaningful access to information.

Below are three key use cases frequently encountered in defence projects:

Inventory Management
Let’s consider a simplified inventory scenario: during a mission, a munitions operator needs to monitor the types and quantities of munitions loaded onto a UAV or MA (Manned Aircraft), and access crucial data such as inspection dates, serial numbers, and active status. The system should automatically check compatibility with the mission plan and highlight any mismatches with coloured warning icons.

In this scenario, the inventory screen should not be designed as a conventional data table, but rather as interactive cards linked to specific missions. This way, the operator can access relevant munitions details directly, without having to filter through technical data, ensuring they remain within the mission context.

In the stock management module, the interface should present both quantity and status using dual-format indicators (numeric + visual icon). Key considerations include:

Mission
Planning

A command centre officer is simultaneously planning three different missions: one for reconnaissance, one for engagement, and one for withdrawal. On the map screen, each asset is represented by a distinct tactical symbol (according to NATO APP-6 standards). Each mission has specific parameters such as travel time to and from coordinates, communication range, and area of effect.

Unlike traditional map applications, the mission map interface should allow filtering by operational layers. The user should be able to view only the engagement mission or see overlaps between all missions in real time. Each asset’s mission should be displayed alongside a timeline.

The symbols used on the map must follow STANAG APP-6 standards and be dynamically positioned based on mission status.

Attention should be given to enabling:

• Simultaneous planning of multiple missions
• Real-time mission timelines
• Visual identification and resolution of mission conflicts

Asset
Control

A control station operator making real-time decisions may need to monitor the health systems of an unmanned ground vehicle. This includes live data on battery levels, motor temperature, communication signal strength, and surrounding environmental factors (e.g. terrain gradient, temperature, wind conditions).

The interface should be built around a central “asset card” structure. Each card should contain health indicators, inventory status, and actionable buttons, all visually supported by graphics.

Additionally, the user must be able to view environmental risks at the asset’s current location—such as steep gradients or high winds—through dynamic map indicators. These environmental factors should be displayed not just as raw data, but with meaningful visual indicators that aid rapid understanding.