UX/UI Design · Test Task · 2026
Geodata Dashboard
Redesign
A research-driven redesign of a network tracking dashboard for contractors and employers in the FTTx/GIS domain — map-first, modular, and accessibility-compliant.
1. Analysis of the Problem
The assignment required redesigning a dashboard used by two distinct roles — contractors and employers — to improve usability, clarity, and efficiency.
The core hypothesis: the current layout does not reflect the real task hierarchy of users. Before touching any pixels, we need to understand who uses what, and why.
Rather than starting with visual changes, I proposed a research-first approach: qualitative discovery interviews with 15–20 participants across both roles, supplemented by usability testing on the existing interface to capture observed behavior rather than self-reported opinions.
Research Objectives
First-touch priorities
Identify which metrics users check first when opening the dashboard and what requires immediate attention.
Map usage context
Understand when the map is the primary workspace vs. a secondary reference, and whether reduced map size is ever sufficient.
Friction mapping
Capture recurring navigation pain points through attention flow analysis, first-click behavior, and hesitation points observed in usability sessions.
Sample Research Questions
- What do you check first when opening the system?
- Which metrics are critical and require immediate attention?
- In which scenarios do you need the map in full size?
- Are there situations where the map becomes secondary and analytical metrics are more important?
- What actions do you take after identifying a problematic segment on the map?
- Which parts of the current interface slow you down?
- What would you remove or change first?
2. Alternative Research Approach
When budget or timeline constraints prevent user interviews, competitive analysis serves as the primary research method — not for visual imitation, but to identify interaction patterns that have already proven effective in analogous domains.
Select comparators
Services in telecom, infrastructure, FTTx, GIS — domains where the map is a core workspace.
Analyse layout logic
Layout structure, visual hierarchy, interaction patterns — not just aesthetics.
Identify recurring patterns
What layout decisions appear consistently across multiple solutions?
Form hypotheses
Why are these patterns implemented? Which user needs do they address?
Competitive Layout Analysis
1. IQGEO — iqgeo.com/products/ospinsight
Map occupies 75–85% of workspace. Map-dominant layout with collapsible side panels. Modular contextual panels instead of fixed KPI blocks. 3-level hierarchy: Map → Context panels → Summary metrics.
2. MAPX — nets-international.com/mapx/
Map-first layout; KPIs are secondary. Mode-based structure (Overview / Inspect). Role-based dashboard presets. Panels transform into drawers on mobile.
3. DroneDeploy / Pix4D — pix-pro.com
Map takes 80–90% of screen. Fullscreen map mode. Floating mini-panels instead of rigid side columns. Overlay widgets replace fixed rails. Lighter visual style with stronger spatial clarity.
Key Conclusions
3. Design Solution
Based on the competitive analysis, I proposed a Map-first layout with a modular right panel — the map becomes the main workspace, occupying 70–80% of the screen.
Layout Structure
🗺 Map (Primary)
70–80% of screen. Fullscreen mode available.
📊 Modular KPI Rail
Add, remove, reorder, configure widgets.
📈 Analytics Panel
Collapsible. Displays on demand only.
📄 Documentation
Contextual panel on map segment selection.
Adding New Widgets
Click + Add widget
Select a visualisation type (number, chart, alert list)
Select a data source and time range
Save the configuration — widget appears in the rail
Documentation Submission Flow
When selecting a segment on the map, a contextual panel appears with the ability to attach a document, upload a photo, add a comment, and save changes — keeping all documentation in context of the geographic location.
4. Product Analytics & Validation
After implementation, analytics should be integrated to validate design hypotheses and observe real usage patterns. Subjective feedback alone is insufficient — interaction data provides objective insight into feature adoption and user priorities.
Goals
- Identify the most frequently used widgets to prioritise future improvements
- Understand whether users interact primarily with KPIs or the map
- Detect ignored interface elements for simplification or removal
Example Analytics Events
Each event should include user role and time range context to enable evidence-based iteration and prioritisation.
5. Accessibility Strategy
The redesigned interface must comply with WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards as a baseline requirement.
Colour Contrast
Minimum ratio for body text; 3:1 for large text and UI components.
Keyboard Navigation
All interactive elements accessible via logical tab order.
Screen Reader Support
Semantic HTML and ARIA attributes for all dynamic panels and widgets.
Touch Targets
Minimum 44×44 px for all interactive elements.
Data Alternatives
Charts provide textual or tabular equivalents for screen reader users.
High Contrast Mode
Theme switching available for users with visual impairments.
6. Mobile Strategy
Although mobile is currently out of scope, the layout is designed with responsiveness in mind from day one — preventing costly rewrites later.
Mobile Context
Mobile usage differs significantly from desktop: users check status quickly, deep analytics is less common, and attention is limited.
- Displays only priority KPIs in a compact strip below the map
- Uses fullscreen map mode by default
- Hides secondary analytics behind a collapsible drawer
- Positions all critical actions within thumb-reachable zones
Adaptive components
All components designed to scale across breakpoints from the start.
Panels → Drawers
Side panels convert to bottom drawers on small screens.
KPI simplification
Only priority metrics visible on load; secondary data accessible on demand.
Key Learnings & Design Decisions
Research before pixels
The biggest risk in a dashboard redesign is solving the wrong problem. Proposing interviews before wireframes ensures design decisions reflect actual workflows, not assumptions.
Map hierarchy is non-negotiable
Competitive analysis confirmed universally: in GIS/telecom tools, the map is always Level 1. Metrics and charts support the map — they never compete with it.
Modularity = flexibility
Different roles have different KPI priorities. A rigid layout forces compromise; a modular widget rail lets users configure their own information hierarchy.
Accessibility from day one
WCAG compliance is not a checklist item — it shapes touch target sizes, contrast choices, and interaction patterns from the very beginning.