Design Insights: How Users Interact with Split-Screen in Industrial Visualization

In complex visualization systems, users often need to view multiple perspectives at once — for example, comparing data from different sources or reviewing real-time and historical states side-by-side.

The existing split-screen workflow supported technical precision but lacked predictability and discoverability. Users often felt uncertain about which pane they were editing, or how to reset layouts once multiple views were open.

Our objective was to design an interaction model that made split-screen navigation intuitive, consistent, and scalable across diverse workflows.

In a high-complexity monitoring workflow within an industrial visualization system, users begin in a 3D spatial overview where they can locate tasks or assets from a data table.

1. From there, they can access related information — such as reports, diagrams, or contextual data — through quick-access menus.

However, when multiple secondary views open at once, the system automatically splits the workspace into two panels. This works fine in most cases, but the behavior becomes inconsistent when users open only one type of view — the interface still triggers a split, even when it’s not needed.

2. To return to the main 3D context, users must close all panels manually, which interrupts their flow and creates uncertainty about navigation.

As a result, users felt disoriented because the split-screen behavior lacked predictability. The flow for opening and closing panels was unclear, making it difficult to understand how to return to the original workspace.

UX Problem: The split-screen interaction lacked consistency and clarity. Users couldn’t anticipate how new panels would open or how to navigate back to their starting point — leading to frustration and reduced confidence in the interface.

Persona: “IOC operator” — someone working in control rooms, monitoring operations, needing visibility over tasks, alerts, documents, relationships between objects, etc.

User flow & needs:

1. First glance / overview: See a clear, unobstructed view of the control room or operations.
2. Arriving at terminal: Identify tasks, get personalized info, drill into details.
3. Routine work: Observe multiple data views, prioritize tasks, dig into relationships and documents.
4. Meetings / planning: Bring together relevant documents, notifications, history, annotations, layering information.

Key pain points discovered via UX research / feedback sessions:

• Landing in 3D view by default is not useful when the user doesn’t know what to search yet.
• Split view opens in unpredictable ways.
• The flow has dead-ends; users often lose track or can’t find their way back.
• Users want control: “show me what I ask for, allow me to hide it, and bring it back easily.”

Goals & Design Questions

Goal statement: Let users assign relevant views in split screen in a way that supports their workflow. Make split screen behavior consistent, clear, and easy.

Design questions included:

1. Must graph view always accompany document view?
2. Can the flow for opening / assigning split views be smoother?
3. How to reduce visual confusion?
4. How important is 3D view to the user?
5. What are the consistent rules for assigning windows to splits?

Design Process & Iteration

Mind mapping

At this point, I was curious about how others had already solved the problem of split views. I started by looking at familiar systems — Apple’s split window, Microsoft’s window snapping — and paid close attention to how they handled opening, resizing, and switching between views. I didn’t just study the patterns; I tried them out myself, clicking around, dragging windows, and noticing where the interactions felt natural and where they felt clunky. This hands-on exploration gave me a clearer sense of what “smooth” should feel like, and it helped shape my own expectations for what the split-screen experience in our product ought to deliver

Sketch / concept iteration

With some reference points in mind, I began sketching out how split views could actually work in our product. My first idea was simple: every new view would just slide into the right-hand side. It sounded neat, but once I played it out with more than two views, it quickly became confusing — the “important” window often ended up tucked away, and users could easily lose track of where they were.

So I tried a different approach, in second idea, taking inspiration from iOS split behaviors. What if the most recently opened view — usually the one the user cares most about , shifted into the primary space, closer to the center or left? That way, emphasis naturally followed the user’s attention.

From there, I explored how to give people more control. Tabs seemed like a natural solution: by clicking a tab, users could decide whether that view should take the left side, the right side, or expand into full screen. To keep things flexible, I designed the 3D view so that when it was brought back to full screen, all other views would neatly collapse into tabs rather than disappear entirely. And to avoid leaving panes blank, I added empty states that offered shortcuts — little reminders of what could be opened next.

Prototype & test with developers

Once the sketches felt coherent, I worked with the developers to bring the ideas to life in a quick prototype. We hooked it up with both front-end and back-end so we could test how the split behavior actually felt in use.

It wasn’t just about proving the concept , the prototype also opened up conversations about trade-offs. For example, how many icons and tool panels could we show before the screen felt cluttered? How do we preserve valuable space when several views are open at once?

Not every detail made it into this case study, but those discussions were essential. They reminded me that design isn’t only about what looks good on paper — it’s about finding the right balance between clarity, usability, and technical feasibility