• Diverging context: Teams were operating in silos. Features were being designed with overlapping intent, but with inconsistent rules.
• Lack of shared reasoning: Many UI decisions (split behavior, view assignment, fallback logic) lacked documented rationale, which made future changes fragile.
• Need for alignment: Product, UX, and engineering needed a shared language and reference point when debating trade-offs.
• Complexity growth: As more views and workflows were added, the number of edge states and exceptions ballooned. Without a clear anchor, we risked user confusion and developer rework.

A behind the scenes look at how the Twin View System Design Document brought structure and shared understanding to a growing 3D product,building on insights from the earlier 3D Vision findings, and establishing clear principles for a shared component now used across multiple products.

Building a Common Language

The Overview sets the tone: Twin View isn’t just a product, but an ecosystem. Each section of the SDD was written to connect user insight, system behavior, and implementation logic.

Insight:

The SDD redefines documentation as a design tool. It turns scattered details into shared language — bridging product strategy, design rationale, and technical feasibility.

Design Principles — The DNA of the Twin View Experience

What it shows:

The Design Principles section lays out five foundational pillars:

• User-Centric Design
• Performance and Responsiveness
• Data-Driven Decision-Making
• Customization and Flexibility
• Seamless Integration

Insight:

These principles demonstrate a transition from designing for users to designing around users. “Performance and responsiveness” being elevated to a principle — not an afterthought — shows awareness that in heavy-data environments, speed is UX.

Equally, “Seamless Integration” positions Twin View not as an isolated interface, but as a connective hub within a broader operational landscape.

The inclusion of customization and adaptability acknowledges that one-size-fits-all fails in cross-domain products — especially when multiple teams share the same 3D component across products.

Takeaway:

The principles anchor design decisions in consistency and scalability. They bridge aesthetic UX with industrial utility — creating a shared philosophy across teams.

User Groups — Designing for Roles, Not Personas

What it shows:

The User Groups document outlines roles such as operator, engineer, asset manager, and planner, each mapped to distinct goals and contexts.

Insight:

Instead of generic personas, this section focuses on functional roles — a pragmatic approach for enterprise-grade products. Each user group has different visibility and control needs, highlighting the tension between overview and focus in 3D environments.

This design framing acknowledges that “user experience” is contextual: an operator’s priorities differ radically from a manager’s, and the system must flex to both.

Takeaway:

The structure supports role-based UI configurations — paving the way for dynamic layouts, permissions, and task-driven filtering.

System Design Capabilities — The Engine Room of the Product

What it shows:

This section articulates the capabilities that make the 3D view functional and scalable — navigation, spatial awareness, data layer handling, and cross-system connections.

Insight:

It reveals a deep understanding of how UX and system logic interlock. The emphasis on “capabilities” rather than “features” elevates the document to a platform-level abstraction. It’s not about buttons; it’s about what users can do.

By capturing both the behavioral rules and the technical scope, this section enables design and engineering to operate from the same blueprint — reducing ambiguity and redundant decision-making.

Takeaway:

This is the core of the SDD’s strategic value: codifying system behaviors in a way that’s both human-readable and technically implementable.

UX Analysis — Turning Observation into Framework

What it shows:

The UX Analysis document synthesizes user testing, interviews, and discovery insights — identifying friction points, priorities, and possible solutions.

Insight:

This is where the documentation matures from descriptive to diagnostic. It reflects a design culture that learns through iteration and shared testing. The analysis connects design intent with measurable outcomes — what users actually experience versus what designers assumed.

It also reveals a consistent feedback loop: findings from the 3D vision research directly influenced the design principles and subsequent component logic.

Takeaway:

By grounding UX patterns in observation, not opinion, this section strengthens the SDD’s credibility as a living evidence-based design tool.

Quality Control — Ensuring Consistency Beyond Design

What it shows:

This file outlines processes for maintaining design quality, ensuring that the delivered product matches the documented UX logic and visual intent.

Insight:

It represents the bridge between design theory and delivery. The focus on internal user documentation and visual references shows a commitment to clarity and collaboration — reducing the translation gap between design, testing, and engineering.

Takeaway:

Quality control in this context isn’t just about testing functionality — it’s about preserving design intent across releases and contributors.

What This Process Taught Me

• Documentation is design. A well-structured document shapes how teams think, decide, and collaborate.

• System thinking creates clarity. Once principles were defined, design reviews shifted from debating pixels to discussing patterns and logic.

• Shared ownership matters. The SDD worked because developers, designers, and PMs wrote it together.

• Simplicity is power. The more complex the system became, the more valuable it was to return to simple, human-centered principles