How design and UX principles could help soldiers make better decisions
We met with the team behind the next increment of the U.S. Army’s beleaguered information system, DCGS-A.
DCGS-A is a system for organizing information so soldiers can make decisions, much like the operating system on an smartphone. Tech companies like Google have been employing consistent design to improve usability — and the Army could follow suit to make its tools more user-friendly and reduce soldiers’ cognitive load.
Bottom-up vs top-down
DCGS-A is a mega-system, or ‘system of systems’, built from the bottom up by multiple different companies. It has encountered strong criticism for its lack of usability, which in some cases means soldiers opt to fight without it.
The current DCGS-A team is struggling with a system to which they are attempting a retrofit of ‘usability’ following feedback from soldiers, and from Congress which allocates funds for its development. But changes are hampered by cumbersome contracts, costs, and legions of interdependencies. The imperfect solution thus far has been extensive training for soldiers on how to work DCGS-A.
The next increment of the system, being awarded later this year, is an opportunity to look afresh at the problem, which is exactly what we did. Why mold the user to fit the system when you can create a system designed for the user? Lessening the burden on these brave people is the obvious thing to do.
User-Centered Design encourages thinking about the needs of the user rather than the confines of the system — a top-down approach to design. Fundamentally, a soldier needs to make decisions, so they need the right information, at the right time. This information needs to be clear, accurate and accessible: it’s literally mission critical.
How easily this information is gathered, analyzed and displayed is a matter for the plethora of sub-contractors which will make up the DCGS-A team, and build all the different parts of the system. In our talk, we focused on the fundamental need of the user — to make decisions — and how this can be used to shape the design of the user interface.
Benefits of User Interface Guidelines
User Interface Guidelines — inclusive of Design Guidelines and Pattern Portfolios — are in fact the key product the Army needs, and the only true way to make DCGS-A more user-friendly. Guidelines would direct the designers and developers of the various components which make up DCGS-A to produce a consistent look and feel, yielding benefits for users, program, and contractors.
Information can be presented in a consistent, intuitive and accessible way, benefitting the user and supporting good and speedy decisions. And guiding the different companies in visual design saves time and potential cost: why should each company design a different-looking icon or button when they can be decided and optimized centrally?
Better usability for the soldier
- Creating a unified look and feel minimizes cognitive clutter, making information easier and faster to process, improving personnel capability and responsiveness
- Consistent responses from the system creates positive expectations that build trust in system performance and make learning how to use the system quicker and easier
- Consistent behaviors from users reduce risks around incorrect use of technology, and minimize the need for lengthy training
Benefits for the program
- Shortcuts and ready-to-use solutions mean reduced time and cost for developing the individual system parts
- Re-usable UX patterns and UI elements speed up development and simplifies decision making in creation of software interface
- Faster on-boarding and less training means lower implementation costs
- The process of developing the guidelines unifies project teams that have different objectives
They got history…
In fact, the military is no stranger to standardization of symbols: NATO realized the benefits of consistent iconography when developing its Joint Military Symbology for use by soldiers speaking different languages but working together in various missions. Since being deployed in 1986, the system has been hugely successful and continues to evolve and improve to adapt to shifting needs, and serves as a perfect example of the battlefield benefits of standardized interfaces.
Where else has consistency in user interfaces worked?
Big, complex and multi-faceted organizations in the private sector have cottoned-on to the benefits of better design. Google and IBM are the two organizations that have recently dedicated resources to Design and Interface Guidelines, examples of which we discussed with the DCGS-A team.
Google’s Material Design ‘design language’ was developed by a group of internal designers who recognized the lack of consistency across Google products. Its success now extends beyond its own products to the large range of apps now following its guidelines — allowing users to know what to expect and making using new apps easier and more satisfying.
IBM has a less prescriptive ‘Design Language’ which allows for more interpretation by individual designers but an emphasis for staying close to the spirit of the IBM brand experience.
What’s next?
Not only could User Interface Guidelines reduce program costs; User-Centered Design can help soldiers make quicker and better decisions. For us, this is a no-brainer. Our troops place their lives on the line so we can be safe. We designers owe it to them to give all the help possible.
