Case study · Interface evaluation

AI Design Evaluation / Interactive Comparison

An evidence-aware review of geospatial interface hierarchy, marker aggregation, information density, and spatial-query continuity—shown as inspectable synthetic flaw-and-correction pairs.

Inspect the comparison set View / download report (PDF) All case studies

The design question

How can an AI-generated geospatial interface be corrected without confusing polish with evidence?

The review separates observable interface issues from proposed corrections and future validation. Each pair uses simulated content so the design reasoning can be inspected without implying a production system or measured result.

Evaluate: Identify competition, overlap, weak hierarchy, and broken continuity in the displayed interface.
Correct: Propose explicit visual and interaction changes tied to the observed problem.
Specify: Connect corrections to acceptance conditions for keyboard use, focus, labels, comparison, and state.
Validate later: Propose task scenarios and measures without inventing outcomes that were not collected.

Visual comparison set

Open either image to inspect the full-resolution concept.

Each comparison shows a synthetic flaw and a corresponding design correction. The images are generated concept evidence—not captures of a deployed client system.

Flawed concept with a visually competing basemap — **Basemap competition**Reduce background competition so status, labels, and exceptions lead the scan path.

Corrected concept with quieter basemap and stronger status hierarchy — **Basemap competition**Reduce background competition so status, labels, and exceptions lead the scan path.

Flawed concept with overlapping map markers — **Marker clustering**Replace unreadable point overlap with countable summaries while retaining severity cues.

Corrected concept using countable marker clusters and severity cues — **Marker clustering**Replace unreadable point overlap with countable summaries while retaining severity cues.

Flawed concept with low information density — **Information density**Replace oversized single-record treatment with a comparable inventory and visible exceptions.

Corrected concept with comparable records and visible exceptions — **Information density**Replace oversized single-record treatment with a comparable inventory and visible exceptions.

Flawed concept with disconnected spatial query and record state — **Spatial-query workflow**Connect direct geographic selection to shared map and record state without a hard reload.

Corrected concept with synchronized map and record state — **Spatial-query workflow**Connect direct geographic selection to shared map and record state without a hard reload.

Evidence boundary

Research and redesign reasoning—not invented outcomes.

The report supports an interface analysis, generated concept comparisons, acceptance criteria, and a proposed validation plan. It does not supply a named client, production integration, experiment log, revenue result, measured satisfaction, or full accessibility-conformance evidence.

View / download report (PDF)