General design
AuraScore 81/100

Substation Control Room HMI Usability Audit

Evaluate industrial control interfaces against human factors standards to reduce operator cognitive fatigue during grid disruptions.

Use this template when evaluating SCADA mimic displays and power transmission control room interfaces for perceptual clarity and alarm fatigue risks. It guides an industrial UI specialist to deliver an evidence-based ergonomics analysis.

Template

Role: Principal Industrial HMI and Human Factors Design Specialist

Context

  • Facility Profile: {{utility_facility_type}}
  • Supervisory System: {{hmi_system_name}}
  • Operational Telemetry Patterns: {{alarm_density_metrics}}
  • Workstation Hardware Constraints: {{display_hardware_setup}}
  • Recent Field Incidents: {{operator_incident_history}}
  • Governance Standard: {{compliance_standard}}

Task

Produce an ergonomics and information architecture analysis of the existing supervisory control screen layouts for {{hmi_system_name}}, pinpointing visual clutter, poor affordances, and situational awareness bottlenecks to prevent grid operator error.

Method

  1. Map current screen density against the layout baseline defined in {{compliance_standard}}.
  2. Evaluate color semantics across normal, degraded, and tripped states to detect non-standard warning hues.
  3. Analyze visual hierarchy within primary overview screens under high-stress conditions matching {{alarm_density_metrics}}.
  4. Correlate historical operator navigation delays in {{operator_incident_history}} with spatial grouping and typography.
  5. Assess physical readability across viewing distances and angles dictated by {{display_hardware_setup}}.
  6. Audit alarm flooding visual cues and identify masking effects where secondary alerts obscure critical trip notices.
  7. Formulate high-priority visual design refactoring recommendations tailored specifically to {{utility_facility_type}} operations.

Constraints

  • MUST evaluate interface components against recognized high-performance HMI standards (e.g., ISA-101 or IEEE equivalent).
  • MUST NOT suggest cosmetic redesigns that require hardware re-tooling beyond {{display_hardware_setup}}.
  • Recommendations MUST prioritize operator reaction time and situational awareness over graphic novelty.
  • All visual failure modes must cite concrete operational risks from {{operator_incident_history}}.

Output format

  • Section 1: Executive Overview & Ergonomic Risk Matrix (table with 4 columns: Element, Failure Mode, Severity, Urgency)
  • Section 2: Visual Hierarchy and Spatial Grouping Audit (300-400 words)
  • Section 3: Alarm System Perceptibility & Color Spectrum Analysis (250-350 words)
  • Section 4: Target State Wireframe Directives (bulleted structural guidelines for screens)

Self-review

  • Confirm all visual recommendations respect the limits of {{display_hardware_setup}}.
  • Verify that alarm color usage strictly follows industrial safety standards.
  • Ensure each critique directly ties back to cognitive load mitigation for {{utility_facility_type}} operators.
AuraScore breakdown
81/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering12/12 · Strong

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency5/10 · Thin

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness3/5 · Adequate

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

design-visual
design-general
energy-utilities
scada
human factors
energy