UX Capstone Project
Caterpillar Payload
Smaller display. Clearer payload information.
An in-cab payload interface translates the machine’s weighing data into the current bucket weight and the truck’s running total, helping operators judge how many more passes are needed to reach the target load. The existing displays showed too much information at once and organized it differently across machines. Over 20 weeks, our team used research and testing to prototype a more focused, consistent interface within a smaller display.
Final Wheel Loader Prototype. Core payload information remains visible within the machine display.
My Contributions
My role connected project coordination with design and prototyping.
Design Coordination & Testing Across Machine Workflows
I broke down deadlines, coordinated tasks, and organized prototype and usability preparation across the wheel loader and excavator work.
Developed and Refined Interactive Payload Prototypes
As the project progressed, I took greater responsibility for design and prototyping while incorporating my teammates’ input.
Extended Research into Future Prototyping Explorations
After an additional operator interview, I independently explored loading, hauling, and simultaneous workflows.
The Challenge
Less screen space. The same need for context.
Payload systems help operators understand the material they are moving, including bucket weight, truck weight, and target weight. The existing interface competed with cameras and machine controls, and similar information used different hierarchies across machines.
Our challenge was to reduce the payload footprint without making operators work harder to find the information they needed. Hardware limits, readability in an active cab, and familiar Caterpillar conventions shaped what could change.
What is a Payload System?
Current State Issues
Business Goals
Project Constraints
Project Goals
Decrease the payload display’s screen space by at least 50%, create consistency across loading and hauling machines, and reduce cognitive load in the cab. These were goals for the project, not measured prototype outcomes.
The Original Interface
The Wheel Loader (Left, 10"x8"), The Excavator (Right, 8"x10")
At the start of the project, the Wheel Loader and the Excavator both show the payload information with different designs. We focused on consistency in the design, information clarity, with a screen size reduction to a 4x5" space.
Research to Design
Design for a Quick Glance in a Working Cab
Operator and stakeholder interviews, interface review, and simulator observation helped us understand what mattered during loading. Operators were not continuously watching the display; they needed status quickly while continuing to operate the machine.
What we learned | Design response |
|---|---|
Current bucket and truck information needed to be immediately available. | Give core payload information a stable location and clear hierarchy. |
Some functions were used constantly; others were rarely touched. | Keep immediate-task information visible and make secondary functions available elsewhere. |
Icons were not always understood, and operators relied on familiar workflows. | Prioritize readable values and preserve recognizable interactions across machines. |
Gloves, movement, and visibility affected interaction in the cab. | Consider touch areas and readability alongside the smaller footprint. |
Explore the thinking behind the synthesis
Screen space, information clarity, cab conditions, and workflow timing shaped the questions we brought into design.
Three principles guided our direction
Glanceable Information: Give critical payload information a clear hierarchy.
Progressive Disclosure: Keep secondary functionality available when it is needed.
Cross-Machine Consistency: Respect the interactions operators already understand.
Organizing the Iteration
I organized sketch rounds to turn individual ideas into shared design directions.
As project manager, I asked each teammate to come to class with 3–4 iterations of the workflow and interface concepts. That gave us multiple directions to discuss together before deciding what to develop further.
1. Explore independently
Bring several approaches to the same loading workflow, rather than stopping at a first idea.
2. Compare as a team
Mark up sketches, identify ideas worth combining, and turn disagreements into questions for operators and stakeholders.
3. Return with a refinement
Create another iteration using the strongest ideas from the discussion, then repeat the process across the workflows.
First Sketch Round
One of the early concepts we brought into the discussion.
Second Sketch Round
Further exploration of task states, shared ideas, and load progress.
I set the iteration expectations and organized the team’s FigJam workspace. We compared and refined the concepts together.
The Pivotal Iteration
We shifted from changing the screen to changing the hierarchy
Our first concept showed bucket or truck information according to the current task. We expected removing information that was no longer immediately relevant to reduce cognitive load.
Concept Before
Play the video to see the earlier concept switch between bucket and truck information. Pause or replay with the player controls.
The initial iteration used progressive disclosure as the main direction. We played with the idea that operators might want to see only one piece of information at a time. This idea would make the bucket and the bed weight information switch with the status of the machine.
Concept After
After testing and iterating, we decided that the interface switching mid-task would be distracting and jarring for operators, and they would most likely prefer all basic important information at the same time with minimal interface movement. The direction for reducing cognitive load was still up for ideation as we decided more information was necessary on the basic default interface.
The “Before” screens show earlier team concepts, not the original Caterpillar interface. The revised prototypes keep core payload information available between steps.
Our Hypothesis
Show only the information relevant to the current stage to simplify the experience.
What Testing Revealed
Completely changing the primary information interrupted context. The machine could not always determine the operator’s stage reliably enough to time the transition.
Our Decision
Keep bucket, truck, target progress, and pass information available, and direct attention through hierarchy. Secondary functionality can recede without hiding the core workflow.
Our Synthesis
Removing information did not automatically make the experience simpler.
Functional Iconography
The bed icon could identify the weight and communicate progress.
Once we moved toward a more stable basic display, we wanted the visual elements to do useful work. The truck-bed icon identifies the adjacent number as the payload already in the truck, while its fill shows progress toward the target load.
Working through the relationship between the truck-bed shape, the weight value, and the fill indication.
The bed shape tells the operator that the nearby number belongs to the truck’s running payload total.
The fill provides an at-a-glance indication of progress toward the target, alongside the numeric weight.
This gave the icon a role in the workflow while keeping the core information in a consistent place.
Final Design Direction
Familiar across machines, flexible within each workflow
Our final direction preserved a consistent bucket and truck layout, represented progress in the truck bed, and allowed room for machine-specific functions.
Prototyping system feedback required thinking beyond individual screens
One unexpected challenge was prototyping interactions driven by machine states rather than direct user input. Behaviors such as payload capture and system feedback needed to be understandable to people viewing the prototype who did not share our understanding of the machine. This pushed me to think beyond individual screens and consider how the interface communicates system states the user cannot otherwise see.
Wheel Loader
Access to Advanced Payload functions alongside the shared basic payload view, allow the operator to access more options and settings for machines that have more payload functions.
Excavator
Space for machine specific tools alongside the shared basic payload view allow the operator to have extra status information when payload is a less used tool for that particular machine.
Interactive Prototype
Explore the Final Team Prototype
Click around to explore a complete truck-loading workflow. Choose the excavator or wheel loader, set a target payload, then follow the loading sequence. Each click represents the machine advancing to a new state, NOT from user input and shows how the interface responds. Clickable areas highlight when you click outside an active control.
My Independent Exploration · Future Direction
Extending CPM Beyond One Loading Workflow
After one additional interview with an experienced operator, I explored how CPM could support both loading and hauling. Loading works toward a target for a truck; hauling can benefit from tracking material moved from a pile or across a day.
Loading & Hauling Modes
I prototyped a CPM experience that could switch between loading and hauling modes.
Simultaneous Workflows
I also explored a dual CPM view for machines performing two workflows simultaneously, such as monitoring two loading workflows or loading and hauling at the same time.
Caterpillar stakeholders shared that similar functionality was already being explored in the field, with mixed early operator reactions. Their feedback reinforced that the opportunity was relevant and that the way combined workflows were presented still needed validation.
Explore the Load/Haul Concept
Click around to explore my independent Load/Haul concept.
Open Advanced, then switch between Haul and Load to see how the interface changes with the operator’s workflow. Clickable areas highlight when you click outside an active control. This is a future exploration developed after an additional operator interview.
Outcome and Reflection
A Researched Direction for Future CPM Development
We delivered payload workflow research, cross-machine design principles, a working prototype, and recommendations presented to Caterpillar’s UX team. Further testing would be needed to confirm performance in operating conditions and evaluate the independent loading and hauling concepts.
01.
Learn the Domain
Operator conversations and simulator observation helped me move from unfamiliarity with heavy machinery to informed design decisions.
02.
Understand the System
User needs had to be balanced with hardware, existing conventions, business goals, and training requirements.
03.
Lead Through Contribution
I learned to recognize when the work needed momentum and take greater ownership of design and prototyping.