Signals — Research integrity platform

The challenge

Research integrity is high-stakes work. Every risk indicator, every compliance flag — these things have real consequences for institutions, researchers, and the credibility of science itself. So it was frustrating to see the Signals interface actively working against the people who relied on it.

The layouts were dense. Walls of information with no clear starting point. Typography too small for the long review sessions compliance officers sit through every day. Critical risk indicators buried alongside low-priority metadata, all given the same visual weight. Users told us they spent upwards of 45 seconds just trying to find a single risk level. When you’re reviewing hundreds of research outputs a week, that’s brutal.

The tension at the heart of this project was straightforward: how do you show auditable, detailed data without overwhelming the people who need it most?

Design approach: three phases

Phase 1 — audit

We kicked things off with a full UX audit. Every screen cataloged, every interaction mapped, every pain point documented through heuristic evaluation and interviews with compliance officers, research administrators, and institutional reviewers.

What the audit turned up:

• 87% of users scrolled right past critical information on first load
• Average time-to-insight was over 30 seconds for routine tasks
• Colors were decorative — they didn’t mean anything functionally
• Search results came back with no context and no ranking

Phase 2 — structure

Armed with those findings, we tore the information architecture apart and rebuilt it around user intent instead of database structure. We created visual hierarchies that pull your eye from summary to detail, from high-risk to low-risk, from “act on this now” to “good to know.”

Phase 3 — refine

The last phase was about polish — interaction details, accessibility compliance, and edge cases. Every component got tested against WCAG 2.1 AA standards. We added micro-interactions to give feedback during complex filtering operations, helping reduce the mental load.

Key design solutions

Tabbed navigation

This was the single biggest win. Introducing tabs cut vertical scrolling by 60%. Instead of one endless page, information lives in logical tabs that mirror how a compliance review actually works: Overview, Risk Assessment, Publication History, Institutional Context, and Audit Trail.

Expandable data sections

For people who need to go deep, expandable sections let them do it on their terms. Summary cards show the essentials at a glance. One click opens the full dataset. It works for the quick-scan person and the deep-dive analyst alike.

Prominent key metrics bar

A sticky metrics bar sits at the top of every research profile, showing the three most critical data points: overall risk level, compliance status, and last review date. It stays visible as you scroll, so you never lose context.

Dynamic filtering and sorting

We replaced static tables with dynamic filtering — users can slice data by risk level, date range, institution, research field, and compliance status. Filters are combinable, saveable, and shareable across team members.

Enhanced search

Search got a complete overhaul. Results now come back with contextual snippets, risk-level badges, and relevance scoring. Autocomplete pulls from recent searches, bookmarked profiles, and trending risk indicators.

Optimized reading width

We capped content areas at 72 characters wide, with generous line height and paragraph spacing. It sounds like a small thing. It wasn’t. For people spending hours reading review data, this change made a noticeable difference in comfort and readability.

Five guiding principles

Five principles shaped every decision throughout the redesign:

1. Clarity over density — Every pixel has to earn its place. If something doesn’t serve the current task, it belongs behind a click, not on the screen.
2. Trust through transparency — Data provenance and methodology should be visible and verifiable at every level of the interface.
3. Accessibility as a baseline — WCAG compliance isn’t a feature. It’s a foundation. Every user, regardless of ability, deserves equal access.
4. Speed as respect — Every second someone spends searching is a second taken from meaningful analysis. The interface should anticipate needs and get out of the way.
5. Consistency as confidence — Predictable patterns build trust. When a compliance officer knows exactly where to look, they believe what they find.

What we ended up with is a platform that respects the complexity of research integrity work while making that complexity navigable, understandable, and actually useful.