The dashboard had plenty of charts across threats, exposure, posture, identities, and assets, but analysts still had to piece the story together themselves.

I wanted to give them a clear place to start their day: what changed, where the biggest risks are, what to fix first, and whether their work is making a difference—with a path into the details when needed.

The goal was to help teams get ahead of risks instead of only reacting to threats.

Design exploration and prototyping for a proposed dashboard direction.

• Review of the existing dashboard and its information hierarchy
• Research and exploration of user needs
• Information architecture and interaction design
• Wireframes, UI design, and prototyping
• AI-assisted exploration and iteration

• As the sole UI/UX Designer, I led the design exploration, from identifying limitations in the existing dashboard to proposing a new structure and developing prototypes.
• Product Management: Defined user requirements and reviewed design feasibility, ensuring the required data was available and the charts represented it accurately.

Primary Users: Security operations leaders (Head of Security / CISO) who need a quick view of the organization’s security posture to decide where to focus.

Secondary Users: Security analysts who need to investigate specific risks, and other executives (VP / CISO / CTO) who need a high-level overview without technical detail.

• Understand the current security posture at a glance.
• See what has changed since the last review.
• Identify risks that require immediate attention.
• Understand whether security is improving or getting worse.
• Move from a summary into relevant findings and actions.

• Metrics from multiple security areas competed for attention.
• A long page made relevant information difficult to find.
• Counts and charts required interpretation before users could understand their significance.
• The dashboard offered limited guidance on what to do next.

The dashboard contained valuable information, but its structure made users work to connect the overall picture with individual findings.

I identified three areas to reconsider:

• Hierarchy: Give the overall security picture a clear starting point.
• Relevance: Organize detailed information into focused views.
• Action: Connect findings with priorities and recommended next steps.

I used AI to support ideation, explore alternative content structures, and develop prototype directions.

It helped me consider different ways to turn complex security information into a clearer daily overview. I reviewed and refined those ideas against the product context, user goals, and design requirements.

The proposed dashboard begins with overall security posture, key changes, and priorities.

Its structure helps users answer three questions:

• Where do we stand? Summary indicators and exposure trends.
• What has changed? Findings and updates that explain movement in risk.
• What should we do next? Prioritized actions and remediation opportunities.

Dedicated views provide a path into specific security areas, allowing users to move from the overview into deeper investigation.

The work resulted in a dashboard proposal that connects an overall security summary with changes, priorities, and focused investigation views.

It established a repeatable approach:

• Begin with the overall picture.
• Explain important changes.
• Guide users toward action.
• Provide detail when they need it.

The direction remained a design proposal. Its usability and impact still needed validation.

This work reinforced that visual clarity and information structure need to evolve together.
Choosing what users see first—and how they reach the next step—is central to making security data useful.