Touch keeps the work active.
Handling a tool with more than the eyes supports memory and attention, eases cognitive load and keeps the controller actively involved.
Shaped: a removable strip and changes written by hand.
TESS · Air traffic control
The strip was never just paper.
A workstation concept for air traffic control that keeps the physical strip’s role in memory, planning and teamwork — while connecting it to a digital system.
Explore the caseResearch → concept → full-scale modelScroll to follow the decisions ↓
01 / Starting point
What disappears when a control strip disappears?
In 2012, German air traffic control was moving from paper flight strips towards digital systems. The strip carried each aircraft’s information, but its value went beyond the data printed on it.
A controller could tilt it to flag a situation, write on it to commit a change, or see a partner’s work without asking. We wanted to understand which of these quiet interactions a digital replacement would keep — and which it would erase.
I developed TESS as my bachelor’s thesis with Martha Miosga and Luise Pescheck. The three of us shared every phase, from fieldwork to the full-scale model.
01Memory
Writing and arranging keep the traffic picture active in the controller’s mind.
02Plan
Order, marks and earlier values make upcoming decisions visible.
03Conversation
Movement, gestures and position communicate across a two-person team.
02 / Fieldwork
Three centres. Three ways of working.
We visited three control centres of DFS, Germany’s air navigation service (Deutsche Flugsicherung), in Langen, Munich and Karlsruhe, spoke with controller teams and compared a paper workflow with two generations of digital tools. The interviews happened before we designed TESS.
Langen / P1
Paper strips
Controllers could handle, mark and arrange the strip directly. Its information could not update itself.
Munich / P1/PSS
Electronic strips
Pen tablets kept the strip metaphor while placing the information on a digital surface.
Karlsruhe / P1/VAFORIT
Labels on radar
Information was current on screen, but the physical object and many of its everyday gestures were gone.
03 / Insight
Current data needed familiar cues.
In our interviews, paper supported handling, marking and shared planning; the digital systems kept information current. That tension became our design brief: connect the strip to the system while preserving deliberate gestures and a shared view of the work. This was our qualitative synthesis, not a measured ranking.
Less hands-onMore hands-onDigitalAnalogueRadar labelsElectronic stripsPaper stripsTESSthe design target
Our design target
As active as paper.
As connected as digital.
From interviews to theses
- 16 themes in an affinity diagram
- 13 opportunity areas
- 16 design principles
- 3 use cases
- 3 theses
A system that takes over too much erodes competence.
The more a system does for people, the more their skills weaken over time — and with them the sense that their own work counts.
Shaped: support that stays optional, so controllers keep planning the traffic themselves.Paper strips made teamwork easy.
Unlike the paperless strip system, paper strips supported working together — and with it, intuitive and safe work.
Shaped: the 170° layout and one shared strip bay.04 / Workstation
Keep the object. Change the system around it.
TESS proposed a removable strip with an E-Ink display and pen input. A stepped surface would bring radar, information and workspace together. Two desks would turn towards each other, with one shared strip bay between them.
The model / 2013
Two workstations.
One shared traffic picture.
01
A strip you can still hold.
ObservedPaper strips could be picked up, marked and arranged while controllers planned traffic.
Design responseA removable E-Ink strip would keep those actions and receive current information from the system.
We tested the removal gesture in foam, ureol and a 3D model. These were physical studies, not a working E-Ink device.
02
Stepped, not curved.
Observed in the model testThe curved mock-up distorted the image from some seats and made targets in the bend hard to reach.
Design responseA stepped surface kept radar, information and workspace in one field, with clearer places for input.
03
Turn towards the other person.
ObservedStrips and gestures helped two controllers coordinate without stopping to explain every action.
Design responseThe proposed 170° arrangement opened sightlines to the partner and their screen, with a shared strip bay between them.
05 / One flight
Follow a flight across the desk.
Arrival, planning, a changed value and hand-off form one connected journey. This representative journey combines separate original interface screens and photographs of the 1:1 model. Callsigns vary between the images; the sequence shows the proposed workflow, not an operational flight.
A flight joins the picture.
Incoming strips would appear in the shared bay. Their position and colour made the next work visible to both controllers; a new strip had to be actively accepted.
Take the flight into focus.
Placing a strip on the active surface would select its aircraft and route on radar. Weather, flight plan and aircraft details could open beside it.
Write a new clearance.
The controller would cross out the old altitude, write a new one and confirm it. The earlier value remained visible, and the radar label briefly inverted when the update took effect.
Pass the flight on.
The HO control was designed for handing the flight to the next sector. After that action, the strip would darken and could be removed from the active surface.
The small decision inside the journey
A changed value should leave a trace.
We tested how to carry a familiar paper gesture into the connected strip. The chosen sequence kept handwriting, gave it enough room and left the previous value visible.
01 / 04
Mark the value.
A familiar pen gesture starts the change. The old altitude is crossed out rather than disappearing at the first touch.
Original interface screens from 2013, arranged as an interactive sequence. · Original material
Why this detail mattered
A dropdown might be quicker, but the physical act of writing was part of how controllers kept track of a change. In our paper prototypes, tapping again to confirm could also trigger accidental acceptance. A separate confirmation made the step deliberate.
From strip to situation
The radar showed the response.
The selected strip connected a flight on the desk to its aircraft and route on radar. Explore how the proposed label used colour for status and briefly inverted after a confirmed value change.
TESS / RadarIllustrative flight · 2013 concept
Our team is responsible for the flight
01 / Status
Who is responsible for this flight?
Choose a state or tap the label on the radar.
02 / Confirmation
What changed?
The strip still shows the earlier value. Confirming a new altitude updates the radar label and makes the change visible.
Interactive explanation based on the 2013 TESS interface screens. Flight details are illustrative. · Reconstruction
Why the label mattered
In the concept, shape, trail and altitude cues helped structure the traffic picture. Colour distinguished incoming flights, flights in the sector, pending hand-offs and warnings. A brief inversion marked a confirmed value change.
The interactive graphic explains the intended behaviour. The footage shows the projected interface in the full-scale model; neither was an operational radar system.
06 / Model
We built the place where the idea could be discussed.
The team constructed a full-scale, two-person workstation with projected interface surfaces and physical strip stand-ins. Film and model made the concept tangible. They did not turn it into an operational air traffic control system.
What was real: the 1:1 structure, projection, interface design, physical strip models and film. What remained proposed: a functioning E-Ink strip, a finished OLED workstation and use in air traffic control.
Watch the original TESS film07 / What remains
The question outlived the prototype.
Outcome
- Concept, interface & 1:1 model
A designed interface, a walk-in model with projected screens, a 243-page documentation and a three-minute film ↗. Final presentation in February 2013.
- Semester exhibition & press
Shown at the HfG semester exhibition in February 2013 and mentioned in regional press coverage (Rems-Zeitung, Schwäbische Post).
- Zukunftspreis Kommunikation 2013
Presented with our own stand at the student competition in October 2013.
Reflection
We began with a strip of paper and ended with a broader question: when a system takes over a task, what happens to a person’s understanding of the situation? Our second thesis asked it in 2012. Today it is at the centre of my work on interfaces that keep people in control of AI, explored in Beyond Chat.
What I would do differently
- Take the concept back to controllers. We interviewed controller teams before designing, but never tested the finished concept with them. Today I would put the paper prototypes in front of two or three controllers before building anything at full scale.
- Ground the theses in research. Their direction was right, but the evidence behind them was thin. Today I would build on human-factors research on automation: out-of-the-loop effects, situation awareness, the ironies of automation.
- Steer by fewer principles. Sixteen design principles were too many to guide decisions. The three theses did that job better.
- Team
- Martha Miosga, Luise Pescheck, Dominik Witzke · equal roles
- Supervision
- Prof. Ralf Dringenberg, Prof. Jens Döring · HfG Schwäbisch Gmünd
- References
- Project film, 2013 ↗ · field visits at DFS control centres in Langen, Munich and Karlsruhe