One of the problems with accommodating two diverse groups involved dealing with the grey area which contained the cross section of parameters that could be manipulated by both user groups. This domain contains the functions that both operators and experimenters could manipulate. For example, both types of user are interested in aligning the xray beam with the crystal sample and therefore they would both need access to the appropriate parameters. The area lacked clear definition and therefore presented a major challenge for interface definition and clarity. Following the distinction between user groups, the interface was literally divided into two sections, each of which contained a subset of tasks that each group would expect to perform while on the beamline.
Figure 
shows how, on the left, the beamline hardware is pictured.
This is where the operator would
be expected to spend the most time since the operator manipulates the hardware. The right contains
a symbol which illustrates the mounting of the crystal on the goniometer, the end-station of the beamline.
This is the action which generally initiates an experimenters research. The home screen
division affords the limited access in the operator's domain that
experimenters would occasionally require.
The user's login would determine whether she or he would require operator (unlimited) or
experimenter (limited) access within the system.
As seen in figure , the opening screen reflects the dichotomy of the user
population.
An effort was made to maintain screen consistency beyond this opening screen and therefore,
progression into further screens would not show this division.
Figure: First iteration opening screen. Once a user logs in, this screen is encountered.
The screen proved to be problematic because it did not have adequately reflect the usage of the software and implied that the user would require access to the experimenter and operator domains of the system equally. This implication is false. Although the goal was to minimize a user's access into the hardware aspects of the system, aspects an experimenter did not adequate knowledge of, this screen encouraged it by design. In the initial interviews, operators reported that many experimental errors were caused by experimenters roaming into the hardware domain equipped with little more than the taxonomy of the hardware and re-adjusting the equipment. The interface should have addressed this problem with its design, but instead, the design encouraged it. We therefore revised the screen in the second iteration.