Led end-to-end UX and visual design for Iron Diner’s live action game system
Iron Diner is a live‑action multiplayer game set inside a physical 1950s diner, where players complete real actions under time pressure and watch their results play out across a network of connected digital screens.
The game is built around a simple but technically complex idea: a physical cup becomes a data point. Players carry RFID-chipped cups through the diner, collecting ingredients at physical stations. Every cup tap triggers a live update across three screens at once — the station screen, the solo player screen, and the ensemble display showing each team's progress. Two competing teams. Three rounds of five minutes. One shared system with no room for error.
Led a team of three UX designers and owned system‑level experience design, including the design system and the ensemble screens — two 60" televisions that serve as the visual command center for each team.
Scope:
3 screen types designed simultaneously
2 brand identities unified within one design system
Metrics to follow post-launch
Three screens. Two teams. One physical space. Zero margin for confusion.
The challenge wasn't designing three separate screens — it was designing one coherent system that happened to live across three screens. Every time a player collected an ingredient, three different displays needed to respond instantly and correctly. A station screen confirming the action. A solo player screen, tracking their team's progress. Two 60" ensemble displays — one per team — each serving as the visual command center for everything happening in the room. One wrong signal anywhere and the whole experience falls apart.
This wasn't a typical digital design problem. Most interfaces exist in one place and respond to one person at a time. Iron Diner required a shared information model — a single source of truth that could translate across screen sizes, player roles, and a physical environment where the real action was happening away from the screens entirely.
To find the right references, I looked beyond traditional UI. Digital games like Overcooked showed how teams process shared information under time pressure. Escape rooms showed how physical spaces can drive digital feedback — and how players instinctively read their environment for cues when stakes are high.
Two competing teams also meant two brand identities had to coexist on the same display — each team needed to feel distinct without the screen becoming visually chaotic. And with no prior launch data to reference, every design decision had to be grounded in research, iteration, and a deep understanding of how players would move through the space.
The hardest part wasn't any single interface. It was the invisible connective tissue holding all of them together.
Overcooked
A fully digital multiplayer game with the same core makeup as Iron Diner: teams, timed rounds, and recipes to complete. Used as a reference for how ensemble gameplay communicates shared goals and time pressure on screen.
Coffee Rush
A physical, competitive board game where each player has their own board. Informed how players track their own progress independently while still competing in a shared space.
Merge Cooking
A mobile game where players complete recipes for points, with bonus scoring for high-priority orders. Informed how to visually signal ingredient requirements, progress indicators, and point incentives to players at a glance.
Designing for a room, not just a screen.
Before anything could be designed, the system had to be understood. Anthony was building a startup — which meant communication was largely asynchronous, happening through email exchanges rather than formal interviews. Our team translated his vision into design decisions together in FigJam.
From there I moved into wireframes, but the wireframes kept asking the same question back: what does each player actually need to see at this exact moment? The ensemble player needs the full recipe picture. The solo player needs to track what their teammates are doing. The station player needs instant confirmation that their ingredient registered. Three different contexts. Three different information needs. One shared moment in time.
From there, I moved into wireframes, but the wireframes kept asking the same question back: what does each player actually need to see at this exact moment? The ensemble player needs the full recipe picture. The solo player needs to track what their teammates are doing. The station player needs instant confirmation that their ingredient registered. Three different contexts. Three different information needs. One shared moment in time.
Understanding the interaction model
To validate the system architecture, I examined how players actually interacted during gameplay—drawing from comparable physical games, early playtests, and team brainstorming around real‑time coordination. Unlike traditional digital games, Iron Diner players were constantly moving, talking over one another, and reacting under time pressure, often without looking directly at a screen.
This meant the interface couldn’t assume focused attention or step‑by‑step interaction. Information needed to be glanceable, redundant across surfaces, and resilient to missed cues. Players relied heavily on peripheral vision, verbal coordination, and shared awareness, which reinforced the need for clear hierarchy and consistent state representation across displays.
These interaction patterns confirmed the architectural split between shared awareness (ensemble screens), coordination and detail (solo player screen), and immediate system feedback (station screens). Designing for how players behaved—not how a screen might ideally be used—helped ensure the system remained legible and usable in fast, chaotic conditions.
Three display types, three information models
(Core system section)
Ensemble competition screens (60”)
Design ownership
Solo player display (ultra‑wide)
Designed in collaboration
Station screens (micro LCD)
Designed in collaboration
Exploring structure before visual design
(Brainstorming + sketches + low‑fi)
Early exploration to validate hierarchy, roles, and progression before committing to UI.
Designing and validating the UI system
(High‑fidelity designs + prototypes)
How hierarchy, motion, color, and feedback supported urgency, coordination, and clarity in real time.
Visual identity and design system
(Branding + design system ownership)
Two brands, one system. Tokens, components, accessibility, and scalability across designers and screens.
Collaboration and leadership
How you led the team, owned system decisions, and aligned individual designers’ work into a cohesive whole.
Impacts and outcomes
50% reduction in development time
5 products launched using the design system
Streamlined design-to-development handoff through standardized documentation and reusable components
Established a consistent brand experience across customer-facing products and internal tools