## 4 Discussion  
The objective of this section is to recognize the difficulties encountered in determining and validating the appropriate interface configuration for different tasks and situations. On the one hand, the amount of data available is too limited to draw definitive conclusions. However, initial processing has been carried out to ensure that the different tasks considered are sufficiently represented. This also responds to the reality that a First Responder is often involved in different tasks depending on the region, administration and profession. As a consequence, it is observed that the preference results for firefiters and natural disaster professionals are identical, and in the case of rescue professionals, almost identical. For the task distinction to make sense in this context, the number of professionals per task should be larger, and their responses should be collected in separate rounds. In  
Figure 19: Awareness module importance distribution defined by a contraction metric inversely proportional to the pondered priority quantities displayed in Table 13 for each FR rescue mission in complete mode. this survey, the results of the Hazmat Incident FRs are the least significant, as they consist of only two respondents. On the other hand, those who perform different rescue tasks (in buildings, mountains or tunnels) have indicated that, depending on the nature of the rescue, certain modules would make more sense than others (the augmented olfaction module or the Black box contextual information would not make sense in the mountain, while in a tunnel or building, it may be essential). Therefore, the strategy to divide the display configuration according to different task has been well considered. In general, there has been a general controversy regarding the number of scenarios (survival, rescue, full) considered. Some respondents have indicated their disagreement with the number of scenarios: many EMS have suggested considering only one scenario, since their collaboration in rescue tasks does not include the rescue of the victim and, therefore, no distinction is made between scenarios where their life may be in danger. In this sense, the first step would be to conduct a preliminary survey to determine a number of scenarios for each type of task with objective characteristics and contrasted by the professionals. The second step would be to administer the same survey, considering the different scenarios, to a significant group of professionals. As for the conclusions, which should be contrasted with larger representative groups, they indicate that the firefighter profile tends to visualize a smaller number of modules, while the EMS FRs choose to deploy a larger number of tools in the different rescue scenarios. The other profiles in general have chosen intermediate quantities. However, in the complete mode, the EMS FRs have indicated a lower number of tools to deploy than the other profiles. When analyzing the results, we have seen that there were some surveys with this section empty, and the impact on the results is evident. Another noticeable detail in the distribution of the data is that the EMS FRs have more diverse opinions, and therefore, a greater variability in the response data. In contrast, the other profiles show less variability and more conclusive data. This is essential for extracting useful information, such as the order of priority of the modules. Even if a ranking is performed based on average, a large variability in the data implies that there is no consensus. Therefore, instead of generalizing the interface, it should be kept flexible and adapted individually. If there is unanimity, standard interfaces could be generated. The different profiles of First Responders have shown an interest in proposing information not considered in the survey to facilitate the rescue tasks. On the one hand, some surveyed firefighters have also indicated that they would prioritize having access to the biosignals of their fellow rescuers.