Remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI) has become widespread in conference interpreting (Braun, 2019; Roziner & Shlesinger, 2010; Seeber & Fox, 2022). This modality of interpreting increases the cognitive load of interpreters, who are already working in a very demanding setting (Gile, 2009; Seeber, 2017; Zhu & Aryadoust, 2022). Beyond the challenges that render simultaneous interpreting cognitively demanding in itself, interpreters now must also contend with various software platforms (Fantinuoli, 2018; Saeed et al., 2023). These platforms are rarely co-developed with interpreters, which can lead to usability issues, as we will explore. To operate these platforms effectively, interpreters rely on graphical user interfaces (GUIs), which serve their intended purpose but are infrequently designed with optimal user experience in mind. When interpreting is conducted through RSI platforms, technology acts as a mediator between interpreters and the world (Ihde, 1990, 2002). In such scenarios, technology not only mediates but also shapes our perception and understanding of the world. Certain technologies enable interpreters to extend their senses, as is the case with RSI platforms, while others, such as telephone interpreting, may limit their perception. In the realm of human-computer interaction, technology significantly influences both interpreters’ rendition and their approach to interpretation. Technology also supports the interpreting process, particularly during the terminology preparation phase. Various forms of technology operate unobtrusively in the background, including the internet, email communication, accounting programs, booking systems, and more. On the one hand, reliance on technology compels us to adhere to technical constraints, such as those presented by GUIs. On the other, technology facilitates our perception of and engagement with the external world. This paper focuses on the GUIs used in RSI and seeks to investigate how interpreters’ cognitive capacities are taxed during RSI sessions and to what extent the design of a GUI is supportive or distracting. To this end, we conducted six semi-structured interviews with professional RSI interpreters. By comparing five widely used RSI software platforms (Nimdzi, 2022), we aimed to gain insight into the interpreters’ experience and preferences regarding GUIs. Our findings show that the use of a GUI while performing RSI exerts both positive and negative effects on interpreters’ cognitive resources and underscore the critical importance of GUI design. Moreover, based on these findings, we propose a concept for a GUI design that is expected to address these issues effectively.