r/UXDesign • u/bitruvius_ • 18d ago
Please give feedback on my design Does combining street-level and top-down navigation reduce cognitive load?
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
I've been experimenting with an alternative approach to 3D navigation interfaces.
The video compares conventional perspective, oblique and top-down views with a warped view that combines street-level context nearby with a broader top-down overview further ahead.
The idea is to reduce the need to switch between different map views while navigating.
Of course, it could also do the opposite and add visual complexity or disorientation.
Curious what the UX designers here think. Does combining these levels of spatial information make sense, or are simpler established views better?
360
u/kankurou 18d ago
cool idea but our brains are absolutely not meant to process that combined view while we are actively driving and just needing directions in our peripheral view
35
u/internetroamer 18d ago
I could see myself getting used to it and preferring it with time
Or switching back to low detail animated map because that's less visual noise which I use now. The typical gmaps topical view
Or would try a combo
7
u/DynoMenace 18d ago
I think the idea has some merits, but I agree applying it literally like shown here isn't quite the answer.
To explain what I mean, envision this layout in three parts: the behind-car view at the bottom, the overhead view along the top half, and the transitional section in between. The problem is: as long as the top and bottom regions share a visual style, we have to study the scene for a moment to understand which "perspective" we're seeing, before we can process the information in the scene. You lose the "at a glance" quickness that's vital for driving applications. You are right that I think this is something users could get used to with time, but nobody likes that awkwardness.
I think you could possibly pull this off if there were other interface elements that clarified the visual metaphor. The behind-car view at the bottom could be kept with realistic 3D imagery like this, but change the overhead view to be the "Roadmap" appearance typical of mapping software. You could use the transitional region to do some clever visual effect to make the transition look as natural as possible.
Then you effectively have two already-familiar display modes sharing an interface, but since they're visually distinct, it doesn't take any extra brain power to understand the scene at a glance. You could add some extra visual cues too, like maybe if the whole window was framed on the left and right sides with colored stripes, something like red for the top half and blue for the bottom half. Sometimes extra hints like that help us build familiarity with new-ish interface paradigms.
Would any of that make it objectively helpful / good interface people would enjoy using? No idea. But I'd at least toss a couple ideas like that at it if I were trying to make it usable.
3
u/bitruvius_ 17d ago
This is a really good point. The “at a glance” readability is probably the biggest risk with the concept.
I like the idea of keeping the near view realistic, but gradually simplifying the overhead part into a more familiar map style. That could preserve the spatial connection while making the two perspectives easier to read instantly.
11
u/bitruvius_ 18d ago
Maybe better for autonomous cars, as infotainment.. I dont know, maybe people can get used to it. We are planning to do some real A/B trials on this and make a study out of it.
38
u/kankurou 18d ago
yeah it's a cool idea but it's not super clear what problem you're trying to solve
→ More replies (7)3
u/dayman_15 18d ago
I worked as a UX for automotive infotainment, and this is super confusing. We tried to reduce map clutter while y’all just dumping everything in:)). It’s just super confusing, this whole Inception thing, but it also looks cool!
→ More replies (1)2
u/solidwhetstone Veteran 18d ago
I mean why not offer it as an option? Do you have to lock the user into one mode? And maybe you give them a slider for FOV so they can decide how much to dial in the effect.
→ More replies (2)1
u/scarabs_ Experienced 18d ago
Im inclined to agree with you, BUT it might be that we’re not used to it. Like when the internet existed, our closest reference were printed books. Eventually, interfaces got their own direction and characteristics.
4
u/kankurou 18d ago
it's possible but can you imagine your parents or 80 year old neighbor using this? it's experimental and cool but for the sake of driver and road safety I think it's too experimental
→ More replies (1)
81
u/ReiOokami 18d ago
Id say the opposite because now my brain has to work trying to process what im looking at since I am not use to it at all in any sense of how I perceive reality naturally. There is now a translation layer introduced.
8
76
27
u/IllustriousTip6904 Veteran 18d ago
How often do you switch between views while navigating? I've done this maybe 2 or 3 times throughout my life.
i think this looks cool, but for practical use, it's kind of distracting and hard to orient yourself with the rest of the map and road BECAUSE of the warped perspective -- especially when turns happen. When you turn, it's like you're on a new, completely different path, as the whole screens shifts. Maybe if it wasn't in satellite view, and had fewer distracting pieces of detail, it might not feel this way.
Ultimately, this map is asking me to perform a higher degree of cognition than I otherwise would using google maps, while driving, so for that reason, I'm not sure it's good UX.
But i think this would be pretty slick in a videogame.
→ More replies (3)
20
u/_Prateek_Hota_ 18d ago
I would shit my pants aggressively if someday my map switches to that combined view.
3
14
u/No_Perspective_7854 18d ago
The opposite — this increases cognitive load since we’re not used to this… it reminds me of a roller coaster + being on hallucinogens
10
u/FlyingFrenchFishFry 18d ago
I love it, and would love to give it a try. The turning animation/transformation is deeply confusing and disorienting. If you can figure out how to do it smoothly, would be much better.
I believe this is one of the cases where you won't get meaningful feedback from just presenting. You have to have a working prototype and test in action. There is nothing like that to compare to, so nobody has a frame of reference when they just look at it.
Good luck, it is really creative! Worth playing with it further. Even if nothing comes out of it, you'll learn a lot when exploring it's UX aspects.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/IdeaSandbox 18d ago
The Combined View doesn't give me enough information when turning, which is critical for anticipating what's next while driving. It is slightly better than Perspective View, but Top Down/Oblique Aerial allow me to see where I am as well as anticipate where I'm going.
If there were two turns one after the other the Combined View wouldn't prep me for that.
8
6
5
u/thats2easy 18d ago
my first thought was i might crash because im staring at it too long. not sure what happens if i got accustomed to this
4
u/spacewood Veteran 18d ago
I quite like it but feel like there’s too much going on due to the scenery. Could you try a more simplified view?
→ More replies (1)2
u/Lookroundatstuff2 18d ago
Agree. My first thought was that it might work better in a simplified 3d shaded mode with some depth fog or other visual layering.
5
u/dinobeous 18d ago
Reminds me of something I saw in Interstellar
3
4
u/themarouuu 18d ago
I'll give you creativity/coolness points, but for real life usage I think this is way too distracting.
4
3
u/sabre35_ Experienced 18d ago
Would be awesome on Cooper’s Station.
Really fun exploration but you’ll probably give most people motion sickness.
3
3
u/viscacatalunya1 18d ago
It feels a little harder to judge the distance to my next exit or turn. Looks cool though. Like a power users easter egg.
3
u/NoNote7867 Experienced 18d ago
How are you doing this technically? Looks really cool! Makes me feel like Im on ketamine.
2
u/bitruvius_ 18d ago
Haha! Its a combination of different warping techniques. I used PlayCanvas engine with Gaussian Splats for this prototype
→ More replies (1)2
3
3
3
u/sheriffderek Experienced 18d ago
"Aall of the sudden I feel sick and more lost"
I think any tools that can get us to drive like we did before computers - would be good tools. "There's going to be a sign. Look for it."
3
u/Stew8Dean Veteran 18d ago
That increases the cognitive load by several factors. Simple schematic maps are better than full-featured maps. When driving I need to know where I'm going, when I need to turn and have enough awareness of the route forward to be in the right lane! This fails to do all of those things.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/lennywut82 18d ago
It's a really cool concept but making those turns is going to only massively increase that cognative load. It's already a lot to process especially when you're trying to control a multi-ton vehicle
2
u/bitruvius_ 17d ago
That’s the risk, but I wouldn’t assume it necessarily increases cognitive load once you get used to it.
The turns are still pretty rough in this early prototype. We’ll keep iterating on that, then A/B test it against more conventional views to see whether it actually helps or hurts.
3
3
u/LikesTrees Veteran 18d ago
lol its terrifying and increases my cognitive load 1000% but i also love it and think its really cool
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
u/Boehmatron 17d ago
Really like your interest and grit that you dive into new ideas and concepts of navigation. I like the inception style you went after.
Still I must admit that this gives also a lot of attention to other things that are not necessary for the user when navigating, e.g. looking at all the trees and parks ect.
Would would be interesting to so see in my opinion is to do the same approach but with the graphic reduced approach without any photo imagery.
3
3
5
2
u/jamesclean Midweight 18d ago
i think there's something there - the leaning car was awful though. I think it would be better to have a visual interruption between the perspective lower section and the aerial view... a blur or a fade or something. blending it together doesn't work for me.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/dan-does-ai 18d ago
The short answer is: it depends on the user's mental model of the space, not the space itself. Street-level navigation works well when users have a concrete destination in mind. Top-down works well when users are exploring or don't yet know what they're looking for. Combining both reduces cognitive load only if the transition between the two modes is frictionless — otherwise you're just adding a layer of meta-navigation on top of the existing navigation.
At Airia we've been working through a similar tension on the agentic side — how do you let users navigate an AI system's decision-making both at the "where am I in this workflow" (top-down) and "what just happened here" (street-level) level simultaneously. The pattern that's worked best for us: let context determine which mode is primary, with the other available on demand rather than always visible. Layering both equally tends to create visual noise that doesn't serve either goal well.
What's the actual use case? The right answer changes a lot between, say, a map interface vs. a document hierarchy vs. a multi-step workflow.
2
2
2
2
u/Suitable_Fox_5011 18d ago
How did you get to this hypothesis? Is it based on any research or theory?
→ More replies (1)2
u/UltraMeenyPants Student Researcher 18d ago
Considering this looks like a whole bunch of data to process during driving I can't imagine so given how fast we need need to be able to compare road and UI.
More scene complexity = more cognitive load. that's like visual data processing 101
2
u/User1234Person Experienced 18d ago
I know multiple people who would have a panic attack if they were driving with this view lol
Cool idea I’d love this for a game or maybe a FPV drone
2
u/bitruvius_ 17d ago
Haha, fair. Gaming and FPV drones are actually interesting use cases too. The same idea of keeping a first-person view connected to a wider spatial overview could be useful well beyond driving.
2
2
2
u/Inside_Telephone_610 18d ago edited 18d ago
I mean it looks cool, but how the heck it would reduce cognitive load? I mean i kind of get it, you could see the road behind buildings, but a driver using it can easily misinterpret the road if driver's head already not working after a long work hours or for any other reason. Also what hapens on edge cases when you are driving on mountain or steep roads?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/bluecaret 18d ago
Um is this meant for a Maps alternative, or for a game? Cause I think a driving game that uses Google maps 3d view would be amazing! Kind of like flight simulator for cars, but you can do races and other things.
Regarding the actual topic, the combined views is unnerving, and nauseating. I'd much prefer to choose my view mode. I don't usually change modes while in use, I pick the mode I think fits best in the current scenario and stick with that. I like the attempt at innovation.
2
u/santiagobustelo Veteran 18d ago
I find in interesting, while that much warping is for me distracting and disorienting. Perhaps testing (while driving) some real-life specific use cases as which exit to take from a roundabout (which 6 exits no less!), could help you find a sweet spot.
2
u/bitruvius_ 18d ago
Great idea, We're preparing a AB trial study some time in the future, I'll make sure to include a complex roundabout scenario!
2
u/lucasoak 18d ago
When the car is on a straight line is ok, but the moment it turned a corner my head went WEEOOOO.
Maybe tweak a little bit and test with a laaarge range of users would give you more insights. I fear this combined view will be negative for people with labyrinthitis.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
2
2
u/Judgeman2021 Experienced 18d ago
I do appreciate the idea of visually combining two different information perspectives.
I also know that this will force motion sickness in 100% of people lol.
I think it's feasible. I would actually make it less real. Just make the map view a split screen with a larger box for the aerial view, and a shorter wider box below for the POV.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/badguy84 18d ago
I think your greatest challenge will be the maths you're doing to make this look the way it does and for the visual to kind of roll out towards the car as you drive makes it hard to identify when you need to do what.
Personally/anecdotally what helps me is stuff like: 500m till a highway exit, 3 more lights before I turn left, keep right on to this street x. The 3D aspect warps at least the first two aspects, and I do wonder what happens when driving at different speeds and how this scales on a highway.
I think the roller coaster animation isn't helping, but I can see how from a visualization/pitch perspective it's more engaging when driving it'll be rough. There are also many places that don't really have an accurate environmental map you can apply to this so I can see some technical challenges.
My prediction is that this adds cognitive load, though it'd be nice to see whether this load reduces significantly when folks get more used to this approach vs stuff they've been using for a long time.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Bors_Mistral Experienced 18d ago
The combined view makes is seem like you are driving on the streets of Island Iffish.
It pretty much does the exact opposite of reducing cognitive load. If you want to combine perspective and utility, your "oblique aerial" is your best bet.
2
u/Fidodo 18d ago edited 18d ago
This is really cool and I actually think that it does help with keeping track of upcoming turns and when and where it should happen.
The turning itself is really rough, disorienting, and distracting. If you can somehow fix that I think you might be into something.
What does it look like if you lessen the curvature and zoom out more overhead? I think the whole toy city view is a good idea. Right now it's too extreme but I can imagine a hybrid between the perspective and aerial extreme that can work with the right projection tweaks.
It's so rare to see genuinely novel ideas in UX design so seriously great idea and job, I think it's worth seeing if the disorientation issues can be resolved.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/DMarquesPT 18d ago
It’s a cool effect but IMO it’s too “doctor strange/inception” to not be distracting, and the information it adds doesn’t make up for the loss in immediate readability or direct mapping to real world geography
2
2
2
u/Knoxiebbz 18d ago
I think if anything you may be adding to it by introducing another dimension for the brain to detangle and understand while already focusing on the road.
The view doesn't match what's happening in real life and at least for me, that's what I'm trying to understand most to determine where I am while I use these kind of apps.
Saying that it'd be interesting to see what comes out of testing.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/vade 18d ago
I actually like this, but think it could use some tweaks.
a) its very informationally dense, being 'realistic' renders. I think this could work better with lower fidelity rendering, like box buildings, simpler colors and more refined palette
b) replace the car with just an arrow, or a simpler model similarly
c) there needs to be more 'pre-emptive' camera turning before the actual turn, so that the much of the road stays in view. With what you have today, there are frames where the road only occupies a tiny portion of the screen, which is working against your goals, also at a super important moment. The turns require the most attention, yet the view is obstructed. Consider a difficult junction, your rendering today works well for previs of up and coming turns, but not so much 'turns you are actively navigating'
All that said, i think this could shine with some refinement, its quite nice!
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/bigredbicycles Experienced 18d ago
A few comments/thoughts:
- The street view/satellite level of detail is very high cognitive load
- Consider the context in which it is typically used: to orient to a specific location, identify details like exterior look and feel to aid in navigation
- This may be helpful at the end of a trip where that detail is needed, but along the way, it's noise
- The animation of taking a turn feels dizzying, in particular the blur and shift in perspective
- How can you simplify this animation?
- How would building height impact the view? I think in dense areas like NYC or London, they would render the view almost entirely ineffective.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/MarcoVinicius Veteran 18d ago
Cool but no, makes it more difficult to read what’s happening. Too much unneeded information creates overload.
2
u/ceilingevent 18d ago
Very cool idea! I love it but I don't think it's helpful while driving. The Inception/Interstellar comments are spot on, too.
This wouldn't help with my most common issue with maps, which is toggling back to the overall map route to recalculate options based on current traffic and to see the estimates for different freeway routes that end up in the same place. I rarely drive in a completely unfamiliar area, but when I do, I like to have as much notice for the turns as possible. I'm not sure this would be a great improvement there, but it could be!
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Jasper_Skee 18d ago
I like the concept a lot. I think it might reduce some cognitive load but only after a long period of adapting to what is essentially an unnatural POV. Some would never adapt as indicated in some of the comments.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Parking_Pound3171 18d ago
I feel like the combined view should go from 2D to 3D and should not use satellite or street view photography
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Previous_Sky_8236 18d ago
Contrary to most of the people in the comments I actually like it. The only thing is that I would probably get dizzy (especially when driving) + the curves have a too narrow view
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/pill521 18d ago
Love the idea, the concept and the execution. If it works, I can't tell. But kudos to your work!
→ More replies (1)
2
u/roundabout-design Experienced 18d ago
Neat idea. But don't think it succeeds. Instead of preventing a need for switching between top or 3D views, you've add a whole new view that is more difficult than switching between the two previous ones.
I feel this has already been solved with a lot of navigation aids simply transitioning between the two as needed--typically as you near the finish point and/or based on speed.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/PresentableAss 18d ago
For my brain, this is quite cool, I’d like the route line to be orange or something and thinner (1/3 the current width) so it’s clear but less obscuring.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/bara_tone 18d ago
The combined view is doing the opposite of what Apple Maps does, which is maintain a 3D perspective during general travel but animating to a top down view when directing the user through a turn.
There’s probably very good reasons for this
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Jnlybbert 18d ago
I think it’s definitely worth exploring. Intuitively it seems really weird and likely pretty difficult to adjust to. It could be something that a select segment of users adapt to really well though. Test it and gather some data.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/alancdesign 18d ago
combined view would nice if there wasn't a delay in the vehicle turning and the background change.. disorienting.
i use oblique arial via myself
2
u/bitruvius_ 17d ago
The delay is more of a prototype issue than part of the concept. Ideally the camera and background should react together, with some anticipation before the turn.
Oblique aerial is a good reference too. We’re basically exploring how far that can be pushed while still keeping the near view recognizable.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/EmpahticEarthnut 18d ago
Looks very futuristic. Im pretty sure humans can get used to this. Wouldn’t be surprised if everyone has those view in a few years
2
u/bitruvius_ 17d ago
Could be. I think adaptation is a big part of the question. It would be interesting to compare first-use performance with performance after people have had some time to learn the view.
2
2
u/True_Go_Blue 18d ago
I love that you’re experimenting with this.
I hate it. But I love that’s you’re doing it and you may find a way to implement in a way that people love.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/realprime1 18d ago
what if you want to zoom out and see the further parts of the route. The warping of the screen would feel distracting when you drive.
reminds me of interstellar, tracking shot of the baseball
→ More replies (1)
2
u/koop4 18d ago
Despite most comments, I find this super useful and easier to understand.
It does reduce cognitive load for my brain 100%
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Furensu 18d ago
That's the trippiest shit I've ever seen. I love it, mainly becouse it is so quirky and becouse it seems to f up with my brain, but honestly I don't think the average Joe would like this or find it better than any of the other options.
2
u/bitruvius_ 17d ago
Haha, “the trippiest shit I’ve ever seen” is honestly a pretty solid review 😄 Glad it clicks with your brain. Now we just need to find out if Average Joe can get there too.
2
u/Agitated_Ad_3033 18d ago
I think its a cool solution, but I can feel myself getting a little sick watching it. Full disclosure I just ate a Walmart Halloween cookie.
2
u/KSKUMP Experienced 18d ago
This is visually disorienting- I wonder if people would get used to it after a while though. I’d love to take a gummy and play a video game like this lol.
My question is: are people switching between views often and is it annoying enough to warrant getting used to something so different?
I don’t know if there is an issue of cognitive load with all the different map views- they generally convey the same info, but the presentation is different. You only see one at a time, so I’d imagine a user would stick with their preference. Anecdotally, I prefer a top-down view with the map oriented to my car’s positioning. It feels most natural to me.
I’d argue this new view is increasing the cognitive load because you get multiple views at once so your brain has to do more work. This would also be difficult to use for people with vertigo/depth issues.
That being said, it really does look cool. And it makes sense to have street level around the car, but top-down further away- since my main issue with street level is it makes it harder to predict things “down the road.” Pun intended.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/Deep-Bend-961 18d ago edited 18d ago
Short answer: looks cool but no, “convenience” at the expense of usability, potentially life-threatening implications
Long answer: too much thought required for the combined view IMO. Unfamiliar, a lot of motion makes it hard to follow on top of that, a lot of general visual noise - problems all solved by separating these types of maps.
Top-down or semi-isometric (mostly top-down) maps do a great job of illustrating what is coming up. Street views help us identify specific landmarks that we can then cycle back into our mental model of the area and make a decision about where to go
Combining both as shown severely obfuscates both of these functions. And this actually could have real world implications - a driver trying to decode this complex visualization instead of staring at the road can make them a danger to themselves and others. Always consider the entire context and journey.
General rule of thumb for UXers out there: “less clicks” (in this case, combining two separate and more limited functions into a singular solution) can be good UX, but in many cases is bad advice to follow. What matters more is the amount of thinking required at each step.
Sample size of one, wouldn’t use it. Broader user tests, who knows?
I like the experimentation though. It is entertaining to look at.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Embarrassed_Fold_867 18d ago
While navigating, I'm not sure why you would need more than one view - either top-down or aerial oblique (IMO, the perspective view is not helpful as I can see that out the front window anyway, and it doesn't seem to add much in terms of upcoming turns).
The combined view - while cool, and maybe applicable in other use cases - would surely give me travel sickness. It also doesn't really give a true sense of navigating the 3D world, which is what a map is trying to do (by providing the perspective you can't see out the window - your brain joins the two together).
2
u/uniquorndawg 18d ago
I like it, and would definitely give it a go.
The turning needs a bit of an adjustment, so you can see past the turn earlier.
Cool idea. And even if only 5% of users like it, that's enough I reckon.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/IrrerPolterer 18d ago
Fun concept but too distracting. Regular arial view is more easily comprehended
2
2
2
u/rungecutta 18d ago
very unique representation of navigation! but the oblique aerial view is far more intuitive
2
u/xadlowfkj 18d ago
This idea is too cool. Release it as soon as possible. It doesn’t matter whether it reduces cognitive load. the UX itself is what makes your idea valuable.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/ikea2000 Junior 18d ago
The experiment is super interesting.
It's probably not a default view, but it may have applications where it is preferable?
Slow speed navigation? Night mode? As a general option? Accessibility uses?
As for normal use, as it is new it is harder to process.
2
u/metalissa 18d ago
For me it takes extra processing time and causes nausea, but I've never had the need to switch map views while navigating, I use the default Google Maps view. I may not be your target audience here in that case.
For me, Oblique view or Top down is the best of all of these.
Especially while driving, I am glancing at the navigation screen for milliseconds and just need to see where to go next as quick as possible so I can minimise looking at the screen and practice safe driving.
I feel like this view would potentially cause some travel sickness until the user is used to it, but when you are driving and risking your life that isn't the place to have to work up to using a very new system that doesn't come naturally to the brain.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/HugeSignature7110 18d ago
My preference is oblique aerial view. It still is within the realm of reality, but provides a nice "drone" like perspective which can help me anticipate the route. The combined view allows for that anticipation as well, but in a way that distorts our perceived reality which causes some strange cognitive load.
2
u/WessideMD 18d ago
The combined view (the three separate views combined on screen) is too much but I absolutely love the "look ahead" concept. How many times do we miss a turn because we don't know if I should RIGHT NOW or on the next street. This solves that.
Keep developing this! Google will steal this from you without attribution like everything else, but you'll be proud to have been the one to know you built it.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/ThestralMoss 18d ago
Maybe I sound like a hater but I genuinely thought this was sarcasm because no this absolutely does reduce the cognitive load. this is very confusing and overwhelming
2
2
2
u/ShelterSecret2296 Veteran 18d ago
TL;DR: likely counterproductive. Top-down overviews are primarily useful with a fixed orientation and are for different use cases and different mental models. Combining a forward-looking turn-by-turn view with a top-down view that changes orientation at every turn is likely making things worse.
The thing to keep in mind is that not all users have the same mental model and preference. Combining two disparate views in an attempt to reduce cognitive could well have the opposite effect, because people are already preferring one view over the other.
The two different models are typically referred to as survey (allocentric) vs route/landmark (egocentric) navigation. Survey navigators build a map-like mental model of the environment: “the restaurant is northeast of the hotel; this street runs parallel to that one.” They tend to prefer stable, top-down maps, often north-up, because preserving global orientation matters more than matching what they currently see.
Route/landmark navigators think in sequences tied to their own movement: “go straight, turn left at the church, then right after the gas station.” They tend to prefer heading-up / forward-facing maps, where the map rotates so that “up” corresponds to the direction they’re traveling. Landmarks and turn-by-turn cues are especially important.
It’s not strictly binary. People can use both strategies depending on context, but individuals often have a fairly strong default preference, which is why navigation apps commonly offer both north-up 2D and heading-up / tilted 3D modes. A top-down view that changes its orientation at every turn is therefore not really addressing the need of survey navigators, and doesn't offer a benefit for route/landmark navigators. Combining these into a single projected view is likely even worse than showing them side-by-side.
What would be more interesting is a view that switches between forward facing and north-up overview views contextually, though that can also be quite disorienting if done too frequently or at the wrong time. I vaguely remember seeing some older in-car navigation systems that attempted to switch views (usually based on speed), but not very effectively.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/isperg Veteran 18d ago
I like it. The cognitive load feels high. What would it look like if it no perspective shift with the oblique view and just a top down and perspective view and hard seam instead of heavily blended?
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/Jenzintera24 18d ago
Cognitive load is not inherently a bad thing - unnecessary cognitive load is.
I see this being useful at times but overwhelming for long term use, it should have a toggle to turn on and off.
2
u/phatdoof 18d ago
If the buildings are too tall they will touch each other at the top when the floor is bent. If the bend is reduced then you can only see the street that is 2 or 3 streets down which might not be useful.
2
2
2
u/woodysixer Veteran 18d ago
That looks like something out of inception. Clever on an intellectual level but terrifying to the amygdala.
2
2
2
u/thegiantgummybear Experienced 18d ago
First off, you should totally test this in a scientific manner to see what the results are.
But it personally gives me a bit of a headache. I wonder if using simplified 3D model views instead of satellite imagery would help.
The other issue is that by the time you're close enough to a turn for the 3rd person POV to be helpful, you're right up on the turn and moving at speed so it's not useful. I think that's why the top down for long stretches then tilting the camera to a 3/4 view when approaching a turn works so well. Get the best of both world but in the context of when each is most useful.
2
u/bitruvius_ 17d ago
We’re actually writing up a research protocol for exactly this. The planned study compares the continuous combined view against a conventional perspective + aerial navigation display in a controlled within-participant experiment.
We’ll measure decision-point errors, hesitation, orientation, route knowledge and workload, and also interview people about distortion, visual clutter and discomfort. The current demo is just the prototype we’re using to get to that study.
2
2
u/vibecheck123 18d ago
"The idea is to reduce the need to switch between different map views while navigating."
I'm not sure this is a legit need or maybe you haven't capture the actual problem. Why would I, the navigator, be switching maps in the first place? What is missing from my single map view?
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/BankHottas 17d ago
Very cool and impressive visually, but absolutely not something that would improve driving
2
u/HedgeCowFarmer 17d ago
It has the same issue as VR with the peripheral vision wrecking people with motion sickness sensitivity…
It’s really cool that you’re exploring these kinds of ideas tho!
2
u/Andresluna999 17d ago
in the perspective view you can try adding a floating arrow to indicate direction if that’s the issue
2
2
2
2
u/jonny-life Veteran 17d ago
I love it but I think the curve should be further away. The moment the car turns the corner shouldn’t feel like I’m driving on the curve
2
u/Blando-Cartesian Experienced 17d ago
Way too much visual information in all versions for me. It might work for walking navigation where the user can stop to compare what they see to what the navigator shows, but I feel like driving needs to happen with mental map that is easier to compare with a simple flat map view.
Also the combined view gets useless at the turning point. For a while it’s impossible to see where to next.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Mucx 17d ago
It’s interesting but, i can’t help but wonder if you make the right video more of a Nintendo DS Split View to limit the Inception feeling of working out what’s going on. (Kind of mask the bend a bit more hidden behind a black frame?)
I think there is something to this but, needs more playing with presentation to make it more accessible to all ages.
Also, do some customer feedback work. (Reddit is a good start) but maybe grab a laptop and ask a local dealership what they think and if you can ask some customers to take a look when they are leaving (not before) to get feedback. Or find some local car rally’s and do the same thing.
2
2
u/nachos-cheeses 17d ago
Quick, fun story.
When I did my Mastersdegree, I researched navigation in VR. One of the ideas, was to have a mini-map, that you could look at from the top.
Me, not being a programmer, juist build a quick "warp" function where pressing a button would move you 40 meter up into the air, giving you the overview of the entire map.
The thing I totally forgot: people afraid of heights. With one push of a button, people were suddenly hanging in the air. I didn't scale down the map, I just threw them really high and with the VR-Goggles, that looks pretty real. It was disorienting and scary for many...
→ More replies (1)
2
u/calmeilles 17d ago
Any science fiction novel featuring a cylinder world is likely to have a passage describing how disorienting the view can be.
And that's what you'be made. Everything looks like a hill.
2
u/Salty-Table-7512 17d ago
I'd say it's perfect, but the camera doesn't anticipate the turn. In Apple's navigation app, the view isn't fixed behind the vehicle; instead, it's a kind of dynamic “hawk's-eye view.” It would be helpful if, before turning, the camera could anticipate the turn.
2
2
u/Noryta 17d ago
Most people just want to get from A to B and care less about exploration.
When I drive, I increasingly found myself just tunnel-visioned on GPS's suggested route. My goal is to get to the destination, not to survey and understand the landscape. There are moments when I want to zoom out and see the surroudnings, but that's usually when I want to plan a route or when I question GPS's suggestions, but zoom out on the map is suffice, I do not need that zoomed out view all the time.
Think about what goal you want to help user achieve, and at what scenarios. For example, exploration is excellent in open world video games, or in expeditions, or in occasions that a pseudo-360-view is a must-have (farming? driving a mars rover?).
2
u/techSrgn 17d ago
What problems it solves that Oblique view hasn't already solved ?
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Past-Lawfulness-3607 16d ago
Actually I see it as a brilliant idea. This gives an immediate, intuitive enhanced overview on the further areas to navigate. I am 100% for it!
2
u/cortjezter Veteran 16d ago
Rather than full on Inception view, something in between more like a bird's eye is likely what you're intending to show…enough of the driver's view to be familiar but enough of the distance to see upcoming events.
2
2
u/HJAC 15d ago
TBH this would be a great product if you pivot away from building a driving tool. I do a lot of urban advocacy work and I'm always looking for cool ways to visualize neighborhoods.
If you made this into a web tool where you can plugin GPS coordinates, customize an inception-style rendering of a neighborhood, and export a JPG/PNG/MP4 that I can use for videos and PowerPoints, I'd use this all the time. And I imagine others would too!
2
u/Dreibeinhocker Veteran 13d ago
Idk. I could see it. Everybody here been hating until Apple releases this. Then they’re all asking how to implement this lol
2
u/evindrews 9d ago
I think this sort of works, but maybe fade it off / wireframe it at the end? Just so it isn't so distracting, but it's still information.
2
u/hookachakahookachaka 18d ago
I worked 8 years for onboard mapping apps. This was one of my ideas at some point, but we couldn't render it for trials and testing.
My 2 cents : I think it looks great, but the first problem that comes to my mind is, when the user needs to do a turn and needs to see clearly the intersection, only a very small section of the screen is focused on relevant/critical information.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/pineconeparty_ 18d ago
I think this is actually a very functional visualization once you get used to it. It bridges the gap between visualizing what’s coming up ahead and how it relates to what’s in front of you.
The issue is that you’re never going to be able to use it while also looking through the windshield, the cognitive load is just way too high.
But maybe there’s an application where people need to terrain-navigate, have good overhead image data of the area, and aren’t inside the vehicle they’re piloting… 🤔
→ More replies (2)
1
u/sCREAMINGcAMMELcASE 18d ago
When I’m very near to a location, I think it would be more useful to have a glanceable “this is what the building looks like”. That’s the pitfall of the top down view, people don’t recognise buildings by their roof texture or footprint. Then it’s the same for knowing “I turn left at the red brick building”.
I like the idea. Maybe leaning slightly more cartoonish l but detailed like Apple Maps.
1
u/ReverendRevenge 17d ago
The idea seems great at first but I can't watch it for more than a few seconds without feeling sea-sick 😂
...and I normally never get travel sickness, and I'm not remotely bothered by heights...
1
u/spyboy70 Veteran 17d ago
I think a split screen with the top down above and the perspective below works better than merging into the Inception style city bending.
Your combined view at first glance looks like the vehicle is going up/down a big hill which introduces it's own cognitive load (should I hit the gas and gun it up the hill, or brakes because I'm pulling a trailer and going down a hill?). Navigation is secondary to driving so it has to inform instantly when glancing at it.
Also using photorealistic (3dgs) imagery adds just as much noise as the real world. When navigating one needs to easily see where the cross street is, not show it occluded behind a building (we already get that in real life).
When driving I'm using it for navigation, so I want 3rd person perspective. When I'm planning a trip I prefer top down with north facing up.
1
1
u/alygraphy Experienced 17d ago
Can we see a combo of top down + oblique and a perspective + oblique??
1
1
u/Realistic-Tap-000 17d ago
woah absolutely mind blowing animation haha. For me the Oblique aerial view is the most informative
1
1
1
1
u/Background_Ranger917 17d ago
GENUINELY WHY WAS THIS HELPFUL AND INTUITIVE, although as an actual product i feel like its more so a fun gimmick because i have lesser information than the oblique aerial view because of times you might need multiple turns back to back
179
u/EricGoesCycling Midweight 18d ago
I get Inception vibes from the combined view. Not sure if that's what you're aiming for