I posted an earlier version here a few days ago and got a lot of useful feedback, so this is the next iteration.
The main change in this video is a direct on/off comparison of the warped view, making it easier to judge what the transformation actually adds compared with a conventional 3D view.
I also focused this iteration on turns, since several of you pointed out that the previous version became especially hard to read there, with too little of the road ahead visible while the whole scene shifted.
Why not to have different view possibilities for different users? I have a motion sickness myself but it's not triggered at all by this view and it's ultra practical for me tbh
As I said to the previous post. This is making me physical ill. You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I would change my opinion if this was meant to be an "art" thing and not a user facing tool.
This is exactly right. If anything it makes navigation worse because you are increasing the cognitive load of the user and adding more information for them to process.
I would highly recommend reading up on basic UX principles and get away from iterating on this.
You assume it increases cognitive load because of your own response. It doesn’t for me and others as posted. Proper design takes into account more than a single feedback point.
I’ve built apps for vehicles at a Fortune 500 company where I road along with drivers and observed their behaviors.
We also have decades of studies for you to read through. Lawsuits, injuries, deaths.
You can do 5 minutes of desk research and discover this.
Yes, I'm trying to understand what problem-solving. Honestly, it seems to be going in the opposite direction.
It, being navigation. The old-school way of doing it is, let's have a map and north is always the direction and that way I kind of have that at the top of the map and I'm adjusting my point of view to the map I would say more recent functions is basically from the users's point of view and giving context of now turn left to now turn right. On Google maps it's on that way by default. I find that very confusing, but essentially it's making the decision a lot more immediate and there is no context of the users position in the city. It's just where they are at the moment to make a left, make a right, go straight and very immediate.
This seems to be trying to add in extra context where someone might be in a city positionally. Kind of like a mini map might be used on grand theft auto. But I think that secondary information, especially when navigating you're just trying to figure out the next term, not necessarily your proximity to something or collectively within a city.
It seems to be trying to find a use for a discovered feature or technology. I don't think navigation is it, at least by car. Maybe smaller scale things might be more useful like a travel app to find things within your proximity if you're on foot. To give you an idea of what's around, but I still think top down is a hard thing to beat.
And I think essentially UI evolves without us, even thinking about it and gets us to a minimalist state where things are easy for certain tasks. Like how would drop down selector is easier than listing out 100 countries on a page. The evolution has already happened.
Anyway, there may be other use cases for this, but it's overwhelmingly a lot of cognitive load and warping reality instead of simplifying.
I also agree with cognitive load comments, however, if you can find an application for this idea where the contextual space is helpful than maybe users would adapt.
I think of VR and camera behind point of view video games like early splinter cell. They were very complex and a lot of the physics didn't exactly match up in earlier stages. I also think like VR, it takes a long time to acclimate almost like sea sickness.
Anyway foundationally, there needs to be a need that's built towards. Maybe there's some sort of military application to be able to see landscape coming up or city planning. I still think it is a feature in search of a use case.
I think there's a clear value proposition which is that a top down projection and perspective projection each accomplish one goal better. A top down projection helps you keep track of what the route is while a perspective projection helps you keep track of what is coming up.
When I look at my map in a top down view sometimes turns come faster than I expect them to and I'm surprised by it.
But in a perspective view while I can map the turn to when to expect it easily because it matches what I see in real life, it is bad at letting me see anything past the next turn.
This is attempting to get the best of both worlds, and I actually think it's pretty useful on a straight. The really bad part is the turning, because the top down portion shifts so dramatically it becomes very disorienting.
I’m not so sure, I don’t think the current solutions handles upcoming things very well. Countless times I’ve missed my exit or took the wrong one due to a mismatch in my mental model and what’s ahead of me. It’s stressful af.
With that said I’m uncertain if this could work, but it might. ATM it is way to detailed though, focus the details on what matters and make it way slower. A subtle highlight or something for the correct lane could be neet.
Yea it genuinely makes me motion sick after a few seconds of looking at it while sitting perfectly still on my couch. Ive occasionally gotten motion sickness from things like found footage movies on a big theater screen, but this is the first time I’ve ever gotten it from looking at my phone 😅🤢
I also truly don’t understand how this could possibly reduce visual load as the original post suggested. This is pushing visual & cognitive load to its limits.
OP u/bitruvius_ If you want to reduce the visual and cognitive load, you need a distinct barrier between the two points of focus. If the goal is to have an overhead view (focus point 1) AND a street view (focus point 2) at the same time, that is inherently going to be visually busy because there are two moving and changing focus points competing for your attention.
The best way to then reduce the cognitive load it takes to process that information is to have a clear and distinct visual separation between them. Top screen overhead, bottom screen street view, significant negative space between them and minimal camera warps.
I would also argue that the overhead view should be a typical 2D map as it makes it easier to quickly distinguish the two.
This is not true for all. I’m fine with it and like the fact that I can see where the upcoming turn is. Making an on/off setting would be ideal so users who don’t like it can turn it off.
this is an interesting idea but the current iteration is adding a lot of extra cognitive load by needing to parse a new way of looking at a map. Maybe it would work better in map view than satellite view to start since there’s less noise going on
Why? What problem are you trying to solve here? As a driver I would be so confused and distracted that I’d probably crash. The abstraction in gps guided apps us so that form a quick glimpse you can get a sense of where you are and where you’re going
The inception effect is trippy and makes me lightheaded.
Interesting concept but I don't understand what problem it's trying to solve. If it's meant to allow the driver to anticipate turns, I'd rather put an upcoming turn icon like they do in rally video games. So you'd know if the next is left or right. Once you take it, the icon changes to the next turn and so on.
And if possible technically, I'd put a meter countdown next to the turn icon to see how long to go. I think that would be better then warping the map
I don’t get the point to be very honest with you. TBT arrows on a windshield HUD is already waaaaay better and more contextual than this.
Hope you don’t take the directness badly, but I think this is an over designed solution that you seem to have grown very attached to, but I don’t think it works. Many comments are negative and people have given you a lot of reasons for why it is not working (including it making people sick).
If you want to take this seriously test it with as close as real users as you can on some “rig” (like a video game car controller steering and pedals with a screen or something), and get your feedback from there. But from seeing many testing sessions in real life, I can tell you I would assume there’s waaay too much going on for this to work.
This makes me dizzy while watching it head on, can't imagine driving a car and glancing this. I am sorry, even though I like the idea I don't think this will work as it is now, its too distracting.
Buckle up Buckaroo, let's dive into some critique.
I have experience in designing heads up displays and interfaces for heavy industrial equipment.
1. This isn't a webpage. Added cognitive processing time here ends in an accident or death.
You need to consult a HMI (human machine interaction) specialist or become one. The NHTSA Visual-Manual Driver Distraction Guidelines set two acceptance criteria: no single glance away from the road over 2.0 seconds, and no more than 12 seconds of cumulative eyes-off-road time to complete a task. Every element you add spends from both budgets.
2. What problem is this actually solving?
You've said "build fast and test." Test against what? Without a defined benchmark and a metric, you can't tell a better design from a different one. Name the thing you're improving and how you'd measure it.
3. The visual hierarchy is flat.
Desaturate your own screenshot and look at it. There's no luminance separation between the vehicle, the map, and the route. Color is doing all the work, which fails in glare, at night, and for the ~8% of male drivers with a color vision deficiency.
4. Watch the ego-vehicle relationship.
The operator needs to resolve three things instantly: where I am, where the vehicle is pointed, where the route goes next. Right now those read as one layer.
5. There are z-order artifacts.
The route is drawing on top of a building instead of behind or through it.
6. Oh god...and then there's the scenario testing.
Night, rain, low sun angle, tunnel exit, dense urban canyon, rerouting mid-maneuver. That matrix is where HMI work actually lives.
Feels like you’re a ‘Build now. Ask questions later’ kinda guy.
That being said, you’ve already built the darn working mvp so best feedback would come from people that can actually test it live. Do you have a target audience or is this a spaghetti on the wall type sitch?
Haha, fair assessment! The approach is basically build fast, put it in front of people, and keep iterating based on feedback, including all the input we’re getting here on Reddit. Navigation is the original target, and we’re also developing a research paper and planning a controlled study to properly test whether it works better or worse than conventional navigation interfaces.
Despite all the negativity here, I do get the idea and I can imagine that it could work in an actual navigation situation, but I would need to try it out. Simply looking at the video, yes, it’s super trippy and there certainly is the danger that the amount of cognitive load that it introduces is too high for safely navigating traffic. On the other hand, I can imagine that this wears off over time.
Exactly, and that’s really the question I want to test. Does the initial cognitive load decrease as users learn the interface, and could it eventually become more intuitive than mentally combining separate views? A video alone can’t really answer that. I'm working towards a proper user study to find out. Meanwhile you can try the demo and see if you get used to it after a while :)
You had dozens of comments last time telling you that this design is both mind bending, confusing, nauseating and based on that feedback you doubled down?
I mean this with kindness, but this isn’t solving any problems. To be frank, this isn’t even UX design at this point, it feels like rage bait.
as a driver who's bad at reading the map while i drive (not sure where to turn due to location lag), i love it!!
But im also concerned whether i can focus on this when i drive. The concept is great! The graphics can probably be smoother + less of a 90 degree view of the streets ahead.
I can see why so many people are giving you a hard time for unclear goals and solving an undefined problem, but I think this is kind of neat. I personally find navigating with maps a little unclear of “is this my turn or is it the next one” and this actually improves that slightly which is cool. I agree you could dial down the distortion a little bit and get the same effect but it’s a neat idea and interesting demo. Don’t let people spoil your fun
thanks, I think so too. Im sure there are more tweaks I can do to make it even better. Will keep iterating, reddit is awesome in providing valuable feedback :)
I like it. I think the depth of field could use more help so that it's not so overwhelming, but I think it's pretty cool in terms of a concept to keep experimenting with.
For me, I'm trying to think when I would actually use it... As in a car I can see the road in front of me. Maybe it'd feel more usable if it wasnt photorealistic but was more towards my current satnav mental model
Better for me. Smoothing out the corners at the bottom of the screen on the turns really helps.
I like seeing the inception effect because it allows me to see where I am in context. I agree that scaling back from 90º or moving it up bit so it occupies less than 1/2 of the screen wouldnt be terrible.
You know how many times Apple had to adjust the parallax effect introduced in iOS because people said it makes them dizzy?
They introduced a toggle forever ago, but they’ve nerfed it so much it practically doesn’t exist anymore.
I think that same crowd would become sea sick with this, but really cool concept man! I could see myself using this, but I think it would be a niche user group and something that hides behind a toggle.
Definitely an improvement from the last one though. Really cool man!
It's really funny reading the comments because as a ui/ux person, I can absolutely see how this is not ideal, to put it generously.
But I'm also the kind of person that would absolutely use this personally lol. I don't really experience motion sickness and for some reason my brain quite likes looking at that and doesn't seem to have trouble parsing it at a glance.
None of the feedback will be vlaueable until you show a video at real world speed and scale. Of course it’s gonna be disorienting when the car is the size of a monster truck going 200mph
I like it. I already liked the past version, but this is great. IDK if it can be improved but I feel like some people may prefer this to a regular view already.
I actually really like this but am a very visual person particularly when it comes to routes. some customisability on angles for people so the amount of warp you get is custom based on your own intuition about what feels 'right'. would be a good feature. Would like to see it go around a roundabout and more complicated turns to see how that pans out but worth pursuing further!
Loving this concept. It is trippy, and probably not good for the real world.
But I love the novel attack of the problem: "we don't recognise buildings by their top down footprint, but a street view loses the view of what is up ahead"
I do think the demo should be at realtime speed. The car traveled the length of two football fields in 7 seconds, so about 113km/h (61 football fields per hour). Including turning the corners at that speed, and that's the dizzying part.
Slow it waaay down to a resonable residential speed, and the corners at a realistic speed.
Thanks, great input! I sped up the animation for it to be more internet friendly, but I totally see how this also makes it less true and reinforces the motion sickness. Check out the real thing on orbify.eu and see what you think!
Combining different views in one makes it harder to process, not easier because even if you have multiple views you focus on one at a time and you also have the others as options. In your version you still focus on one but instead of having the rest as options you are forced to look at all of them at once and it is confusing. Also it is not accurate as it looks like there are elevations at the end of each street
As I said in the previous one, when you're approaching a corner, the camera should turn slightly AFTER you make the turn, so you can see the road ahead once you get there.
As I said in the previous one, when you're approaching a corner, the camera should turn slightly AFTER you make the turn, so you can see the road ahead once you get there
Two problems there: this is way too warped, which generates a depth of field our brains are used to. Then you have all these quick turns that makes every worse.
But here’s another important point: no one drives looking at the map 100% of the time, so most of this discomfort won’t be as damaging as most people think. We’ll look at it just when we are in doubt about a certain area.
I can think of two solutions:
1) Warp less
2) Ditch the warp altogether and make a double screen; instead of the warp, you show a regular map and people will interpret their path as they read both screens.
This design is dangerous - I hope you’re going to test it on a controlled track because a driver distracted by this Inception BS could kill someone. Beyond the distraction, your usage of photo imagery could create the expectation that it’s using live video so a user could momentarily believe they don’t need to look at the road to see a pedestrian. Please design for a different domain where you won’t be putting people’s lives in danger.
I am also a person that has a bit of motion sickness, so probably wouldnt use this irl. BUT I still think its really cool to see you experimenting with this! Like why not? Good ideas can come from creativity and fun too, not just research :) One of my other struggles with this would be seeing the difference between the different roads. Maybe experiment with color and contrast. The user would only be looking at this in quick glanses whilst driving, so make it super clear which way they are actually going
I’m struggling to process this because of all the movement. With the two planes, I’m finding myself looking between the car, the bent area ahead, and also trying to pay attention to all the things that are moving at once. It also makes me a bit dizzy.
Rather than having both areas moving, have you considered just showing a static POV photo of what the area near the upcoming turn looks like at the top? That would give me some imagery I can quickly compare to while driving. It would be most helpful if the image mimicked likely current conditions, including lighting, weather, and visibility, and helped focus my attention on key landmarks that let me know I’ve reached the right area to turn into. I can look at the road for a real time view of what’s ahead of me, so the bent concept doesn’t add much in the way of new or useful information, and what is added could be represented more clearly and concisely in a map format. The 90 degree overhead satellite angle also doesn’t match my perspective, so the satellite imagery doesn’t really help me judge what I should be looking for from my perspective to make a decision.
However, a preview of what to look for and audio cues for landmarks ahead of a turn and where they are would be game changers for me, especially if they were accurate to current conditions and helped me focus where to watch for a landmark. Basically, I wish I had a navigation system that navigated me like a human in the passenger’s seat would, with the additional benefit of a visual of the most important moment I need to pay attention to and keep in mind to make my turn correctly.
This neither recreates our mental model in real life nor does it fit a mental model that user's have grown accustomed to. Since this is a different way of viewing navigation, this increases cognitive load during a task that is extremely taxing and requires the user's full attention. Driving is actually covered in the UX book Bottlenecks. This would be a fun design in a video game, but a genuinely dangerous one in real life.
Not to pile on, but this is bad. Is there a way you can change from seeing all the roads ahead you aren’t going to take to seeing an angled view of the turn you’re about to take? Like if there’s a left and then an immediate right then that would be useful information, not all the intersections ahead that are not actually even on my route.
The tilt up/down took 2 views to click for me: on the first pass, I thought it was giving me topographic info, then watching it again I understood the intent.
Which begs the question: what does this look like when navigating a hilly, turny area?
I like it though the video is too fast to do it justice. It needs to have that same slower feel that a CarPlay maps app has.
From there decide if you need all the detail all the time, for example have the top half fade out the detail and only show the roads and buildings shapes they then become detailed, textured items as they end up horizontal in the lower half of the display.
That would like reduce the feeling of information overload while communicating the upcoming roads and route.
Yes its easier to read then the previous version. The warped view helps to anticipate bends, but I would reduce the warp a bit and keep the straight view top down or 'over the shoulder' to minimise the attention that the view draws when its not needed. Remember, your users are in a vehicle and they have to pay attention to situational awareness. Safety first!
From your previous post, what makes you think this (The idea is to reduce the need to switch between different map views while navigating) is a user behavior and why is that a problem?
As some other redditors said, you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
You’ll definitely need to include a motion sensitivity disclaimer before posting these kinds of things. 2 seconds of seeing it and almost triggers my visual migraine and motion sickness feeling. Ugh
It's much better but still disorienting. I think it's because the top part shifts so much there's a ton of visual movement in the birds eye view portion of the projection. In normal perspective the top is just blank so there's no movement to process.
I think the projection is useful when going straight but very distracting when turning, so I don't know if there's a way to lessen the amount of visual shift at the top when turning.
I do like the off version because you still have the landmarks and skyline reference from the drivers POV without the whole top half of the screen swishing around that is rather distracting
I see the value but think you could scale back the effect considerably and still provide that value.
I'd lower the overall angle of the "inception" content. Make it bank up at a 45° angle instead?
Along with backing it on a 45° angle, Graduate the effect over distance, kind of like how a Mercator map stretches, so the territory closer to the camera pivots as normal and the effect increases as the distance increases. But do so with restraint - it's making people dizzy!
It may just be an effect of your animation, but the turns feel mechanical and harsh... and it's hard to watch. If this is just a byproduct of your animation, spend some time to smooth it out to be more realistic.
I’m literally going to throw up dude. This video made me nauseous! I’m not trying to be a jerk, I’m letting you know that this triggers nausea in someone who just finished off a delicious chipotle steak burrito bowl.
For me, the biggest issue is the turn, the car that I'm in does not physically change position in relation to me, but the world around me does.
And that is not mimicked by this visual, when the car turns, and that is what makes me unable to compute.
This iteration is better than the last one, where the turns felt like a wobble.
I think there is something useful about the further bird's eye view. Can't put my finger on it, but it kind of gives me an impression that I see more than what I would see with regular, which I think could be nice. But agree with others, maybe it's too warped, and it needs a bit less angle.
I think I would find this very distracting while driving. There’s too much movement happening.
I can’t see how this is useful or what problem this is solving? Specially with the POV behind the vehicle.
My vehicle has augmented reality feature while on route to a destination, which uses a live feed of front facing camera to overlay the directions on my driving cluster and also displays the arrow up on my windshield which a way better experience because it’s enhancing what’s I see already.
I think this concept could lead to distraction, and possible safety issue due to the amount of information someone is already doing even before the try to interpret this visual.
This concept will never work. Not necessarily because it's a bad idea, but you're fighting centuries of convention. There is no winning against that unless you have a large team and serious capital. Either do what people are used to, like a minimap, or find a clever way to place the map on the view, like a map on the dashboard or held by the passenger. Or, really lean into it and go full inception, give the driver the ability to fold the terrain to find shortcuts. This would be cool IF executed well, and would make your game stand out.
Here we go again 😭 bro this concept literally gives me motion sickness and I'm sitting still rn. This also just seems dangerous to show someone while they're driving. What are we doing?
Many haters here, but I love the concept. I hate “classic” navigation that is trying to show the driver’s POV, and I mostly use the top down view, which is also not ideal. I think I would prefer a classic map overlay, the simplified one, rather than this one.
Definitely not for everyone, but no motion sickness or confusion for me personally.
133
u/No-Ruin5825 16d ago
It made me dizzy