Constraints
The original Virtual Viking menu was cluttered, difficult to navigate, and prone to inconsistent behavior
The interface needed to be accessible to elderly and technically inexperienced users
The redesign had to be visually appealing while minimizing cognitive load
Course content changes frequently, requiring a system that supports rapid, low-maintenance updates
The menu needed to integrate with existing project architecture without introducing instability
The final solution had to balance usability, scalability, and long-term maintainability
Old Menu
Successes
The overhaul transformed the menu into a streamlined, single-panel interface aligned with the UI artist’s visual direction. We simplified both the aesthetic and the interaction model to reduce cognitive load, replacing the fragmented multi-page structure with a cohesive layout that presents information clearly and consistently.
From a technical perspective, I rebuilt the tagging and content systems around data-driven architecture. The tag system now auto-populates from a centralized data table, and menu contents dynamically generate from the same source. This eliminated manual duplication, improved consistency, and made future updates significantly faster and less error-prone.
I also removed features that introduced confusion without providing sufficient value, such as the history system that unintentionally hid courses. In its place, I implemented more reliable and intuitive navigation behaviors, including a click-to-scroll interaction optimized for VR. The final result is a menu that is markedly more stable, visually coherent, and accessible, and it has substantially improved the usability of the Virtual Viking platform.
Flaws
While the redesign represents a significant improvement, UI systems are inherently iterative. Some advanced customization options were intentionally deprioritized in favor of clarity and accessibility. This decision strengthened the experience for the primary user base but reduced flexibility for edge-case workflows.
Additionally, because the system was designed to integrate tightly with existing project architecture, certain legacy constraints influenced implementation details. Although these compromises preserved compatibility and stability, a fully greenfield rebuild could potentially allow for even cleaner separation of concerns and expanded extensibility.
Learnings
This project reinforced the importance of treating UI as both a design and an engineering problem. Effective interface work requires translating visual goals into scalable, data-driven systems that remain maintainable over time. I deepened my understanding of how architectural decisions—such as centralized data management and automated population of UI elements—can dramatically reduce long-term maintenance costs.
Equally important was the lesson that simplification is often a technical achievement, not just a design choice. Removing unnecessary features and reducing interaction complexity required deliberate prioritization and user-focused decision-making. The experience strengthened my ability to balance accessibility, performance, and maintainability while delivering a system that serves both end users and developers.