Hi, this is my first UX/UI job so I’ll be grateful for any feedback on this.
This is a general question but I’ll give you a specific example to make it clearer:
Our team is working on a Virtual Reality animation project and we’re implementing the first prototype for testing.
In the application, users can grab objects in VR and position them at a distance using a virtual ‘fishing rod’ function on the controllers. Additionally, they can orient those objects on their vertical axes at a distance by rotating the joystick.
As part of the UI, my UX/UI visual feedback recommendation for this task is that a white circle appears on the floor under an object to clearly indicate its position in relation to the floor and that an arrow rotates around that circle in sync with the movements of the joystick.
My developer disagrees. He feels that both the circle and the arrow are unnecessary feedback features as the user would clearly see the object in relation to the floor and rotate on their Y axis when using the joystick. To him, the natural feedback is sufficient. My research and benchmarking indicate otherwise. I see many similar applications using those features in identical scenarios. They make sense to me.
Furthermore, he feels that if indeed the additional visual feedback was necessary then the testing would show it. So there is no need to build in those features until they are found lacking.
I pushed back and argued that the visual feedback added clarity to the task and that I would rather establish that it isn’t necessary by testing it than miss out on the opportunity to test it. He argued back that it is more efficient to establish the necessity of a feature by not providing it. ie: If you give them extra visual feedback to start with, the users will never know it might be superfluous and neither would you.
We settled unsatisfactorily on an AB testing scenario.
Have you ever found yourself in a similar situation? What is your opinion?
In terms of UX/UI process Is it not always better to recommend features based on your research rather than simply let testing show their necessity?
Any comment would be greatly appreciated.