Leica Rangemaster

Leica Rangemaster

Leica Rangemaster

Leica Rangemaster

Small, compact and reliable rangefinding

Small, compact and reliable rangefinding

Small, compact and reliable rangefinding

Small, compact and reliable rangefinding

Work

Home

Resumé

EN

UA

EN

UA

EN

UA

EN

UA

ALL CASES

NEXT CASE

SECTOR

SECTOR

SECTOR

Consumer eletronics

Consumer eletronics

Consumer eletronics

USED BY

USED BY

USED BY

Hunters, outdoor enthusiasts

Hunters, outdoor enthusiasts

Hunters, outdoor enthusiasts

DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

DELIVERABLES

User interface and interaction design

User interface and interaction design

User interface and interaction design

TIMELINE

TIMELINE

TIMELINE

2 months

2 months

2 months

I was given a chance to contribute to new generation of Leica rangefinder, a model that would combine a time-proven physical design with up-to-date demands of the market.

I was given a chance to contribute to new generation of Leica rangefinder, a model that would combine a time-proven physical design with up-to-date demands of the market.

I was given a chance to contribute to new generation of Leica rangefinder, a model that would combine a time-proven physical design with up-to-date demands of the market.

I was given a chance to contribute to new generation of Leica rangefinder, a model that would combine a time-proven physical design with up-to-date demands of the market.

The challenge became apparent immediately: modern smartphone connectivity and an abundance of user-facing information could conflict with a minimalistic two-button interaction pattern and technical limitations of the display.

The challenge became apparent immediately: modern smartphone connectivity and an abundance of user-facing information could conflict with a minimalistic two-button interaction pattern and technical limitations of the display.

The challenge became apparent immediately: modern smartphone connectivity and an abundance of user-facing information could conflict with a minimalistic two-button interaction pattern and technical limitations of the display.

The challenge became apparent immediately: modern smartphone connectivity and an abundance of user-facing information could conflict with a minimalistic two-button interaction pattern and technical limitations of the display.

INTERFACE

INTERFACE

INTERFACE

The goal was to evolve the product without compromising what already worked. To retain rangefinder's compact, reliable form we needed to find a clever way to prioritise the information based on common use-case scenarios while leaving the room for personalization.

The goal was to evolve the product without compromising what already worked. To retain rangefinder's compact, reliable form we needed to find a clever way to prioritise the information based on common use-case scenarios while leaving the room for personalization.

The goal was to evolve the product without compromising what already worked. To retain rangefinder's compact, reliable form we needed to find a clever way to prioritise the information based on common use-case scenarios while leaving the room for personalization.

The goal was to evolve the product without compromising what already worked. To retain rangefinder's compact, reliable form we needed to find a clever way to prioritise the information based on common use-case scenarios while leaving the room for personalization.

PROCESS

PROCESS

PROCESS

PROCESS

Initial research and stakeholder and field expert interviews allowed us to limit suggested concepts for information structure, customisable parts of the interface, and reticle design.

Initial research and stakeholder and field expert interviews allowed us to limit suggested concepts for information structure, customisable parts of the interface, and reticle design.

Initial research and stakeholder and field expert interviews allowed us to limit suggested concepts for information structure, customisable parts of the interface, and reticle design.

Initial research and stakeholder and field expert interviews allowed us to limit suggested concepts for information structure, customisable parts of the interface, and reticle design.

RETICLE PLACEMENT

RETICLE PLACEMENT

RETICLE PLACEMENT

RETICLE PLACEMENT

At the top of HUD, aligned with rangefinder scope center

At the top of HUD, aligned with rangefinder scope center

At the top of HUD, aligned with rangefinder scope center

At the top of HUD, aligned with rangefinder scope center

INFORMATION STRUCTURE

INFORMATION STRUCTURE

INFORMATION STRUCTURE

INFORMATION STRUCTURE

Split between multiple screens, arranged by order of importance

Split between multiple screens, arranged by order of importance

Split between multiple screens, arranged by order of importance

Split between multiple screens, arranged by order of importance

INTERFACE CUSTOMISATION

INTERFACE CUSTOMISATION

INTERFACE CUSTOMISATION

INTERFACE CUSTOMISATION

Order and type of widgets shown on the main screen

Order and type of widgets shown on the main screen

Order and type of widgets shown on the main screen

Order and type of widgets shown on the main screen

INTERACTION EXPERIENCE

INTERACTION EXPERIENCE

INTERACTION EXPERIENCE

PRESS, HOLD, REPEAT

PRESS, HOLD, REPEAT

PRESS, HOLD, REPEAT

Given the limited number of physical controls, interaction design relied entirely on how users engaged with the two buttons. The only variables available were which button was pressed and the duration of the press. This constraint became the foundation for a clear and consistent interaction language.

Given the limited number of physical controls, interaction design relied entirely on how users engaged with the two buttons. The only variables available were which button was pressed and the duration of the press. This constraint became the foundation for a clear and consistent interaction language.

Given the limited number of physical controls, interaction design relied entirely on how users engaged with the two buttons. The only variables available were which button was pressed and the duration of the press. This constraint became the foundation for a clear and consistent interaction language.

Given the limited number of physical controls, interaction design relied entirely on how users engaged with the two buttons. The only variables available were which button was pressed and the duration of the press. This constraint became the foundation for a clear and consistent interaction language.

We defined a simple set of inputs: short press, long press, and simultaneous press of both buttons. This pattern scaled across key scenarios, from quick access to critical parameters to deeper menu navigation and system controls, ensuring learnability without increasing complexity.

We defined a simple set of inputs: short press, long press, and simultaneous press of both buttons. This pattern scaled across key scenarios, from quick access to critical parameters to deeper menu navigation and system controls, ensuring learnability without increasing complexity.

We defined a simple set of inputs: short press, long press, and simultaneous press of both buttons. This pattern scaled across key scenarios, from quick access to critical parameters to deeper menu navigation and system controls, ensuring learnability without increasing complexity.

We defined a simple set of inputs: short press, long press, and simultaneous press of both buttons. This pattern scaled across key scenarios, from quick access to critical parameters to deeper menu navigation and system controls, ensuring learnability without increasing complexity.

The project timeline was extremely limited. To identify hidden flaws and test out the learning curve, I built an interactive prototype with a game controller and key-mapping software.

The project timeline was extremely limited. To identify hidden flaws and test out the learning curve, I built an interactive prototype with a game controller and key-mapping software.

The project timeline was extremely limited. To identify hidden flaws and test out the learning curve, I built an interactive prototype with a game controller and key-mapping software.

The project timeline was extremely limited. To identify hidden flaws and test out the learning curve, I built an interactive prototype with a game controller and key-mapping software.

One usability test later we were able to iterate quickly.

One usability test later we were able to iterate quickly.

One usability test later we were able to iterate quickly.

One usability test later we were able to iterate quickly.

THE OUTCOME

THE OUTCOME

THE OUTCOME

OBVIOUS IN HINDSIGHT

OBVIOUS IN HINDSIGHT

OBVIOUS IN HINDSIGHT

The initial concept assigned one button to confirm and navigate back, while the second cycled through items within the current view. Early testing quickly showed this model didn’t align with user expectations.

The initial concept assigned one button to confirm and navigate back, while the second cycled through items within the current view. Early testing quickly showed this model didn’t align with user expectations.

The initial concept assigned one button to confirm and navigate back, while the second cycled through items within the current view. Early testing quickly showed this model didn’t align with user expectations.

The initial concept assigned one button to confirm and navigate back, while the second cycled through items within the current view. Early testing quickly showed this model didn’t align with user expectations.

Participants preferred directional navigation mapped to the physical orientation of the buttons—scrolling up and down—with more disruptive actions, such as going back, assigned to a long press.

Participants preferred directional navigation mapped to the physical orientation of the buttons—scrolling up and down—with more disruptive actions, such as going back, assigned to a long press.

Participants preferred directional navigation mapped to the physical orientation of the buttons—scrolling up and down—with more disruptive actions, such as going back, assigned to a long press.

Participants preferred directional navigation mapped to the physical orientation of the buttons—scrolling up and down—with more disruptive actions, such as going back, assigned to a long press.

We still had time to implement our findings, so by the end of project timeline we had a solid interaction design proposal for the actual device.

We still had time to implement our findings, so by the end of project timeline we had a solid interaction design proposal for the actual device.

We still had time to implement our findings, so by the end of project timeline we had a solid interaction design proposal for the actual device.

We still had time to implement our findings, so by the end of project timeline we had a solid interaction design proposal for the actual device.