Library
The Cores of Game Design · 12 of 12
The Cores of Game Design
ARG Design MEDIUM

UI/UX Design and Accessibility

ui ux affordance signifiers ux-laws accessibility wireframes personas

Key Principle

UI concerns audiovisual presentation; UX concerns how players engage with those elements. "UI is what you see, while UX is how you use it." Game UX differs from software UX — intentional friction may serve theme or challenge. Six UX laws predict specific interface failure modes. Accessibility is an ethical imperative framed as inclusion, not commercial gain. (Chapter 16)

Why This Matters

Without the UI/UX separation, designers conflate visual polish with usability — a beautiful interface can be unusable, and a functional one ugly. Applying standard software UX uncritically strips out intentional friction that serves the game's purpose. Without accessibility consideration, designers exclude players through oversight rather than intent. The Aesthetic-Usability Effect creates asymmetric pressure on indie developers: simpler visuals face harsher judgment.

Good Examples

  • Game UX vs. software UX: In Another Starry Sky (a grief game), an overwhelming undifferentiated starry sky is deliberate Narrative-driven disorientation. Economy mechanisms gradually reduce visible stars — mirroring overcoming grief. "Fixing" this for usability destroys the emotional arc. (Chapter 16)
  • Affordance is relational: A die affords random generation, counting, or paperweight use depending on the user. Stairs afford climbing for some users but not wheelchair users — accessibility is inherent to the concept, not an afterthought. (Chapter 16)
  • Six UX laws as failure predictors: Jakob's (convention violation), Hick's (option paralysis), Fitts's (target distance/size), Miller's (memory overload at 5-9 items), Goal-Gradient (distant goals sap momentum), Aesthetic-Usability (polish buys forgiveness). (Chapter 16)

Counterpoints

  • Anti-affordance by design: Lock icons on UI elements signal "not yet available" — intentional prevention of interaction. Destructive actions like deleting save data "should be made less accessible by design." (Chapter 16)
  • Aesthetic-Usability asymmetry: "Players will judge games with simpler audiovisual elements harsher and less tolerant to errors for the very fact that they are not as pleasing as high-budget photo-realistic games." UI polish is strategic investment. (Chapter 16)
  • Signifier failure: A "Save" button labeled only "Salvar" for non-Portuguese speakers turns a functional element into an anti-affordance. Signifier reach varies by audience. (Chapter 16)

Key Quotes

"UI is what you see, while UX is how you use it." — Yvens R. Serpa, Chapter 16

"Different from usual software development UX practices, game design UX is not necessarily meant to simplify and make the players' lives easier." — Yvens R. Serpa, Chapter 16

"It is imperative that we continue researching and studying how our games can embrace a larger number of players, not from a commercial point of view but from an ethical perspective." — Yvens R. Serpa, Chapter 16

Rules of Thumb

  • Analyze user journeys through all cores: Mechanics (which interactions?), Economy (which resources displayed?), Narrative (what meaning conveyed?)
  • Affordance is a relationship between element and user, not an intrinsic property — different personas perceive different affordances
  • Signifiers make latent affordance perceivable — without them, users cannot discover what elements afford
  • Controller inputs (~15 buttons) already exceed Miller's Law threshold — simplify and add redundancy
  • Input remapping is the single highest-leverage accessibility feature
  • Colour must never be sole carrier of meaning — add textures, patterns, shape language for colour-blind players (~4% of population)
  • Dyslexic-friendly fonts, large subtitles with high-contrast backgrounds
  • Accessibility may require reworking mechanics or rebalancing economy — it spans beyond UI
  • Expand your social circle to include people with disabilities as playtesters — homogeneous circles produce exclusionary design

Related References