Small fixes. Big gains.
Optimized for the experienced
Redesigned with a radial menu that trims friction and boost speed. By refining small interactions, experienced users gain smoother workflows and sharper focus.
Quick Snapshot
Here’s the project in a nutshell: what we aimed for, how we got there, and what came out of it — all at a glance
Client :
School Project
Goal :
Reimagine 3ds Max’s interface to make it faster, cleaner, and more customizable for both beginners and experts.
Project Type :
Academic UX analysis & concept redesign (team of 5). My role: UX research, UX design, interaction design, prototyping.
The Chaos We Found
Overcrowded UI with panels competing for space
Unlabeled buttons making discovery harder than it should be
Keyboard shortcuts required multiple key presses, compared to a single-button radial menu
Key tools scattered across different modules, forcing constant switching.
How We Tackled It
Conduct usability analysis across 11 UI modules
Tested with 18 users (mix of students and experienced users)
Proposed a customizable radial menu for quick access to essential tools
Where It Ended Up
Prototypes showed faster task execution and less screen clutter
Users described it as "more natural" and "adaptable to personal workflow"
Breaking it down step by step.
1. The Backdrop - Why This Project Mattered
3ds Max is a powerhouse — built to handle an incredible range of task for 3D artists, animators, and designers. But with so much functionality packed into one platform, its interface can feel crowded and overwhelming, leaving users juggling toolbars, panels, and shortcuts.
Our 5-person team set out to explore how the software could better support user workflows — not by removing complexity, but by rethinking navigation and customization so the experience felt smoother, more intuitive, and tailored to different ways of working.
Where It All Started
As a student project, this wasn't about reinventing 3ds Max, but about spotting opportunities to reduce friction. We focused on creating solutions that could streamline navigation and empower users to customize the software to fit their personal workflow needs.
Duration :
3 Months (Academic Project)
Platform :
Desktop (3ds Max Software)
Process :
UX Research → Analysis → Prototyping → Testing
Team :
5 Members
My Role:
UX Research, UX design, Interaction Design
2. Behind the Legacy
Before proposing any solutions, we had to get under the hood of 3ds Max. The software's strength lies in its depth — it can do almost everything, but that power comes with a cost; overlapping menus, nested panels, and shortcut-heavy workflows that often slows users down.
By mapping out how users actually navigate and interact with the tool, we uncovered a clear pattern: people weren't struggling with lack of functionality, but with accessing the right tools at the right time. This became the foundation for our redesign proposal.
Project Objectives
Streamline Access
Reduce the number of clicks and keystrokes needed to reach frequently used tools.
Support Custom Workflows
Give users flexibility to adapt the interface around their own process, not the other way around.
Minimize Cognitive Load
Organize commands and options in a way that feels intuitive, cutting down on search time.
Enhance Speed & Focus
Enable users to stay "in the flow" of creation without unnecessary interruptions or tool-hunting.
3. Discovery & Research
Before sketching ideas, we needed to understand how 3ds Max's UI and workflow shaped — and sometimes slowed the creative process. Our research unpacked both the strength and the friction points of the software.
Module-by-Module Analysis
We conducted a structured review of all 11 modules, evaluating positives, negatives, and their impact on user experience. This gave us a systematic overview of where friction emerged.
Early Low Fidelity
To truly understand where workflows were breaking down, we mapped the frustrations and goals of different users — from seasoned 3D artists to aspiring creators and interior designers. These persona helped ground our redesign in real-world needs, not just software theory.
Walking in Their Shoes
To understand the day-to-day struggles of our primary users, we mapped their actual workflows inside 3ds Max. This step revealed how even basic actions required multiple switches between panels, commands, and the viewport. By visualizing their journey, we could clearly see where time was lost and where UX support was lacking.
From Insights to Ideas
After mapping workflows and pinpointing key friction points, we sketched low-fidelity wireframes as proof-of-concept. The goal wasn't to redesign 3ds Max entirely, but to show how small interface changes — like a customizable radial menu, could streamline common actions and reduce repetitive steps.
It started out with the low fidelity concept of the radial menu with basic options and how customizability can be possible with the option buttons of editing and saving the current layout.
After my initial proposal to the team on the radial menu, we moved on to the medium fidelity and started considering the multiple nested features within each module. Thus resulting in the addition of a 2nd layer within the radial menu.
4. Putting It to the Test
To evaluate the concept, we ran user testing sessions with a structured test plan. Participants were asked to perform a series of common tasks (e.g. extruding geometry, accessing modifier tools, customizing layouts).
Key goals of testing
See if users could complete tasks faster with the radial menu.
Measure reduction in cognitive load compared to shortcuts/panels.
Gather qualitative feedback on ease of learning and customization.
Play Test Tasklist
Task 1
Create a cube, a sphere and a cylinder.
Task 2
Freeze the sphere and cylinder.
Task 3
Isolate the cube and set the cube to have 3 lengths, width, and height segments.
Task 4
Add an "Edit Poly" modifier to the cube using the radial menu.
Task 5
Extrude any face and chamfer any edge on the cube.
Task 6
Add an "Unwrap UVW" modifier.
Task 7
Go into peel mode and stich the UVs to optimize UV shells.
Task 8
Open the UV Editor and pack the UV Islands so that it is within the texture size.
Task 9
Add a material into the material editor and assign it to the newly unwrapped cube.
Task 10
Un-isolate the cube and export the entire model into an FBX format file.
Tester Demographics
Number of Testers Recruited
18
Age Range
21 - 27
Average Age
23
Professional Software Users
6
Learning Software Users
12
User Testing Phases
At every design phase — from low-fidelity sketches to medium and high-fidelity prototypes — we ran user tests to uncover friction points and capture real user feedback. This iterative approach allowed us to refine the experience step by step, ensuring improvements were guided by evidence, not assumptions.
Low Fidelity Analysis
Task 1
Play testers completed the task with little to no issues navigating the work environment
This was also the moment when each play tester discover the Radial Menu and subsequently relied on it to complete tasks.
Task 2
Aside from being initially confused with the shortcut keys, partially due to the nature of the low fidelity, play testers eventually managed to find the appropriate tool needed to complete this task.
Task 3
Play testers were split, some deciding to use the available isolate button, while others relied on using keyboard shortcuts to complete the task.
Some play testers also took some time in locating the isolate button.
Task 4
Play testers completed this task with relatively no issues.
At this point, most play testers were already using intuition to find the "Edit Modifier" in the Radial Menu.
Task 5
Play testers completed this task with relatively no issues and took the same steps in accomplishing it.
Task 6
Each play tester used different steps in finding the "Unwrap UVW" modifier. Some preferred to search for it under the modifier pop-up list, while others use the Radial Menu.
It should be noted that despite the different steps, each play tester easily found what they were looking for with their respective workflow.
Task 7
As experienced 3D modelers, the play testers had relative no issues completing the task with the same workflow; by using the Radial Menu.
Task 8
At this point, most play testers were already using intuition to find the "Edit Poly" modifier in the Radial Menu.
Task 9
This task had some discrepancies regarding the low fidelity, in the sense that some play testers did not know what icons they were clicking on.
Task 10
Play testers completed this task with relative ease.
Medium Fidelity Analysis
Task 1
Some play testers performed this task the traditional way of using the command panel.
It is worth pointing out that this group of play testers have prior experience in using 3ds Max in the past, or are still using it today. These were the users that did not reply on the Radial Menu during this task.
Task 2
Play testers completed the task with relative ease.
One play tester failed to select the element they wanted to "isolate" beforehand but immediately rectified his mistake once it had been pointed out without issue.
Task 3
Again, there was a mix of how the play testers went about completing this task. However, play testers managed to completed this task with relative ease using their method.
Task 4
Play testers completed this task with little to no problem.
At this point of the play test, all of the play testers "discovered" the Radial Menu, and after a few seconds of tinkering, could understand its use.
Task 5
Play testers completed this task with the use of the tools found in the Radial Menu.
Most of these play testers quickly adapted to the Radial Menu workflow and were able to navigate through the tools fluidly.
Task 6
At this point, it seem that with some tinkering and exposure to the Radial Menu, play testers were now fully adapted to the Radial Menu workflow and were able to navigate through the tools fluidly.
Task 7
Play testers had relatively no issues completing this task, aside from some 3D modelling based issues.
Task 8
Play testers had relatively no issues completing this task.
Task 9
Play testers had relatively no issues completing this task.
Task 10
Play testers had relatively no issues completing this task.
The Final Design
Building on the insights from user testing, I refined the concept into a high-fidelity prototype. The design highlights how a customizable radial menu can streamline complex 3D workflows by reducing repetitive clicks and shortcut memorization.
Key Improvements Shown in Hi-Fid
Radial Menu vs Core Hub
One-click access to frequently used tools.
Customizable Layouts
Users can pin and rearrange shortcuts to match their workflow.
Clear Visual Feedback
Active selections, hover states, and tool grouping for faster recognition.
Consistency
Unified iconography and color scheme for a smoother learning curve.
Not only did we add a new Radial Menu feature, we also try to improve on certain module's UI and UX such as the unwrapping workspace.
Final User Testing
After completing the high-fidelity prototype, we ran a final round of user testing to validate the design. The goal was to ensure that both the workflow and the interface felt clear, intuitive, and aligned with user needs before final submission.
High Fidelity Analysis
Task 1
Play testers had no problem with the controls. It was straightforward and the task was completed quickly.
Some used the command panel while others used the shortcut Radial Menu.
Task 2
Play testers took a short time to locate where the freeze button was.
Preferences of the play testers tend to lean towards clicking on the freeze icon in the object list rather than the shortcut radial menu.
Task 3
For play testers who were new to 3D software, the isolate button was a little tough to find.
For play testers who are used to 3D software, it took a much shorter time to find the isolate button.
Task 4
Initially, some play testers were confused about the differences between "Edit Geometry" and "Selection", however after some time, they understood each function better.
Some play testers were able to smoothly input the desired values in the box to adjust the chamfer strength while most just dragged the mouse and chamfered the edge.
Task 5
All play testers were able to find the "Edit Poly" modifier in the Radial Menu.
Task 6
Mos play testers were able to complete this by searching either under the list of modifiers pop-ups or the search bar.
Task 7
Most play testers approach this task with the workflow of creating seams based on 3D game models.
A minority of play testers assumed that the "Peel mode" allowed them to stitch borders but quickly noticed it was only meant to stitch edges.
Task 8
Play testers prefer to open the UV editor and UV unwrap using the Radial Menu.
UV faces were thought by a minority of play testers to resemble Adobe Photoshop layers and tried to select on each UV face.
Most play testers found the "Pack" under the "Tools" sub-menu to be useful when packing UV islands to their preferences while others manually moved the faces around and resized them to fit them in the texture size.
Task 9
Play testers accessed the Material Editor via "Rendering" under the Radial Menu to open the Material editor first before applying the material to the model.
Task 10
All play testers were able to smoothly complete this task of exporting the model to FBX format.
They were able to remember how to turn off isolation mode.
5. Looking Back, Moving Forward
Every project leave behind lessons — this one was no different. From navigating Autodesk 3ds Max's complexity to balancing user needs with practical design constraints, our team walked away with sharper insights into UX for professional-grade tools.
Key Takeways
Workflow matters more than looks
A design isn't just about aesthetics — aligning with real workflows saves users time and frustration.
Customization in empowerment
Giving users control (like a flexible radial menu) can dramatically improve efficiency for diverse working styles.
Testing uncovers the truth
Our assumptions shifted after usability testing, which highlighted where users struggled and what they valued most.
Collaboration fuels better outcomes
Working as a 5-person team taught us the value of aligning perspectives early and iterating fast.
