Turn right? Turn left? Grab your phone and look closely while traveling at highway speeds?
The purpose of a map is to provide information. During navigation, it is especially important for the information to be immediately obvious. However, the new color theme fails the fundamentals. The visual cues have become far too subtle:
The rivers are light blue, the route is royal blue, the highway signs are muted blue, the roadway is a steel-blue. Even the light green background has blue as a component color.
Safety
In 2023, the US estimated 9,017 lane “departure” fatalities (driver went off the road or out of lane) from the 3.2 trillion miles driven. There’s over 1 billion kilometers of driving in Google Maps every day (620 million miles). Thats nearly a quarter trillion miles a year (Google may be active in about 7% of total miles driven in the US). Although there is limited public data, by very rough approximation: Google Maps may be active for 631 US departure fatalities per year (7% of 9,017).
How will Google’s color change show up in NHTSA crash data? Clearly the new color scheme is more difficult to read (among many other complaints). Navigation cues are especially important at highway speeds (where lane departures become fatal). Presumably, Google’s new colors could lead to frantic lane changes as people attempt to make an exit they misread. Supposing a 10% increase in difficulty, we might estimate an additional 63 deaths annually due to the new color scheme.
Of course, there are many factors would influence the outcome. So, YMMV. Ultimately, it would be impossible to uncover the actual outcomes without an investigation and full transparency from Google.
Accessibility
Google could (and should have) predicted this issue. For many years, web accessibility standards (a11y) have directed designers to consider visual contrast for interactive elements. In fact, Google’s own design standard has clear expectations for color contrast as part of basic accessibility.
Accessibility by default is a foundational design value […] low-contrast images may be difficult for some users to differentiate in bright or low light conditions, such as on a very sunny day or at night.
A contrast ratio of 3:1 is the minimum and 4.5:1 for smaller elements. The small size of the roads in navigation mode suggests a minimum contrast ratio of 4.5:1.
For the same reason, there are very detailed specifications for highway signage which includes minimum contrast levels. Large signs are expected to have at least 3:1 contrast, however the typical white on dark-green signage is 5.5:1. Nevertheless, Google’s new navigation colors have a 2.3:1 contrast ratio which fails accessibility standards (road gray #90A4BD vs route blue #2651F5). This ought to be increased to 4.5:1 contrast ratio or greater.
Google’s navigation green/white arrows are better at a 3.14:1 contrast ratio, however given their small size and importance, the arrow contrast should also be increased to 4.5:1 or greater.
Summary
Google ought to be free to update its products, and we ought to be free to criticize or laud their decisions. What is striking in this instance: Google is very diligent about spamming users about their latest data processor subcontracts that no one reads. But this cavalier UI change to navigation seems reckless towards the safety of the drivers that have used their product for years. Google could revert, make the changes optional, or at a minimum, increase the contrast where needed for safety.
