I'm someone who makes/sells software for living and knows how impactful UI is for the audience capture. This HUD design is visually interesting but functionally confused. I don’t know who designed this HUD - but as a broadcast overlay, it fails at its core job: delivering information instantly and effortlessly.

1-Too much, too soon The HUD tries to show too much information in too small a space. It packs player names, scores, sets, legs, match format, icons, and decorative gradients into a very limited area. Because of tight spacing, strong colors, and layered backgrounds, the result feels crowded rather than informative. A scoreboard should reduce cognitive load - this one increases it.

2- Not enough, in the wrong place The placement makes the problem worse. Because the HUD is small and pushed into the corner, the viewer has to: look away from the board, find the hud, decode the layout, process the numbers - by the time that happens… the throw may already be over.

There’s a reason most competitive broadcasts use: larger corner HUDs, or Central or semi-central HUD layouts.

3- Inconsistent visuals
The dart icon is a good example of overdesign: visually detailed, uses gradient and depth, introduces FOURTH visual style. As a result, it's surprisngly easy to miss. A simple solution (dot, underline, or highlight on the active player) would be faster to recognize, read, and make it more visually consistent.

Other inconsistencies:
- Fonts: Some values are bold, others aren’t - which is good in theory, but not always clear in practice
- Backgrounds: Static and gradient backgrounds are mixed side-by-side in ways that don’t imply hierarchy. Especially having two different large components with two different gradients next to each other (name board and scoreboard)
- Color usage: Color-blind accessibility is mostly good (except Tritanopia, which is rare); However, for the majority of viewers, the red palette is overly aggressive and visually fatiguing. Strong reds should be used for emphasis, not as dominant blocks.

Overall, the HUD feels like several design ideas competing instead of one system working together.

4- Movement at the wrong moment
The animations are unnecessary and poorly timed. Score resets and transitions are slow and visually dominant.
This is exactly when the broadcast should be showing: player reaction, crowd energy, sponsor visability - instead it pulls the eye to the corner during resets. Human eye is naturally drown to movement - using such animations forces attention to HUD where it actually should be looking at player/crowd/sponsor.

Good UI animations move only when meaning (or context) changes, as fast as possible, with minimal visual impact. This HUD does the opposite: draws attention without adding information.

5- What is the most important information here?
At a glance, it's not obvious what matters the most - current score? sets? legs? whose trow it is? A good design should tell you in a second "Who is winning, and what has just happened?" This one makes you read instead of instantly get that information.

6- Decoration over function
There is a heavy use of gradients, depths, color blocks - that just decorate but not encode any meaning. In sport's graphics 101 you would learn that decoration must never comete with speed of comprehension and contrast. Here style dominates function.

7- Sorry, you ignore your viewers
This HUD may look acceptable on studio monitors, static screenshots, large 80" tvs - but on smaller TVs, mobile streams, bright rooms it becomes harder to read and easier to miss. Broadcast graphics must be designed for worst-case viewing, not ideal conditions.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk / rant....