Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
158
   |
Posted - 2015.02.27 05:17:23 -
[1] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[...]
That's not really a solution, partly because it would defeat the purpose of giving a better overview of the field since less can be seen at once; partly because, if that's what you want, you can already turn on scaling.
No, the solution is to make them more distinct, more simplistic, and crystal clear when scaled-down on a low-res monitor GÇö then add in (meaningless) decorations at higher resolutions if need be. In other words, almost the exact opposite of what's been done here.
Come to think of it, we've been here before, and the error was the exact same back then. When they tried to change the module icons to depictions, it made the icons useless and indistinct becauseGǪ wellGǪ they weren't icons any more. Instead, they were just pictures of what they were meant to represent. Iconography does not rely on absolute, accurate portrayal GÇö it relies on clarity of conveying an idea. You make icon easily distinguishable by making them distinct, not by cramming them full of tiny details.
You do not need a ship-shaped shape to represent a ship. Anything will do, as long as you can establish that GÇ£this represents a shipGÇ¥ and offer something that is uniquely recognisable enough that people don't forget it. When you try to represent 30 different ship types, you need to employ more than one shape to do so. Same with the 30+ different drone types.
So, solution: broaden the visual language; step away from simple depiction; start with the tiniest possible size and work up rather than the other way around; and stay the **** away from minute details as a way to convey meaning.
Tippia nail it down. Please check her posts cause she KNOWS what she is talking about... and give the lady a PLEX.
The icons you propose are confusing and hard to read outside of your little reference pictures. It may seem easy to tell the small from the medium when they are side by side. But if I see one of them on their own I can't tell what it is. You can not rely on one shape and simply vary its weight slightly.
Also, why change some of the more recognizable icons (sun, asteroid belt, corp hangar array)? Just for the sake of changing them? What was wrong with the ones we had? They conveyed the idea. That's all you can ask from an icon. They do not have to look like what they represent. The military has been using the square with a dot inside to represent an artillery unit for ages. Does artillery look like a square with a dot inside? No. But the icon does it job not because it looks like an artillery unit, It does its job cause its *different from every other icon*.
I know all the effort you put into these, but they are not clear and different enough.
I'm utterly and terribly sorry because of all the labor and love you put into the new ones, I know, but frankly, I'd rather keep the ones we have today.
|