EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: UI Modernization

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: UI Modernization - Icon Strategy

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 14 post(s)
Freelancer117 so you want to be a Hero 265	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:32:39 - [151] - Quote Switching the Red Crosses for ship classes to the new icons is a great idea, since it links to ISIS. However changing drones icons is a bad idea, it will crowd/convolute the presentation of flying icons in space. So leave drones as Red Crosses, the size may vary according to size of drone used imho The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans. http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
Murashj NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred 16	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:39:57 - [152] - Quote Would be great if the icon for wormhole had diffrent collors/icons depending on its current state. Fresh/reduced/critical Eye of sauron The Serenity of EVE
Baljos Arnjak Dark Praetorian Order 66	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:31:11 - [153] - Quote Overall, I think they look good and even on smaller screens they'll give more information than the present ones do. I do have a couple of niggles though: 1. Little plus signs aren't enough to differentiate between NPC and Player ships unless they shift the rest of the icon to the left causing the alignment to be slightly shifted (can't see it from the example given in the blog). Player ships represent a whole lot more potential danger than NPC's and it's imperative that we know the difference at a glance. A couple of suggestions to fix this would be to make NPC's hollow like you do with looted/non-looted wrecks and have the plus sign added inside the hollow icon. You could invert the previous so that the icon is filled in but the plus sign is subtracted out. Whatever works as long as they are plainly distinguishable in a mixed NPC/Player environment. 2. I'd like to see the icons that are in space fade or move to the top left corner of the bounding box as the ship gets closer to the camera. For me, at a certain distance, the icons are no longer necessary because I can identify the ship class by the ship itself. At that point, the icon is only serving as a visual distraction and/or obstruction.
TheLostPenguin Surreal Departure 88	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:32:42 - [154] - Quote Freelancer117 wrote: Switching the Red Crosses for ship classes to the new icons is a great idea, since it links to ISIS. I actually meant to mention that, is there any use or reason for anyone other than maybe complete newbs to use the ISIS thing? It seems like it's needlessly driving half the design decisions here and I don't get why a piece of fluff (as it seems to me) is deciding so much other game design, instead of making something that works and changing whatever needs to be changed in ISIS.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1785	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:52:51 - [155] - Quote I am waiting for a CCP post which tells us that the reason we think the icons are indistinguishable is that we haven't used them for long enough. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lando Cenvax State War Academy Caldari State 14	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:19:43 - [156] - Quote This will be great on those supersharp 4K 24"-Screenson which you will scale up the HUD to 150% (given CCP uses vector images). On small screens it might really be better to allow a "fallback" to the old icons. I also agree on the missing supercarrier-icon. Although, under the bottom line this icon-makeover may be a bit overkill... There should also be second option for the Titan-Icon: a phallus shape. ;P
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 4640	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:24:41 - [157] - Quote Though I'm not crazy about the current overview "border" icons, I can at-a-glance distinguish them. The proposed ISIS-style icons actually require me to look carefully, as they have fairly similar weight. Only in comparison or upon close examination can I differentiate them. Truly, a single letter would be more useful for rapid recognition. Challenge: 1. Create a random overview and view it for at most 2 seconds, and report on all ships in it. 2. Change one ship, and note if it is detected.
Pak Narhoo Splinter Foundation 1587	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:30:13 - [158] - Quote Tippia wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Well, I just read the devblog and I can't tell the smaller icons from each other, woo-hoo! I'm waiting to see them at Sisi, but so far I fear the worst. [GÇª] Currently I can tell the thickness of the crosses, even if the crosses themselves are fuzzy. But shape recognition is not exactly my strong point. Just doing some testing of ideas, but, with your bad eyes, how distinguishable are these different icons? Are the gaps distinct enough? Can the difference in shape be seen? Are the tiny protrusions too tiny? Yeah that looks like a lot into the right direction. Just don't get your hopes up you/me/we will be listened too a this dev was in large part responsible for the reworked unified inventory debacle (in its 1st iteration). And we all know how much extra work it took them to get that slightly on par to what there was before. To be honest I think this is set in stone like the unified inventory, no matter how much data we bring up, its a done deal. Wish I was wrong.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3805	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:50:26 - [159] - Quote Tippia wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Well, I just read the devblog and I can't tell the smaller icons from each other, woo-hoo! I'm waiting to see them at Sisi, but so far I fear the worst. [GÇª] Currently I can tell the thickness of the crosses, even if the crosses themselves are fuzzy. But shape recognition is not exactly my strong point. Just doing some testing of ideas, but, with your bad eyes, how distinguishable are these different icons? Are the gaps distinct enough? Can the difference in shape be seen? Are the tiny protrusions too tiny? Interesting concept... I can tell them apart from their size and outline: the left ones have an angle on the top, the middle ones are double-angled and the right ones are rectangular, and they have different lengths. Can't see well the inner lines and barely can't see the tiny features of the middle ones (drones?) without focusing a lot on them. The only potential source of confusion would be between 1st and 2nd in the left column, maybe one pixel more of length for the second or a pixel less for the first would help giving them more different weight. BTW, left ones would be military ships and right ones be civilian ships? Would make sense that military ships had a general arrowhead shape... Nice work. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
tiberiusric Comply Or Die Retribution. 196	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:51:13 - [160] - Quote i think you did yourself and injustice showing a screenshot with loads of ships because it looks very messy. God what will jita look like. Great to see some new icons although quite a lot of the designs are questionable meaning I'm not sure why you chose some of those for that item. I agree the capsule should be an egg shape. I hate the plus/crosses for NPC it reminds me of the copy symbol in windows, i think i circle around the icon would look cool instead. rather than a + it would be nice later of we can set our own colours for these icons so we could say highlight all the jamming ships etc. Ships just need more distinction Structures just don't make sense at all, sorry. You should be able to look at an icon and know what it means. Whats with the sentry gun icons for example? But good to see something different.

Kieron VonDeux 60	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:59:20 - [161] - Quote To be honest I don't see what all the fuss is about. The new Icons are nice. Who cares if they are similar. When looking on overview for Target I read the Ship Type text and Name, not Icons.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 25019	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:24:29 - [162] - Quote Kieron VonDeux wrote: To be honest I don't see what all the fuss is about. The new Icons are nice. Who cares if they are similar. CCP does. After all, the whole point is to convey more information. If they are similar, they fail at the core purpose for having them to begin with. Being GÇ£niceGÇ¥ is somewhere in the region of 99% irrelevant. If that's all they achieve, they are utterly useless compared to what we have now. Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: The only potential source of confusion would be between 1st and 2nd in the left column, maybe one pixel more of length for the second or a pixel less for the first would help giving them more different weight. Fair enough. I wanted to use the same size chevrons for both the size upgrade to medium and to large ships, and if I made it any bigger, the double-chevron for large ones wouldn't fit. But skipping that arbitrary design constraint isn't particularly hard GÇö they're just the same for the sake of being the same right now, which isn't much of a reason. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
helana Tsero Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 106	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:47:46 - [163] - Quote Sorry if this seems harsh.. but frankly I feel that CCP Arrow is on the wrong path and out of touch with the player base with UI modernisation. Each change brings more UI, more clutter, less customisation. This is 2015. Maybe I dont want EvE to be a gigantic blob of red x's and spreadsheets.... maybe I want to see the space and the ships that Im flying in ???. Maybe I want the option to turn off UI elements that are not relevent to what Im doing in space at the moment. ?? What happened to the zoomed in picture in picture of the ship you were targeting/shooting at ? ( shown at previous fanfest.) Less UI not MORE !!!!!! "... ppl need to get out of caves and they will see something new... thats where is eve placed... not in cave..."-á \| zoonr-Korsairs \|-á QFT !
Sgt Ocker Caldari Provisions Caldari State 335	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:04:18 - [164] - Quote Tippia wrote: Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Well, I just read the devblog and I can't tell the smaller icons from each other, woo-hoo! I'm waiting to see them at Sisi, but so far I fear the worst. [GÇª] Currently I can tell the thickness of the crosses, even if the crosses themselves are fuzzy. But shape recognition is not exactly my strong point. Just doing some testing of ideas, but, with your bad eyes, how distinguishable are these different icons? Are the gaps distinct enough? Can the difference in shape be seen? Are the tiny protrusions too tiny? In the format you have them there they are distinguishable with a bit of a study (and leaning forward to get closer to my monitor) but then I'm not looking at multiples of each in a cluttered combat environment. The protrusions on the middle set are ok, as long as the same icon is not going to be used without them to represent something else. My opinions are mine. If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
Bagrat Skalski Poseidaon 7935	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:05:28 - [165] - Quote Current Icons are worse than new ones. Don't look any further for negative energy, you will find it by being lazy.
Kieron VonDeux 61	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:06:30 - [166] - Quote Tippia wrote: Kieron VonDeux wrote: To be honest I don't see what all the fuss is about. The new Icons are nice. Who cares if they are similar. CCP does. After all, the whole point is to convey more information. If they are similar, they fail at the core purpose for having them to begin with.... You mean like Enlisted Rank Insignia of many nations, You can have similar Icons that contains differences. Its simply a matter of the levels and sublevels of variation you want to convey, and getting used to it.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 25019	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:22:26 - [167] - Quote Kieron VonDeux wrote: You mean like Enlisted Rank Insignia of many nations, No. I mean that the purpose is to be able to distinguish them. If they are similar, that defeats the purpose. The proposed icons fall in exactly that trap: the purpose is to convey four or five different axes of differentiation using only two cues (and making those cues too vague to really properly capture what difference they could convey). Quote: You can have similar Icons that contains differences. Its simply a matter of the levels and sublevels of variation you want to convey, and getting used to it. No, getting used to it is not a factor other than to prove that the design is fundamentally unsound from an ergonomic perspective. Rather, it's a matter of ensuring that the differences are large enough that the variation is conveyed at a glance, rather than blurred together because things are too similar and with too few visual cues to offer a good GÇ£languageGÇ¥ for those variations. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2031	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:54:49 - [168] - Quote Have multi colored icons been considered? Even if it's just a few contrasting colors it could easily make two similar icons (cruisers+battlecruisers) distinguishable
Galen Dnari Damage Unlimited 21	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:15:48 - [169] - Quote Two things. Well, maybe three. 1. Yes, some people are color-blind. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use color in designing icons. 2. The blog stated, in effect, that you don't want to give people a leg up by identifying the class of a wormhole by its icon. I agree with that, but I would suggest that once the class is identified, the icon should change. IOW, your display should reflect the latest best information you have. Not just for wormholes, for everything. If an enemy has a webber or scram it can use, it would be nice to know that. How does that get identified? The enemy uses it. 3. In fleets, information gathered by individual ships should be disseminated to the entire fleet (assuming they're on grid). So if ship A gets webbed by enemy TA, the ships on the other side of the grid should see that TA is a webber. 4. Icons should be re-sizable (zoomable?) on the fly to accommodate those of us with aging eyes. 5. Not suggesting all of this should be implemented in your first pass. Okay, that's five things. http://eveboard.com/ub/1939472205-31.png
Josef Djugashvilis 2901	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:25:44 - [170] - Quote Just in case no one mentioned it yet...this is the worse thing to happen to Eve Online since the last worst thing to happen to Eve, and can we have an option not to use them? If not, me and my zillion alts are going to quit. This is not a signature.

Kieron VonDeux 61	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:30:59 - [171] - Quote Tippia wrote: Kieron VonDeux wrote: You mean like Enlisted Rank Insignia of many nations, No. I mean that the purpose is to be able to distinguish them. If they are similar, that defeats the purpose. Rank insignia pretty much universally achieve that by repeating a simple pattern (in broad strokes) along a single axis: more is higher. This creates distinctly different and dissimilar stacks, which makes them easy to distinguish. The proposed icons defeat themselves by doing pretty much the exact opposite: the purpose here is to convey four or five different axes of differentiation, but it's done using only two poorly chosen cues (and making those cues too vague to really properly capture what little difference they could convey). There is always a balance between similarity and distinguishability just like a game is a balance between reality and fantasy, or as in a lot of design, artistic value and functional value. I think you are on the wrong end of it in this case. I think these new Icons are fine for what they were designed to do and will serve their purpose well. Additional tools would be more useful to give the granularity you are asking for. Quote: Quote: You can have similar Icons that contains differences. Its simply a matter of the levels and sublevels of variation you want to convey, and getting used to it. No, getting used to it is not a factor other than to prove that the design is fundamentally unsound from an ergonomic perspective. Rather, it's a matter of ensuring that the differences are large enough that the variation is conveyed at a glance, rather than blurred together because things are too similar and with too few visual cues to offer a good GÇ£languageGÇ¥ for those variations. Getting used to a new symbol system is always a factor. There is no one standard. You are doing it wrong if you are trying to comprehend the entire scope of the scene via Icons alone at a glance. You get better information from direction scans and the overview. It seems you are asking for something that would be better served by multiple tools and not just an Icon system alone. A simple Icon system in conjunction with more powerful customizable summarization tools would be far better. I would suggest that the new Icon system works well for what it was designed to do and that you are asking for something else that would be unnecessarily complex. Only a Savant could make use of that in my opinion. There is a balance between amount of information conveyed, artistic value, and usefulness; especially in a game. There is also consideration of how much an average person should comprehend given a complex display of those Icons and if they should be using a different tool altogether. Summarization, listing, or aggregation tools would be far better for that.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 25019	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:58:54 - [172] - Quote Kieron VonDeux wrote: There is always a balance between similarity and distinguishability just like a game is a balance between reality and fantasy, or as in a lot of design, artistic value and functional value. I think you are on the wrong end of it in this case. I think these new Icons are fine for what they were designed to do and will serve their purpose well. Their purpose is to make ship classes distinguishable by icon alone. They do the opposite of that and make them more difficult to distinguish than before. Not only do the sizes blur together, but the distinction between PC and NPC ships now hinge on a minute marking in the corner. They also seem to be completely incompatible with all kinds of bracket colouration and markings. Right now, the only real problem exists with the half-classes (destroyers and BCs). With the proposed system, the confusion covers the entire spectrum rather than just two discrete cases. Quote: Additional tools would be more useful to give the granularity you are asking for. It's not me asking for it. It's what the change is supposed to provide. And yes, more tools are needed because a fatter and more or less obtuse triangle isn't enough. Quote: Getting used to a new symbol system is always a factor. There is no one standard. It's not a factor in determining whether it serves its purpose or not. If you have to get used to it in order to make distinctions that are supposed to be obvious at the blink of an eye, then that distinction simply isn't there GÇö the required clarity of visual language and the distinctness of the cues is just missing. There is no GÇ£getting used toGÇ¥ that that will make any difference. Quote: You are doing it wrong if you are trying to comprehend the entire scope of the scene via Icons alone at a glance. Again, that is the entire purpose of this change. What you are saying here is that the purpose is GÇ£doing it wrongGÇ¥. That should tell you enough. Again, it is not me asking for this GÇö it is the stated goal of the revamp. Since you keep saying that more tools are needed, you are on my side on this one. In addition, the tools you are suggesting are already in the game. It's called the overview. The point of all of this is to make the game less reliant on those tools and move more of the information into icon form. The icons fail to do that due to being too similar, which in turn is due to having far too restricted a visual language to work with. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3805	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:04:27 - [173] - Quote Just a random thought... thinking about the purpose of icons, I've come to realize the the current three-icons system already suits well to the combat use of it. Yes, we can't tell a frigate from a destroyer or a cruiser from a battlecruiser, but those ship classes are engaged with the same weaponry, because weapons come in three sizes, to say so. So I wonder, do we really need to know that a destroyer is a destroyer and not a frigate? Or that a battlecruiser is not a cruiser? From the point of view of "it's red, shoot it" there's no difference. We don't have "destroyer size" weapons, and actually whatever hits a frigate is likely to hit harder on a dessie. So why bother telling them apart? Maybe even if the icons were easily visible (which they aren't) or could be told from their outline and size (which they can't), would we still need one icon for every ship size? I am aware that now that this thing has taken months of work and stuff, the chances of getting a different system rather than (maybe) a slightly improved version of the proposed one are slim. And I wonder who asked the CSM on this, who asked the players, and also feel a bit tired that each change of UI comes with the assumption that 20/20 eyesight is a must for playing EVE Online. The average age for players is like 35 years, so eyesight issues are to be expected for a sizeable part of the game demographics. Using a mere 10 pixels to tell apart 27 different ship types is an interesting tour-de-force, but the main purpose of a graphic USER interface is to be USED. Being unable to SEE the elements of the GUI makes it unusable. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
Swidgen Republic University Minmatar Republic 151	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:27:38 - [174] - Quote Gorongo Frostfyr wrote: They seem to be designed mostly for an aesthetics aspect. While on paper they look quite good, they look ingame far too similar. Drone type indicators are far too cryptic, but thats not the main problem, because that can be learned. The type indicator in the top right corner will be too small ingame. I agree with this 100%. CCP has gone around the bend (again) and come up with a solution in search of a problem. Something nobody wanted or asked for with the sole exception of some hipster doofus in the art department.
Arcos Vandymion White Beast Inc. 95	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:32:41 - [175] - Quote Remove the "depth" as the "shadows" they cast makes it unnecessary hard to keep them apart. Apart from that It provides no less information than the current system and as such it can only be an improvement. They do look very clean. Add UI upscaling. 90% is really useful for smaller screens but I'm kind of missing something like 120% for FullHD or something (not everyone is sitting half a meter away - some sit a meter away from their screen ^^).
Pak Narhoo Splinter Foundation 1587	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:49:13 - [176] - Quote Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: So I wonder, do we really need to know that a destroyer is a destroyer and not a frigate? Or that a battlecruiser is not a cruiser? From the point of view of "it's red, shoot it" there's no difference. We don't have "destroyer size" weapons, and actually whatever hits a frigate is likely to hit harder on a dessie. So why bother telling them apart? According to CCP we do. CCP is currently thinking we don't get enough information with the tools we have at our disposal. Therefor CCP is in a 'we must overload our player base with information THAT'S ALREADY THERE!' mode (tooltips come to mind). In this case there is already a TYPE! column in the overview, so there is no need whatsoever to add that information there twice by cramming that information in a 18 x 18 pixel box with icons that look more or less the same.
Arn Akkar Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:29:21 - [177] - Quote I've got to agree with the criticisms. Even on this static screen the new icons are too homogenous, and the differentiation is even harder to discern when the icons are red. Once we add motion to this it's going to be even less usable. In their current form these icons are largely less helpful than those we are currently using. The team need to look at this again, and actually think about how the human eye works and responds to form and colour - red will attract the eye, but it is not an ideal colour for humans to discern fine levels of detail.
Castelo Selva Forcas armadas DARKNESS. 70	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:06:37 - [178] - Quote Thank you CCP. I very happy with that change and I think is a good direction to make the game better and modern. Do not worried about the wining people. It is natural to people be against any change, and in special when that change take then out of they comfort zone. It was the same with the neocon icons and now people just get used to it. Of course, that are some good feedback here, listen that people how take time to actually try these new icons. Colour code would be nice, like make the icon itself green for corporation ships, purple for the ones in fleet and so one. That way it will helps for the ones who want it and still retain the option to use the current small squares on the bottom right side for the ones who are colour blind. Also, I personally think an increase of 33% in the size of the icon would be better, or at least an option to make the icons bigger would be nice. I know that this increase will reflect in less line in the overview column, but I can live with that. You can make it optional if you want it, as you did for station icons. In small engagement, I already have space for all the ship in my overview and in bigger fight I have to scroll up / down in any way. Therefore, I think icons should be a bit bigger to make then more reckonable at the first glance. Let-¦s say they are actually 18x18 pixels and then raise it to 24x24. Thank you so much for your efforts. I know you guys are really brave in change that kind of stuff. Castelo
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 998	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:13:36 - [179] - Quote Bagrat Skalski wrote: Current Icons are worse than new ones. That is not saying much. Ways to make them clearer have been said many times now in this thread. Want to bet the man in the grey suit will force these on us anyway until we, "get used to them and come to like them," because, "people don't like change." Well, I am like the Japanese, in that, I hate changes but I love improvements. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Quadima From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi 135	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:23:41 - [180] - Quote More nearly identical monochrome **** you can't figure out in the heat of battle. YAY!



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.