I do think the new turret icons need looked at. They shouldn't revert to the old ones, but make it so that they are easier to distinguish between modules. The laser icons look like camel dung.

I do think the new turret icons need looked at. They shouldn't revert to the old ones, but make it so that they are easier to distinguish between modules. The laser icons look like camel dung.

ITT: Easily confused people.

So let me get this straight. You want CCP to get entirely new icons for the entirely new icons they currently use for the turret icons. Are you sure that it wouldn't be better to have the old icons instead of the new? The old look exactly like a gun. The new ones look like a wookie. And this doesn't maybe change your opinion of the situation?

No. ITT: people who dislike functional deterioration (because that's what has happened GÇö the new icons pictures are functionally inferior to the old (actual) icons).

GǪand I don't see the need to create new new ones, when there already exists a full set of icons that match the prevalent UI design. Just go back to using those (and send the person who decided to ditch the icons for pictures as UI elements to a basic class in HMI design).

Let me see if I follow you correctly: The new icons

Let me see if I follow you correctly: The new icons are functionally more difficult because they actually look like the things they represent, rather than an abstraction of the weapon type?

GǪno, you're not following me correctly. The new pictures are not icons GÇö they're pictures. They do not serve the same function.

Icons are meant to quickly, clearly, and cleanly represent a concept or action, and do so in a way that distinguishes the icon from the rest of the UI and from other icons, even ones that are closely related. The simple the icon can be and still communicate its use and be easily distinguished from the background noise and competing symbols, the better it is.

The old icons did all of that, because they were icons. The new pictures do almost none of it (unsurprisingly since they're not really icons).

So yes, the new pictures are functionally much worse than the old icons at the job of being icons.

So, what you're saying

You're telling me you'd rather go back to the old, lower quality icons, because you don't have the ability to learn how to distinguish between different things. What did you do when you originally started playing and had no idea what any of these icons meant?

Case closed, /thread.

Is that icons should be icons, not pictures.

The new pictures do not serve the purpose they're meant to serve GÇö the old icons did. It's that simple.

I must borrow this lovely image by Tippia

[img]http://eve.beyondreality.se/incarna/TurretComp.png[/img]

Now... what was the statement about low quality there ?

btw there was thread about this in old assembly hall, but don't really want to start new one... It already made clear that many people seemed to be rather unanimous on the topic.

It just would be nice to know is this topic burried for good or are there any plans to do _something_.

I am amused that you think a picture cannot be an icon

or that having icon pictures that look like the objects they represent is somehow confusing.

Yes, the old ones were low quality. When you see those new icons there? Yeah, that's exactly what it will look like when it's on your ship. I fail to see how this is SO UTTERLY CONFUSING.

I am amused that you think a picture cannot be an icon, or that having icon pictures that look like the objects they represent is somehow confusing.

Yes, the old ones were low quality. When you see those new icons there? Yeah, that's exactly what it will look like when it's on your ship. I fail to see how this is SO UTTERLY CONFUSING.

I thought gamers were in general afraid of change, but this takes it to a whole new level of absurdity.

So I take it you argue with you optometrist, or every other professional you come across. This is UI design 101. A picture makes a horrible icon for the simple reason that they're not simple. There's too much noise; too much detail; too much useless pixels; too much information loss at different sizes and scales.

If you want to use a picture as a basis for an icon, that's fine, but you will have to refine it something immensely and simplify and refine the defining characteristics to the bare minimums. Otherwise, it fails as an icon.
Except, of course, that this is not what I'm saying GÇö that's what you're saying.

What I'm saying is that pictures are not icons because they fail to do all the things an icon needs to do.
GǪexcept, of course, that what they look on your ship is entirely irrelevant for what the icon is there to do. Why are you so confused by having an icon that means GǣLarge Long-range Laser TurretGǥ? Why are you so confused by having an icon that stands out against its background? Why are you so confused by clarity?

So no, the new ones are not of a higher quality GÇö they are of a higher detail level, which actually means they're lower-quality icons.

its the turret "icons" next to the locked target that get me, they just all look like brown ****.

So I take it you argue with you optometrist, or every other professional you come across. This is UI design 101. A picture makes a horrible icon for the simple reason that they're not simple. There's too much noise; too much detail; too much useless pixels; too much information loss at different sizes and scales.

If you want to use a picture as a basis for an icon, that's fine, but you will have to refine it something immensely and simplify and refine the defining characteristics to the bare minimums. Otherwise, it fails as an icon.
Except, of course, that this is not what I'm saying GÇö that's what you're saying.

What I'm saying is that pictures are not icons because they fail to do all the things an icon needs to do.
GǪexcept, of course, that what they look on your ship is entirely irrelevant for what the icon is there to do. Why are you so confused by having an icon that means GǣLarge Long-range Laser TurretGǥ? Why are you so confused by having an icon that stands out against its background? Why are you so confused by clarity?

So no, the new ones are not of a higher quality GÇö they are of a higher detail level, which actually means they're lower-quality icons.

Well obviously your and my standards of high quality are different, so we clearly disagree here. That happens a lot to me, but I'll live... :)

Btw... you gotta at least admit that the new icons are way off from line compared to all the other old icons.

GǪor, to use that old chestnut, let's take the example of the Fire Exit sign.

How do you design one? Well, you don't plaster a picture of Phan Thi Kim Phuc on the door and hope people see the connection. It may contain the right elements (fire, running away, painGǪ) but its meaning is thoroughly unclear in the heat of a fire.

Instead, you have a highly stylized fire, a highly stylized running man, and an arrow pointing in the right direction. Hell, you could arguably even skip the running man. This conveys in a few very easily recognizable shapes the meaning "Fire? Run! Over there GåÆ"

Replacing these icons with pictures of the same things (if at all possible, which is debatable in some cases) does not improve the sign GÇö quite the opposite, because it just adds unnecessary (and even harmful) extra information to process.

The higher definition icons we use now are better.

They look exactly like what they are.

They're also color coded for those of us who pay attention to that kind of thing. As I sit here in a station right now cycling through the various weapon types, I can tell at a glance exactly what they are and do.

I was under the impression that all icons would get the photorealistic overhaul eventually.

Next time you fit your ship in a smoke filled room as you dive out a window, you let me know.