These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: UI Modernization - Icon Strategy

First post
Author
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#281 - 2015-03-05 02:04:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
Circles are bad shapes to have in such large quantities on screen. The small cross is also an eyesore and just plain messy. Not to mention it's a relic of the current system, which makes sense only if it's planned to be removed later (and for now will just serve as a reminder "hey remember the cross guys? this is one of those").

There are far more efficient and aesthetically pleasing ways to denote NPC, and it's a matter of a few pixels of color difference. The new icons waste a lot of space in their allotted dimensions, which is another matter, but is another thing that stands to be improved by becoming bigger and more uniform.

These icons are being used inefficiently, and they're too small to fit simple indicators (such as NPC) within the body of the icon.

I'm also against significant differences between player ships and NPC icons due to the way it implies that NPC ships are somehow different, and it's not a big jump to interpret them as "not real." This is a mostly accurate assumption, but NPCs are there to simulate additional content, and it breaks immersion when you overtly denote them as non-player ships.

I just think drones and ships should be recognizable by their silhouettes as such, and the specifics of their types should be displayed wihin.

Outlines are a basic, instinctual, instant method the mind uses to recognize and categorize what the eyes see. Ships and drones are being overcomplicated with varied silhouettes, when they are two basic groups and should have as many silhouettes between them (two, not one per ship class).

Road signs are an excellent example of this. In the US, speed limits are displayed on white rectangular signs, and we first recognize the outline and color / contrast, and then register the information displayed within the body.

Hazard signs are the same way. They are orange triangles and we identify that first, as a hazard sign, then take note of what is within the body: pedestrian crossing, deer crossing, slippery road, winding road, steep downgrade, avalanche, etc.

All ships should have a silhouette in common like road signs. Then have identifying information within the silhouette. Drones should have a silhouette in common like hazard signs, with specifics about their nature within their silhouette.

In a client screen full of ships and drones, I only want to see two basic types of icons. ...Not a grab bag of too many shapes to efficiently process.
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
#282 - 2015-03-05 08:13:58 UTC
There is room in the overview for two icons side by side, if you insist having more info in them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#283 - 2015-03-05 14:03:46 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
I'm also against significant differences between player ships and NPC icons due to the way it implies that NPC ships are somehow different, and it's not a big jump to interpret them as "not real." This is a mostly accurate assumption, but NPCs are there to simulate additional content, and it breaks immersion when you overtly denote them as non-player ships.

I just think drones and ships should be recognizable by their silhouettes as such, and the specifics of their types should be displayed wihin.

They have to be overtly denoted as non-player ships somehow, so making it as clear as possible is something that comes naturally out of that need. They're not there to simulate other people — they're there to offer automated opposition. Since the mechanics that surround the two are vastly different, it would do players a pretty huge disservice if the two were made harder to distinguish.

As four silhouettes and outlines, as already mentioned, this is a neat idea in theory, but it becomes wholly impractical at a the small sizes required here. You're looking at something that takes up maybe 4×4mm on your screen, and which needs to be trivially identifiable at an arm's length distance. It's also questionable if that level of detail is actually needed just for the icon. The S/M/L/XL categorisation (with perhaps some of the intermediate sizes thrown in for good measure) is plenty for what they're supposed to do. If you want the exact ship type, just look at the overview (where it will already tell you more details than a simple outline will).
Aribeth Thiesant
Fluffy Inquisition
#284 - 2015-03-05 18:03:24 UTC
I was just part of the test on Singularity. I'm not fond of the new icons, they are all too similar is size.
An icon that has something numerical is quicker and easier.. Maybe like a star with 4, 5 or 6 spikes.. just an idea.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#285 - 2015-03-05 18:12:09 UTC
I am really sorry to break the news, But I have just been on the mass test.
whilst I was concerned from the screenshots expanded on the devblog.
the reality was worse than my worst nightmares.
anything below battleship size was just unuseable.
and the Pod icon was just absurdly small.

Although I use glasses for reading and do not usually need them for computers, due to the fine detail of the client, I currently use reading glasses for the game.

as it stands on sisi, I will be unable to play, not through lack of desire, I love the game, but I just cannot see it! there is no combination of lenses that resolves the issue.

this is horrific!

please find a solution, it is not something one can work around as a user or get used to. optics can not be argued with :(

I love this game! please do not do this to us

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

lilol' me
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#286 - 2015-03-06 11:47:22 UTC
CCP Surge you need to listen to the players and swallow your pride and listen. Most of the people are saying they are not right, stop trying to rush something in when clearly yiu haven't got any support. Just sounds like typical CCP were not listening attitude.
Gerart en Daire
HY-AE
#287 - 2015-03-06 15:18:08 UTC
Honestly?

I liked the new icons judging by the dev blog, liked the clarity, the ability to differentiate frigates vs. destroyers especially pops out as *very* useful to new players, as that's important info for them in the lower-tier security missions and combat anoms/sigs.

The forums are all "graah this change sucks" with varying degrees of actual argumentation and reasoning supporting the opinion expressed, but I guess that's mostly par for the course for MMO forums, as much as I keep hoping the EVE forums would surprise me to the contrary. "Most of the people" on the forums saying something really, REALLY does not mean it's the majority opinion, more often than not it's just a vocal minority.


Disclaimer: Okay, I'll admit I missed the mass test and I haven't spent much time trying them out on Singularity (due to having problems getting *on* Singularity last weekend due to a nonfunctional launcher), and I have perfect vision (despite being 30; someone claimed that they would be undiscernible to "anyone over 25"; as a side note, I know people over 50 with practically perfect vision). Despite the above, my opinion should be considered equally with everyone else's.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#288 - 2015-03-06 15:53:06 UTC
Gerart en Daire wrote:
The forums are all "graah this change sucksl

Actually, no-one is saying that. People are saying that this implementation sucks, not the change. I can't really recall anyone mentioning the change other than those who laughably attempt to reference some mythical opposition to change. Rather, people are looking at and commenting on very obvious usability issues and on the fairly weak arguments for the chosen design route.

Quote:
I'll admit I missed the mass test and I haven't spent much time trying them out on Singularity

Then you don't really have any point of references or anything particularly valuable to say on their usefulness or fitness for purpose, now do you?
SuPPrisE Ambraelle
Ascendance
Goonswarm Federation
#289 - 2015-03-06 16:31:19 UTC
well i was on the mass test the other night.

I had the new icons, and if i had an option to change them there and then... they would have been gone.

ALLLLL of them.


they are just so alike its hard to tell whats what, and they look like someone dropped a bag of arts n craft shapes on a table... there is nothing that makes each stand out ( easy visible check) to see what ship class it is.

just another useless change to eve. Fix what the players want and ask for.

overall id say 1/10 for rating.

please do not implement this. :(
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#290 - 2015-03-07 10:41:27 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
SuPPrisE Ambraelle wrote:
well i was on the mass test the other night.

I had the new icons, and if i had an option to change them there and then... they would have been gone.

ALLLLL of them.


they are just so alike its hard to tell whats what, and they look like someone dropped a bag of arts n craft shapes on a table... there is nothing that makes each stand out ( easy visible check) to see what ship class it is.

just another useless change to eve. Fix what the players want and ask for.

overall id say 1/10 for rating.

please do not implement this. :(



I can understand your opinion, certainly there could be other ways of doing it,
The funny thing though, from an aesthetics point of view, they are really quite pleasant.

Unfortunately from a practical point of view, the tiny size of the icons below battleship, and the amount of information condensed into something so small, is physically impossible to discern.

In a fast changing environment, I do not have time to Try to change to engineers magnifying lenses move within an inch or two of the screen, and squint hard to tell what is fast approaching. And that is NOT an exagerration. That is literally what I had to do.

It is so dissapointing, CCP have clearly wanted to do something visually attractive and artistic. And it is.

Unfortunately, when one cannot discern the art, due to it's size, the value is somewhat lost.
And it does not matter how many pixels are used, if most of them are blank.
Possibly make ALL the icons the same size, using the whole area of available pixels, and make cruisers and frigates hollow, and add
Extra info CLEARLY inside this space, thereby utilising the entire available icon space, rather than wasting this valuable real estate.
Then the point could be blunt or sharp to identify Combat or industrial ships.
Sub frigate size, really, existing icons worked for those, I personally do not see the new level of granularity as valuable here. But full size space invaders for all drones would work, as they are cute. I do not need to differentiate size and effect in the icon though. Especially as the current effect is " cute>whats that?*squint hard* >Can't see >is that saying something about what that tiny squiggle does?"

Tl;dr love the prettiness, but practicalities of seeing the detail, makes me wish for red crosses, and I never thought I would ever say that.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#291 - 2015-03-07 13:57:52 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
CCP Surge wrote:
Also good to know. Plus a super-carrier class icon shouldn't be a big problem :)
Why do we need a super-carrier icon?
1 icon for frigates, 1 for destroyers, 1 for cruisers, 1 for battle cruisers, 1 for battleships and 1 for capitals. All other information is already available in the overview and because there are only a few icons needed they can be made to look good and stand out as individual representations of ship classes.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Are you going to be online for the test? If so I have 1 request, when there are 100 to 1000 players on grid - Use an icon to find the target you want., while your doing that get a friend to find that same target as we find them now (name, ship type).

Can you ever see an FC calling targets by - primary 3rd triangle from the left.
Completely agree except we need fewer levels of distinction. As an example of what it looked like in the test, players don't need to identify what kind of specific ship class it is by the icon. Most of the time we just care that we can quickly tell what is a player ship and what is an NPC, and then at best we might take notice if it is a small, medium, or large ship. The current TQ icons/brackets do that quite nicely. If we cared any more about it we would use the Type column and remove any doubt. That is all it needed to be and it was quite simple and clean.

Further, the states of people that are currently clearly visible in space on TQ on their icons due to having the room and open area in the icon to display this status. See below example, especially for caps, the new icons nearly completely hides the state color. This will make reliance on the Overview list even heavier to see things like Criminal, Suspect, War Target, etc.
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#292 - 2015-03-07 14:40:23 UTC
Just for Devs knowledge, the circadian seeker are still using the old cross icon (http://i.imgur.com/hQrrip5.png). I did not know about the new drifter battleships, I did not find then yet.

The general NPCs are all ok (http://i.imgur.com/jb2bLcn.png).

Singularity build 867500.
Darkblad
Doomheim
#293 - 2015-03-08 11:30:14 UTC
Castelo Selva wrote:
Just for Devs knowledge, the circadian seeker are still using the old cross icon (http://i.imgur.com/hQrrip5.png). I did not know about the new drifter battleships, I did not find then yet.

The general NPCs are all ok (http://i.imgur.com/jb2bLcn.png).

Singularity build 867500.
Drifter Battleships also still use the old plus symbol. And that one's still wrong. Cruiser (groupID 26), not Battlehip (which would be groupID 27).

NPEISDRIP

Hallvardr
#294 - 2015-03-08 23:20:08 UTC
oh gaud .. more work from the 3 yr. old's with crayola crayons and construction paper.

When it this freakin flat, lifeless monochromatic nonsense going to stop. Another step backwards.

CCP listen up. Change just to change is NOT good no matter what the voices are telling you. And changing to this "mono chromatic card style" interface is tripe.
Jonat Eken
T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.
#295 - 2015-03-08 23:58:02 UTC
I really wanted to like these new icons, but I just can't.

If it takes more than a glance to identify something, the icons aren't designed properly. Sorry, but there it is. They look pretty in the abstract, but in use they are far too similar. The current icons only take a quick glance to determine threat/target category, and that's what we need. Not change for the sake of change.

I'm all for changing the icons, but it needs to be to something that improves gameplay, not causes screen squinting and delays.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#296 - 2015-03-09 00:00:48 UTC
Pithiness. These icons need more of it.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#297 - 2015-03-09 00:40:19 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Pithiness. These icons need more of it.

Just rat in Gurista space and it will be all good.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

NSA Bivas
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#298 - 2015-03-09 19:38:30 UTC  |  Edited by: NSA Bivas
this icons still needs lots of work first of all you need to easily distinguish the ship classes and my biggest concern is with the drone icons they are way to big if u send light drones and an inty after someone who's 60km away and a frigate class ship or even destroyer burns to that ship in close vicinity of the drones it will be really hard to see that a ship is coming for you.

some of the players suggestions where awesome especially this one http://i.imgur.com/z5sMq6x.png posted by Castelo Selva
Castelo Selva
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#299 - 2015-03-09 23:44:26 UTC
NSA Bivas, the sugestion was posted before by Geanos, as per here:

Geanos wrote:
ISIS icons are very nice and they look wonderful there, but they don't mix well with the overview. Why not use clear shapes that would show a clear progression for each category of ships or drones? I made a quick mockup to illustrate this:

Combat - circle & diagonal lines
Industrial - triangle & horizontal lines
Drones - square & vertical lines

It is not polished but you'll gt the idea


However, yes, as much I personally appreciate the new ISIS icon they are hard to distinguish in the combat scenario. The Geanos suggestion was the one I most like for the new icons. It is simple and functional.

I am also agree with a new optional column right at the side of the icon column where I will be able to see if the ship are a tech 2 combat / logistic / warfare / booster / tech 3 type.

Looking forward to the new iteration of the icons. Your move CCP.
Unstopable Deadman
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#300 - 2015-03-10 10:44:46 UTC
Hey! Never done a feedback for SiSi before because I've never felt so strongly about a change, but I submitted a Support Ticket, turns out you devs can see them :) so they told me to post what I said in the ticket here:

I heavily dislike the the new tags for ships/drones etc in space.

I think that that is too much information to be trying to display, there is no need to show that kind of information for how much it clutter the screen. I've been playing with it on Sisi and its just impossible to see things in a clutter. The information is easily accessible by just hovering over the target, which is nor really hard to do (because you can't even find them in the mess of icons)

I'd like to know if it will be or ask CCP to consider it to be optional only. Is that something that will be considered?