Of course. Nobody is arguing that there aren’t. What I’m saying that if Photon had those, there’d be universal complaining about them - including from me - because that’s what “objective” means. Most of the complaining I’ve seen seems pretty subjective. That’s fine - if folks don’t like the way it looks that’s important, too, but it’s not the same as saying “this is going to hurt people if you use it” which seems to be what you’re saying.
My NDA doesn’t allow me to tell you anything CCP tells me unless they allow me to do so in writing. This is how it’s always been. It’s not limited to trade secrets, it’s literally anything. And I don’t break that for any reason. Sorry.
If you want to know the reason, you’ll have to ask them directly or go back through the multiple posts on Photon from the Photon team and see if they address it directly there. They may have. I do recall them saying something about creating more contrast when they changed the system security colors.
1 Like
so you, as a lawyer, whose major talent, is probably … arguing i’d assume, if you were to have a court evidence thing, calling an expert witness, i think it’s called …
Would you ask some random lawyer’s opinion on a matter of, say: pathology, or a patholiogist’s?
1 Like
Creating more contrast by using less contrasting colours is a truly revolutionary idea!
1 Like
It’s important, in this case, to distinguish between argument and crafty deployment of logical fallacies. 
I love some of the functional changes for Photon UI. However I can only assume the developers have never been to Caldari space, as the absurd over-brightness of the background space in some places practically overwhelms the Overview display…and it seems to do so more in Photon than it did in the prior version. Then again…people have been asking CCP to turn down the background brightness since before the dinosaurs so I am not hopeful. Its not a problem in Amarr space, with its nice red interstellar clouds…mainly in Caldari space.
I’m not giving an opinion on pathology or anything human eye related. I’m explaining the definition of the word “objective” and applying it in this instance. In that regard, I am overly qualified.
You are trying to argue that Photon is objectively going to cause eye strain because of the color choices. I am pointing out that if that were the case, every single person using Photon over the last year would have had this problem, and the number of complaints would be exponentially higher than it is.
You may be a doctor - you may be an optometrist - you may even be some kind of UI/UX designer - you’ve hinted pretty heavily that you’re one of these without just coming out and saying it, and that’s great. I think we all appreciate having an expert around. But if you’re using your expertise to claim something that obviously is not true, this isn’t helpful.
Yes, some people don’t like the color choices. That’s a subjective issue. Letting folks choose the colors they want would solve this problem, yet you’re still disagreeing with me. I don’t get it.
Anyway, I don’t care to get drawn into this kind of facile argument because it’s not helping anybody else.
On a sidenote (since your using them) How many blocklists do you think adglare .net is on ?
are you qualified in graphic design at all? - … you seem to be very insistent on “being qualified counts…” :
In that regard, I am overly qualified.
so re: graphic design, you … seem to be offering your opinion in this, quite heavily?
I’m not giving an opinion on pathology or anything human eye related.
yes you are
I don’t care to get drawn into this kind of facile argument because it’s not helping anybody else.
no no, please!, maybe I’m mistaken but if you didn’t want to be drawn into this kind of argument, why were you you consistently, and deliberately replying to pretty much 20 comments about precisely this topic, in this very thread?
"I don’t care to get drawn into this kind of facile argument "
well don’t reply then. Kinda simple huh, “Mr. lawyer”?
Next: do you, or do you not, have any qualification in graphic design/UI/typography/visual … anything?
3 Likes
The fact that a lot of us are complaining about it means that it is objectively causing eyestrain for a meaningful number of people. I’m not unsure about it, it hurts to look at, and when I stop looking, it stops hurting. If I had to, I could probably (albeit with the investment of great effort) empirically prove that the problem is being caused by the UI, as I sure the other complainants could too. The complaint didn’t seem to arise much from the old UI, nor were there ever a meaningful number of users complaining that the old UI had bad colours (at least in the 10 years that I’ve played). It’s true that no-one can claim that it “objectively causes eyestrain for all users”, but your vain decision to focus on the semantics misses the point that this is a bad UI design decision that the broader community never asked for - the old colours were suitable for many years and they still would be by all indications. It’s just unhelpful.
2 Likes
You can no longer enter an exceedingly long name for your Overview tabs.
Is there a reason for this change? Z-S Overview (and I’m sure many others) use tags to format the text like <fontsize>, <b>, etc. With the character limit none of that can be used. The colors are kinda nice but obviously have nowhere near the flexibility of <color> hex
If a character limit is going to be imposed, give us more options to customize the text. The formatting options in the Ships tab are an excellent example of this and I would love to see it extended to Tabs.
It’s not mentioned in the patch notes for some reason, but it also seems like saving filters with the aforementioned tags like <color> doesn’t break it and save it into a broken filter. Great fix!
I do think forcing proton is a bit premature. There are still other issues here and there (mostly the new docking sounds) but maybe that’s just me reeing at change like much of the replies in this forum. And given how often the team working on Proton listen to feedback I can’t wait to see it fully fleshed out.
5 Likes
There have not been “a lot” of complaints. You are only the third person I’ve talked to who has argued that the UI is physically causing them pain. I have passed the others on to CCP - I would suggest you put a ticket in about this as well, and get me the number and I’ll pass it on to them as I did the others.
This is the problem. I do not agree that this is a “bad UI design.” That statement is inherently subjective. The team has already explained why they were tasked with redesigning the UI - “During its twenty year development, EVE has seen many features, all with specific user interface needs. Some of these features have pushed the UI into new territory, exploring new ways to improve the interface, but not always with an established design language in mind. This has made parts of the UI less than cohesive, even confusing, and difficult to master. In addition, maintaining many UI styles is ineffective, leading to increased development time.”
You can say you don’t like the new UI. That’s fine. You can say you don’t like the colors. That’s fine. Nobody is going to argue that you have to like them or that you not liking them is some kind of a problem for you.
It’s where folks start saying “this is objectively bad” or “this is objectively hurting everyone” that I draw the line, because I prefer this UI. I like it. It hasn’t hurt me. I look at it for hours a day, every day, and the only issues I have had with my vision are that I’m 45, not 29 like when I started playing this game, and I have more difficulty reading a printed book than I do playing EVE.
If I am not having this problem, the claims of “objectivity” are wrong, and they are not helpful. What is helpful is specific issues that people are finding that we can point out to the team and get them to fix. That’s one of the reasons why they made the thing permanent in the first place - there are times when they can only get the feedback they need to fix things from having it universal in the live environment.
Because saying it makes so. Or maybe make an argument based on facts.
I’ve seen a bunch. I do have better things to do than read through 400 posts here and many other elsewhere to quantify them precisely (I hope that someone is paid to do that, although I’m often unsure of it). It seems to me that there’s many more than 3 of us who have raised the point. Maybe you’ve only engaged with 3.
On your other points - I’m pleased to see you continue your tradition, established in this thread, of arguing against points that haven’t been made. I didn’t suggest that the whole UI is pain-inducing, just some of the colours (noted in previous posts). I did suggest that other aspects of it are bad for other reasons (such as wasting screen space).
However, I’m glad that you did, in quoting the dev team, eloquently support my point that the colour changes were made on the initiative of the dev team’s own (quite questionable) thinking rather than broad community requests. Perhaps if the dev team had done some more incisive surveys of the community on all aspects of the changes rather than relying on the adoption rate among new players, alpha accounts, and seasoned players who didn’t know they could opt-out of the beta, we would know more about how many people prefer some of the specific changes. Your proposal of more modification for the colour scheme would be great, I’m excited to see it implemented some time in the next decade (if we’re lucky).
5 Likes
We shouldn’t be in it now. It’s not ready. Introducing it now has a negative effect on the game and reinforces the concept that CCP doesn’t really care about the game and just about justifying paychecks. Additionally CCP could have given photon UI the ability to look as it does now or look very similar to the old UI. They chose not to. It is obvious they didn’t have the time or resources because they have had a year and tons of excellent player feedback and still have failed to fix about half of the significant issues raised. A new UI was not needed at this time and factoring in CCP’s proclivity to finish projects halfway and then abandon them I see no value in the argument that this was somehow necessary for some future upgrade. This UI has added only a few valuable feature like a second overview window that could have been done without a hole new UI. We had just started to see the health of the game improve. It appeared CCP was listening and they had introduced largely non controversial new content that was well received. Photon feels like a throw back to 2020 and CCP once again completely ignoring players. No we should not just sit down and shut up because if we do next time and the next and the next will be the same story. It’s only when people get loud enough that CCP has listened and unfortunately we are not loud enough yet.
10 Likes
I’ve seen a couple dozen complaints in this thread and elsewhere. Not bad for a game with 100k active users (according to the gaming press). So I think it’s hard to say that fewer than 100 characters here complaining is “a lot.” In my experience it’s not that many. As I said before, this has been pretty tame.
I’m trying to square what you claim above with the below quote.
My understanding is that they did do all the things you were suggesting - surveys and the like, as well as looking at adoption rates and feedback threads, as well as CSM input.
Works better is an odd way to describe less info in more space.
You don’t need a whole new UI to add a second overview window.;;
2 Likes
Yes. Good god, yes, I have.
They could not have added a new overview in the old UI. It was impossible without the backend work done by the UI team on Photon. This has all been discussed multiple times in the dev blogs the Photon team has put out over the last year.
I haven’t received any mail from them offering me to take part in a survey in regards to the new UI. As for the feedback threads, there was plenty of feedback provided by the players there. Sadly they just ignored most of it, because here we are today with an UI that’s not fully optimized and operational .
5 Likes