Page 1 of 1
In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 10:52
by Warlord Zsinj
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/indefenseofeyecandy
WeÔÇÖve all seen arguments in the design community that dismiss the role of beauty in visual interfaces, insisting that good designers base their choices strictly on matters of branding or basic design principles. Lost in these discussions is an understanding of the powerful role aesthetics play in shaping how we come to know, feel, and respond.
... if we shift the conversation away from graphical elements and instead focus on aesthetics, or ÔÇ£the science of how things are known via the senses,ÔÇØ we learn that this distinction between how something looks and how it works is somewhat artificial.
An interesting article, something I deal with a lot in my discussions at uni with regard to architecture (the aesthetic as an element of design; readability, form vs function etc), but it's interesting to see it applied in UI circles as well. I think it has relevance for the way some people are going about designing their GUI's for spring.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 11:14
by Beherith
We are planning to continue development of this user interface style.
I think it can be a big step up from just random boxes.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 11:37
by Jazcash
Beherith wrote:
We are planning to continue development of this user interface style.
I think it can be a big step up from just random boxes.
I've been using your res bars from the day they were released. I use them not only because they look awesome, but also because they're nice and big and obvious so I can know my economy levels without having to actually look directly at them :D
If you and Wisse continue to develop a whole UI in this sort of style, I'm sure it would quickly be used as the default UI.
However, remember to try and make it as FPS friendly as possible and try and give it all the features the current UI's have. I am really looking forward to more of this stuff. :)
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 12:00
by Warlord Zsinj
We're planning a total UI design for IW, but I've put a bit of time and effort into designing it (as gnomre's put even more time into getting it ready), so I'd be pretty chuffed if people ended up using it as a UI for other mods. For the moment it's still underwraps, I thought I'd give gnomre a bit more time to sort out the practicalities (which may require redesign in areas) before showing the intended layout.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 12:03
by Jazcash
Hmm, separate UI's for separate mods would be a good idea. Especially if the UI's are done in the same style of the mod.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 12:22
by Spawn_Retard
those new ones look a tad out of place?
I guess im just used to normal grey and yellow bars in a box.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 12:24
by Warlord Zsinj
I'm sure each mod would love to have it's own UI, but it's an incredible undertaking of work - both from a design perspective (UI design is so critical because of the users constant interaction), as well as getting implemented (most of gnomre's expletive-ridden comments tend to stem from having to try to work out how to implement the UI).
Once a few mods manage to get some custom UI's up (PURE's, for example, though I don't know how that's licensed), I think you'll tend to see mods skinning those to create their own personal flavours.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 12:28
by Jazcash
Hmm, well I suppose game creators would prefer to have their own separate UI and mod creators wouldn't mind using the default UI but could create their own UI if they wanted too.
We need a graphic team.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 13:52
by Warlord Zsinj
Sorry, I still use the old terminology, I did mean 'games' when I said 'mods'.
I'm pretty sure we need more documentation of the lua relating to UI rather then a graphics team. But we're digressing from the topic at hand
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 14:08
by Gnomre
Actually the documentation these days is pretty good and complete. There's probably still some shit missing or outdated but it's still a lot better than it used to be.
Also, most of my cursing is related to handling mouse clicks, I suck at that
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 14:51
by Tobi
JAZCASH wrote:Hmm, well I suppose game creators would prefer to have their own separate UI and mod creators wouldn't mind using the default UI but could create their own UI if they wanted too.
We need a graphic team.
Mod creators want a custom skin to well known GUI elements - button, listbox, checkbox, slider, etc., and a way to build custom "forms" out of these elements.
Don't think they'd want custom non-standard behaviour to the basic GUI elements, that just confuses users.
No reason to not share the logic behind all these GUI elements in a common library, as long as everything is entirely skinnable / stylable by the modder.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 18:33
by Argh
Mod creators want a custom skin to well known GUI elements - button, listbox, checkbox, slider, etc., and a way to build custom "forms" out of these elements.
That would certainly be a good way to speed up people's ability to deploy UI. Doing it my way is slow and cumbersome. I've just come up with a new idea for speeding up development of static UI, though.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 23 Apr 2009, 16:30
by smoth
Neat article, would have been nice to have when I was crusading for better graphics in teh *a projects. Pity I don't care about that anymore.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 23 Apr 2009, 21:10
by SwiftSpear
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 23 Apr 2009, 22:24
by Sleksa
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 23 Apr 2009, 23:38
by CarRepairer
What would that be called then.. EyeHealthFood?
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 24 Apr 2009, 15:39
by BlackLiger
Eye-candy/Not Eye-candy doesn't bother me.
Usability and clarity of usability does.
Take this forum. It's not 'pretty' but it's not perfectly bleak and efficient either. It's designed to be usable without being stark. The spring UI at the moment is stark, and needs something else to make it work. The OTA UI was pretty much like this forum is now.
And personally I think that SUPCOM's UI is a little too far on the 'pretty' side, but there's mods to fix that.
Re: In Defence of Eyecandy [article]
Posted: 24 Apr 2009, 16:56
by PicassoCT
I like the japanese Approach on that, were Beauty is not nessecarily Artworkoverkill, more a thing to be found in simple lines, arranged perfectly.
Un4chanatly i am not good at those things.. you┬┤ve got to see it as a competiton to hack&slay away everything, not needed, not clearlined&curved with purpose. Imagine yourself going into a Barockchurch, here is a hamer, get rid of those golden Angels...
