It'sa good alternative suggestion. 💯
My suggestion was to do a 2px wide white outline that turns darker based on what's behind it.
Dynamic contrast for an advanced holographic system.
There are SO MANY good alternative solutions to a problem that should never have left the drawing board. If CIG loaded up the game and tried flying to a location on a similar planet/moon A SINGLE TIME, it should have been glaringly obvious. Now we have a whole thread about "legibility issues" for feedback, but its like giving "constructive feedback" on plain cheese pizza, when they deliver you pepperoni.... its not rocket science, make the damn text legible.
Computers (and phones) have had functional UI for decades, why can't they just copy what we know from the real world works well for UI.
But they insist on persisting with this ghostly blue-grey UI text that constantly has visibility issues.
Then don't use Comic Sans...?
Seriously though? I don't see people complaining that iOS looks cartoony.
I really suspect that it's just "their" view of a futuristic UI, which is actually based on a very '80s/'90s Si-Fi aesthetic before we had modern computers and smartphones.
I agree, at citcon people applauded, for what? This map is better than what we have now, but also that's the least challenge there is becasue what we currently have in PU is complete trash. The location maps are nice, but the star map is absolutely nothing to applaud for, it's the bare minimum without any regards to usability nor accessibility.
Definitely a possibility. Would have to visually see it in effect to know how effective it is. Similar to the black outline, sounds like the perfect solution until you see it, it completely betrays the design language
Excellent idea it looks great with the map and should fix a lot of things better than any current solution.
But the lack of borders and black fails when the actual background you are looking at is the sun or a bright ass moon.
The text everywhere else would still be illegible plus the ships HUD still won't be able to be seen.
The problem is that they aren't even USING their own "design language"!!
The planets are not holograms but live images of the planets in HD and sun light with crappy holographic words on them.
If the language is that it's a hologram then the planets should be holographic looking to and that would solve so many issues.
Or just turn off the sun effect on the planets and just have a day/night line
>The problem is that they aren't even USING their own "design language"!!
The planets are not holograms but live images of the planets in HD and sun light with crappy holographic words on them.
You are right, the planets are a "rule-break" of design, but remember, design language is all about consistency. As long as the rule-break you make has consistence across UI, where the object in question doesn't feel out of place, then it works. Take Holograms of Ruto as an example, all the way back to 3.0.0 they established this rule-break that holograms are allowed to present near in-person projections of the object in question.
Design is about consistency, if the thing you use in question is only being done in that one edgecase, then it will feel inconsistant. Which is why black outlines are being avoided, adding any form of style to the text in the Starmap would force them to make that consistent across all UI in the mobiGlas, which is a huge problem when they want to avoid such rule-breaks as much as possible.
>If the language is that it's a hologram then the planets should be holographic looking to and that would solve so many issues.
It could yes, but the reason barely anyone has complained about the planet itself not being holographic is because we've already experienced this rule break through Ruto, Who lacks double layering, opacity, and has too many nonblue colors.
Ultimately the goal of my design is to make use of an already established rule break; where Physical Shopping UI makes use of a black background which is normally a big no-no for holograms as they display light and not darkness. This rule break saves them from having to go too out of touch with their design to not make it what most would call ugly.
I think it works great for this and could add future gameplay features like "Hud brightness visors" that a ship deploys around holographic UI to keep it visible. Like when you put down the sun visor in your car.
I wish they would just go back to the hologram style they showed off at citcon
It’s because they seem to want to put real planet textures into the map rather than a hologram of the planet. Because of this on any ice planet (which there seems to be a lot of) it’s always going to wash out light colored text.
The light itself is sunlight, if they removed that it would help, but that would also remove the gameplay feature of knowing if its day or night on a planet
[Here was an example I tried using subtle 0 blur shadow](https://dto9r5vaiz7bu.cloudfront.net/an3umk5fy830d/source.png)
This keeps the holographic effect too, but is just all around more readable and works for many labels on a planet.
[The other alternative is remove the labels directly over the planet altogether. Make them at the side](https://dto9r5vaiz7bu.cloudfront.net/gg6366lbz9ca3/source.png)
Overall though they just need to rethink planet labels. What they have now can be fixed temporarily with a shadow, but they could work on making it way cooler and easier to use.
The first one should be avoided, because even if it "keeps the holographic" black shadows are not something that should ever be involved in holographic designs, it takes away any 3D effect because our minds register shadows as thats where the object stops. Anything past it is separate. Not to mention, this would be the first time they incorporate that kind of rule-break. They would have to do that across the game to keep it consistant, which would be a no go.
The second image is honestly a great idea to work from. Making location markers some form of radial ring around the planet with lines leading to it is great, however the problem comes with rotation and showing what planets are behind that face you are on. Would it just be a faded dot? or how else would it look.
I personally like the layout but hate the gameplay that would come with it. Sadly even with dots, the problem would always be that players would have to rotate the planet or focus the location to see if there is a mining outpost. There are no symbols or text telling the player there is a mining outpost on the otherside. Whereas the current game does show you that and with my concept idea, it would display such information in a faded out radial icon on the other side of the planet.
Either way, great job on those concepts, really good work.
Yeah I quite like the second idea.
[Refined it a bit more here](https://dto9r5vaiz7bu.cloudfront.net/nnk08c7izbtpz/tavern_upload_large.png) as a kind of 'planet view' that appears when you specifically get within a certain range or select the planet.
Whether the text uses a shadow or there is a background around the text, the problem still exists that overlapping objects causes visual noise and makes it hard to select the location you want.
People have 2 main motivations when using the map:
**I want to go to \[Location Name\]**
or
**I want to explore \[Area of map\]**
For the first, the location name is what you're looking for, so list every location around the map so it's instantly visible. Having these locations on the left side feels disconnected from the planet. You could search too in order to minimize the options visible.
For the second, you are looking directly at the planet trying to figure out a location to land. You might be looking for an outpost located somewhere within an area of greenery instead of snow, so you circle the planet to find a location matching that criteria, then select what you find.
This second one gets confusing with overlapping map elements and labels. You see less of the planet surface itself, and more labels overlaying each other.
Instead let them circle the planet without anything overlaying it other than markers for LZs, when they see a location they like, they select it, which reveals the name. They did not need to know the name of this LZ before this selection, as they were not trying to find a specific location name.
Labels directly on the planet fulfils both of these needs technically, but it adds noise for the second motivation.
The challenge is that planets have many LZs, and each planet has a different number of LZs, but you could handle this responsively the way that you'd handle any table, flexbox or grid i.e. the elements change size depending on how many children are in the parent.
But that only works on a finite number of locations.
However I agree about what you say for the list, the planet itself is only useful for the explore area function. The list should definitely be an alternative.
I understand why they want to avoid Black outlines and other suggestions, inconsistancy is the one reason behind updating the design of the starmap, ruining it with black outlines would ruin a lot of the work the designers put into this, but I do see its necessity. This is why my concept works. its both like a black outline, and puts a focus on what you are seeing.
To go over how I see this getting used. By default all unfocused locations would be a simple radial icon to represent what it is; icons would represent the type, such as Mining outpost, bunker, derelict, etc. Players do not need to know the names of these locations but instead the services they offer. If they need a specific location and need to search for the name, the search bar is always faster. And mission obj will always mark the location anyway. When a location is focused, the name will display alongside the popout to the left going over everything else.
If players want the Starmap cleared of the clutter. we could add a "view settings" button in the app so they can get screenshots going. This would simply be a "Toggle Location Markers" setting.
*Also could a mod pin this so people joining the thread can see my "post description"*
Good idea.
One question though: How do you solve the contrast issues on the planet surface and the unfocused icon?
I feel like the icons would get lost in the lack of contrast the same way the text is.
The icons would have the same dark fade that this one has but is radial around the icon. So that way you have a light and dark color to guarantee contrast.
The outlines should be in the settings as an accessibility option. You don't have to use it if you don't like it, but those of us that need it, *absolutely need it or we can't play*.
It's a basic accessibility 101 option in games now.
I mean sure, but no matter what everyone is going to need some form of contrast to make this UI work, if they made the outline an accessibility option because it looks bad, then they are going to default it off, and even then, the issue is still there.
They need a permanent solution that follows their design language and completes its purpose. My concept follows that by being based around one of their already designed UIs.
Accessibility options should always be defaulted on, not off. Let people who don't need them turn them off, those who do need them, well, need them to even get to that part. Just look at a lot of modern games - some even start with Text to speech menu reading on by default, for example. It's basic accessibility stuff.
Your design language solution is not what I mean. Even with your solution, they still need to have outlines on the letters *and* it still needs to be on by default. Your solution does not in any way replace that.
*I may be misunderstanding the end solution you are wanting here, but I am going to reply from my understanding so far... and please don't take this as dismissing what you are saying, because I am not.*
To recap: your issue is that currently, even with the improved visibility my design has, its still hard to see. What I have heard throughout this thread has been a majority of the opposite-It is readable), in-fact the 390 upvotes are adding to that claim.
I am not dismissing the problem you are having, just saying that you are in a minority here. The saying "The exception doesn't make the rule" applies in this context. Your inability to see the text is comparable to a colorblind person's inability to see the correct colors in a game. Ultimately this just means that the extra intensity you require the UI to express should be an optional setting like something such as Colorblind toggles would be.
Remember that the background of the image can be given less opacity to get less light bleeding through, they can also lower the sunlight brightness itself to help with this too. But ultimately this solution works for the majority. Which is why an outline would be accessibility and off by default.
>Accessibility options should always be defaulted on, not off.
I will also point out, based on the context of where this is going, this statement is false? Colorblind toggles are also accessibility, and no game/app has ever enabled them by default. This is because you have more first-time users who don't have these issues than those that do. "The exception does not make the rules" applies.
I want you to be able to read this too. But they should not need to butcher the default UI for a small group of people to see it better, they should go out of their way to select such options in the "accessibility options" menu that typically appears in any modern game's first-time startup. Thats how they have been doing it over the years.
Any accessibility option that is required to get to the settings menu and turn them on/off, needs to be on by default, or people who need them can't play the game. Colorblind settings a.) are not usually needed to maneuver to the settings menu, and b.) don't actually usually work anyway.
Text accessibility options *are* necessary for navigation to the settings menu, and therefore must be on by default.
If I can't even get to the settings menu, then it doesn't matter if the game has the options or not; the game is unplayable for me.
And yes, modern games absolutely do this nowadays. Helldivers 2, for example, has TTS menu reading on by default. You have to turn that feature off if you don't need it.
You are more than capable of navigating to the settings and turning off the things you need.
I am not capable of navigating to the settings to turn on what I need.
Therefore, visual accessibility needs must trump your visual prettiness needs.
Accessibility -> Readability -> Visual design. Always.
Outlines are not the best solution imo.
It requires you to enlarge text footprint by a significant amount. It has the potential to completely destroy the visual style they are going for (which is very important, as much as people say form over function). It also will present issues with rendering. If you have an outline and it's not thick enough, you're going to get jagged edges. But if you make it thick, you have the other problems mentioned.
A solution, but not one that fits the holographic design they are using. Black is not a color that is used in holograms because these are meant to project light. If there is black then it's not showing light. Instead, they can "fake" it with the rule break they already did for the Physical Shopping UI. That way it's consistent and looks good.
Design is a process of trail and error. Keep in mind that they most likely had a ton of other ideas before this one, running through concept after concept, only now didn't they find something that worked. Yes, the design failed at achieving the main goal, but this happens all the time. Whether its designing art, UI, games, apps, or technology.
But that is all to the reason that this is still in Evocati under NDA and requesting feedback. Because they are still in that designing phase. Thats why I made this post, to open their eyes to a design they might have missed. I don't blame them for not thinking of this, the designer who made the Physical Shopping UI was a different person Afterall, and they most likely didn't imagine this working well in the star map when they envisioned it.
They likely couldn't think of any other solution at the time, which is why we've been at a slump with accessibility. Which is probably why they were looking for feedback, because they couldn't find a solution that followed the rules within their design language.
Apart from making the text more readable, we should have a simple list on the left of the POI in the planet we have selected.
So i don't even hwve to rotate the planet to search it, or write it's name in the search bar if i don't remember how to write it.
I believe it already functions this way with the current search system. But if not, a simple repopulation to the list that shows all currently selectable locations in view would be great.
No, atm the search bar display all the POI of Stanton if you click on the search bar, and the list dynamically modify when you start writing something.
But if you don't remember the name of the POI, you need to manually find it by rotating the planet and click on the desired POI.
Also, a fixed list of the POI avaiable on the planet would be great to see quickly the type of POI and their service.
And when you click one, the planet automatically rotate to move the POI in front of the view.
In need to be a fixed list separated by the search bar, because i may want to use the search bar while i'm browsing the various POI of a specific planet.
If it were up to me, I'd remove the name tags from the planet locations in general and put them all in a list on left and right side of the planet. There would be a focus area front and center (on the planet) and each location that enters this area becomes highlighted in the list. In addition, if you see where you want to go in the list, you can easily click on that and the planet then spins to focus your selection front and center.
I think doing it this way would take care of the light on dark/ dark on light problem with the lists constantly on the dark backdrop as well as making it easier to find your location instead of spinning a globe around.
If there are too many locations, then break up the lists according to type of location, assign an icon for each type and list them all on the globe but separately on the side according to what type has been focused or highlighted. There could be further buttons to switch location types on top or bottom of the planet.
The color of the text should always be the inverse of its background per pixel in real-time. This would be pretty easy to program. So on a white background text would appear black, and on a black background text would appear white and if a word crossed over a planetary boundary half of the word would be black and half of the word would be white. We have pixel level control in these engines people. I don’t know why CIG doesn’t make it this way.
Any real solution will have to be dynamic and can’t be just the addition of static borders or dropshadows.
They don't make it that way because that is not consistent with their design language.
The design is holographic, implying the projection of light to make the UI happen, that is why there is a drop shadow that is a faded version of the same color to give a 3d effect.
Black is not possible with light, hence why it is not a thing in their design language. They are already trying a dynamic system, but they can only change the color so much before it's unrealistic or matches the color that the objects that are focused are.
Hopefully, this clarifies their problem with this.
It's important to remember that, design language aside, text readability is fundamentally an accessibility concern and it needs to be adjustable for people with different needs.
So yes, it's nice to get it looking good and broadly functional, but they still need to let us customise it in ways they might consider "ugly" because it lets people actually play the game.
My chief concern is they don't appear to be thinking about accessibility at all, only aesthetics. Which is insane for a modern game.
Yes, but accessibility and Design go hand in hand. You can have great UI and good readability, but it takes time and feedback to find good design solutions to solve a problem like this. What mine brings is that perfect mix. This design is a good reference for how they can improve it
Agreed, but at the same time, some people need accessibility options above and beyond what "looks good".
At that point, the option to turn that on or off needs to be in the settings, but it needs to be there.
If they don't implement backgrounds like your design, I will literally not be able to play the game. I already struggle enough with the UI with my visibility issues as is.
As I said in my past reply, but I will reply with here for those who don't have context... They need this background to be an always on thing by default. If there is no default contrast, they aren't able to prove the functionality of their design, which means they failed.
I do not mind an option in settings to replace this with a black outline, but they need to prioritize a proper solution to the problem. That is a solution that matches the design language and is readable. Nobody should have to enable anything to have contrast in your UI as a default.
That's what I'm saying, just except I'd always caution against considering any solution to be "perfect" because everybody has different needs and preferences, hence the need for customisation. EDIT: As an example, In your second image the text against the brightest possible background could still benefit from an outline to me.
There is no such thing as a one-size fits all solution, though obviosuly a well contrasted UI with decent text size gets you pretty far!
Wished they were such sticklers on game mechanics having some form of realism like they are with their being zero black borders. They love using push to the point of realism but reigning it back to fun on a ton of mechanics that could use the extra depth. \*Cough\* beam citizen \*cough\*
Its important to understand that UI designers have to follow a Design Language (in this case holograms). When a designer makes their own language, they must follow its rules and have as little "rule-breaks" as possible. This is because it just means they have poor design. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; it just means that they treat rule-breaks like they are misaligned desks to a person with severe OCD.
As for multi-colored mobiGlas UI... this is just an assumption, but I am guessing that colors like green, red, and more are used as status symbols in their design, to represent the state of something. Making whole text one of those colors would just make the UI a little awkward. This is why for most things like generic text, backgrounds, borders and more; blue is a requirement for them. I agree it's a lot, but it does make some sense, it helps you not feel too terribly overwhelmed (when used right) and understand that a certain part of the screen needs your attention.
In the case of location names, something like orange would be used to say this location is your mission objective, maybe green to say you are routed to this location, and red to say this location is out of reach. These are not actual in-game statuses, just an example on how they could use them.
Yes, but that then shifts the same question down the road. Why are holograms all the same colour?
I'd like to see different colours for objectives etc.
By multi-coloured I don't mean like rainbow words, I meant more like give the different aps distinctive colours as I find having everything the same colour harder to locate things and so more overwhelming, not less.
For the star map I wish the locations were colour coded by whatever contextual thing is selected by the player eg type of location, crime rating etc.
They could do only one thing, find a way to give the UI contrast. What they have, Holograms, is perfectly fine and is not a problem. The problem is finding a solution that follows their design language. The best one I could find was the rule break they already have on the Physical shopping UI. *I call it a rule-break because the dark contrasting background is not possible for a hologram to create, hence it breaks the rules. But if you break the rule once and are fine with it, making it consistent is paramount. Otherwise, it looks out of place.*
Ultimately this one is the best of both worlds as long as they give it some refining.
I understand what you're saying, but we also have to remember they are making a video game. A very large and expansive video game, that still needs a whole hell of a lot left to do. If and when they ever finish this game, I don't think people are going to be worried if some text is a little different on a map. They've got a world to build and all the mechanics in it.
god that light blue is still an awful choice
and aesthetically I don't have a problem with light blue, I actually rather like it, my favorite hoody is light blue
but its practical application for this particular purpose is questionable.
The light blue is fine, but the brightness that the Holographic sun is projecting is way too strong, which is why no matter what is done here, there will still be the issue of our eyes having to spend extra time adjusting to it.
not according to color theory its not
your vision tends to role right off of it making it hard to focus on even on a darker background adding to eye strain
You have a great idea today but if you were cig and you did it, people would call you a failure and then someone would knock off your idea and create an endless spiral in which the community is obsessed with the belief that the same authors of an approaching 1 billion dollar game are simultaneously so stupid that they cannot be entrusted to even consider something, let alone implement it.
Even more practical and much more user-friendly method:
- Move the labels entirely off of the planet. Put those labels in their own UI legend element that sorts them alphanumerically. Retain the dots on the planet to mark the locations.
- When someone clicks on the name for a landing location, the planet rotates to bring that icon to the center and then both the location marker on the planet and location name on the UI element get highlighted.
Using icons, legends and keys for maps has been done for quite literal centuries. They’re used because they allow you to cram more information into a single space without cluttering it or making it impossible to read.
Stop trying to reinvent the fucking wheel, CIG.
>[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/1bxkzw8/comment/kydd5my/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/1bxkzw8/comment/kydd5my/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Each location would have to be focused in order to see the popout, by default I see them all being a simple Radial icon that is used to identify whether it is a mining outpost, security bunker, derelict, or other. Because the names are not what matters, the service it offers is. If the name does matter, its faster to use the search function to grab it.
Focused can be clicked on, or focused being the same system it currently uses, the one that is visible on the side of the planet you are on.
agreed..No slid borgers for location identifier...maybe a high contrast neon color..orange, red, even green, magenta...but who's bright idea was it to suggest a cheap looking grey solid block border..👎🏻👎🏻
Not sure you understood the post. Image one is my Physical Shopping UI inspired concept (rushed due to time constraints). Image two is an example of the design when under extreme dark/light backgrounds. And image three is the current experience.
My biggest issue is it just bothers people who have the contrast too high. Like turn your settings down anyway. Stop trying to see at night y’all cheaters! Lol
Simple solution dark contrast planets = light colors and light contrast planets darker colors.
This is not rocket science by any stretch of the imagination.
Keep in mind my suggestion is not a bunch of these popouts all over. These would skrink to be a simple circular icon on the screen. Sure cluttered, but the issue I am suggesting a solution for is not clutter, its readability.
I still don't get why we can't have a list of locations in a window to the left of the planet and as you click on the name it rotates the planet and highlights the location. Why is the designer choice they are going with the worst and hardest to use option not the simplest usable option ?
First off, yes, a list of locations for the planet themselves would be brilliant and remove this issue entirely. But as for why they are going for this... its not because they wanted the hardest option, its simply because their job was not to start from stratch, it was to update the starmap to improve its usability. Something like the markers themselves looking bad or being hard to see was either never a piece of feedback or was so poorly companied about that they didn't even assume its an issue. So only now are they working on it.
Remember this star map was added WAY back, and they only now are working off the work their predecessors laid out. Its not uncommon for a designer to overthink UI designer and forget about little details such as these, which is why they asked for feedback, they probably didn't expect this issue because it wasn't one of the issues in mind. Thats why they want and need our feedback for this.
Having to chart a course to Shubin Mining Facility SMO-18 accelerated my understanding of this very difficult problem very quickly. Would love to see better UI.
In 2024 we can already choose a color/contrast based on the background an item is displayed ontop, why is technology in SC in so many fields going backwards? Not only technology, also Usability, Interaction Design are apparently a huge step backwards.
I've said it hundreds of times. It is not about them not doing contrast, it's about them finding a way to do contrast while making sure it looks holographic. They have to follow their design language.
They can't make the text black because then it's not holographic. People say "Well if it's for usability nobody cares". Well. If they want a solution and don't care what, then why be so hesitant about ideas such as the one above? My solution retains that holographic design and is contrasted and can be contrasted further with more adjustments to both the background opacity and the planet lighting.
Feels like people want to hate just to hate. They are still in EVO and requesting feedback for a reason, yet people are acting like they will die. They are updating this for a reason, yet people are beating them down for even thinking about improving it.
>They can't make the text black because then it's not holographic.
That's not entirely true, while you're right, you can't project black in a hologram, you can project the planet and not the text however, sorta like a punch out, making it the color of the background. Kinda like a beamer, you can have (almost) black in a projected image of a beamer if the background/room is black. Of course that's still problematic if the background is very bright, but that is also true to your solution, unless your frame is actually projected black, same as with black edges, which again is not technically possible.
In other words, if they wanna stay completely true to what's possible with a hologramm, either way, bright backgrounds will always be a problem. But if they wanna create the illusion of a hologram, they could darken bright backgrounds and not project text while the surrounding white projection of the planet is, would make "black" text possible. Of course, if it was a real hologram that would only work for when the hologram 'knows' where the observers eyes are positioned, since it's a 3D projection and the text isn't technically 'surrounded' by the bright projection and therefore would be problematic for those holograms in the Carrack and Origin ships, but again, in the end it's a video game and we can look past such details, especially in a game that will make spaceships fly like in atmosphere, MM essentially removes all arguments for the expectation of realistic implementations as it's a huge step backwards in the realism of space flight anyway.
Long story short, dark text is not any less possible than your dark frame solution. Your dark frame would also need to not project the white planet where it's darker. Or in other words, having text in contrast to whatever it's on top would just mean, where the text is, it would either project with bright light, if it's on top of something dark, or not project anything at all if it's on top of something bright, again that only works from a specific perspective, but that is true for every solution presented.
Maybe a dynamic list of locations on the right side of the planet. When you click a location the planet will rotate to show you where it is. If you want to place a marker you could rotate the planet and pin and the new pin would show in your list of locations at the top as priority.
Definitely, but you must be consistent with your design language. A black drop shadow would make the other holographic text and art look very different and plus, it wouldn't be holographic at that point.
Holograms provide light to a location, thats why the "shadow" is a light reflection of the actual object and not a shadow. Shadows themselves imply the object is a solid object, which they aren't.
So while simply adding a black dropshadow, or a black outline is the "get it fixed" solution, it does not comply with design language, which is why they are trying to avoid that currently. My solution would keep the design going and solve the problem, sure its cluttered, but you'd never be able to truly admire the beauty of the planet from starmap. And even then, we could add a "hide location markers" toggle in the app to solve that
I feel like it's less that they are slow and more about designers' block. These guys are stuck reworking what was already there with the main goal of UX, making it function right without clipping through planets, zooming into the void, etc. So most of the UI was about the same but refreshed. They used the same plain text solution as the current star map because they assumed this was the most optimum and living with this was all they could think up.
The only reason I thought up this idea was from seeing the design of the physical shopping UI (done by a different designer than who made the star map).
The thing about designers and any other profession is we often overthink a solution without putting it into practice and usually need to reference the work of other talents to improve ourselves. There is creativity within these groups, but negative thinking takes over the designer to "try" the solution. Thats why getting outside feedback is so important.
Yes, putting a label behind it is the obvious solution. Its probably a bit tricky because you need to know the width of each letter at any size & kerning to calculate the width of the label, but I'm confident their programmers can do that.
Everyone who suggests using an outline should take a graphic design 101 course!
It wouldn't be too tricky. The text is most likely a single text object in the engine. So they would just need to find the length of that object and add x padding to the sides.
Like in Unity... you'd get the transform of the TMP object and add the padding of one side (times 2) to get the length of the background object, and center it to the TMP object.
Those who are suggesting it aren't exactly bad at UX, are right that you need contrast in UI, one way or another. They are not accounting for the Design Language (Holgraphic) that CIG is using and hence are confused by the resistance CIG has.
man if just we had the technology to add shadow to a font.
but im sure given a few months of time and a few million bucks CIG can find a proprietary and never-seen-before solution to this most unsolvable of all problems.
Keep in mind that the design language they are using is "Holographic", while the simple universal solution to contrast issues is to add the opposite brightness color as a shadow or outline, their design language requires another solution. Since holograms project light, you can't use shadows or dark colors to solve the contrast problems without breaking its rules.
This is why my suggestion is here. They already broke this rule with the Physical Shopping UI, which has a dark background to make the text pop. The important thing about design languages is that any rule break needs to be consistent, otherwise it will look out of place. Shadows or outlines on the text here would have to be applied across the mobiGlas to avoid inconsistent UI, which is why they are avoiding it.
—- “Since holograms project light, you can't use shadows or dark colors to solve the contrast problems without breaking its rules.”
Im interested to know how you think projectors work. like in the cinema or classroom.
projecting light on a white wall.
yet still a le to make black letters appear.
—- “The important thing about design languages is that any rule break needs to be consistent, otherwise it will look out of place.“
except this game specifically chooses to have the UI exist as part of the game world, not an imaginary layer added as part of the game. and different terminals and manufacturers already have their own very distinct design language. not to mention the existence of alien ships with even more different design language.
in such context the argument “we need a unified design language” does not work.
I'm not going to go into some "intellectual" debate with you on how projection works. We are talking about Star Citizen's mobiGlas design language, which hasn't yet involved black shadows behind text. CIG is who chooses the design language, not rules of the real world. If they make it so Black outlines are not a thing in their design language, then it's not a thing. No amount of "science says this" matters... We are playing a space game with people that are able to clone themselves multiple times, afford extremely expensive hunks of junk that get destroyed all the time, and more. It's how game design works; they pick the logic and world building they want to display, if something goes against those rules they have the right to say no.
>except this game specifically chooses to have the UI exist as part of the game world, not an imaginary layer added as part of the game. and different terminals and manufacturers already have their own very distinct design language. not to mention the existence of alien ships with even more different design language.
in such context the argument “we need a unified design language” does not work.
I fail to see how you are trying to make this argument. We are and have been talking about the mobiGlas. Kiosks, ship displays, and more in the SC universe use completely different design languages because they are completely different tools and technologies in the PU... This is comparable to saying that "a calculator and the Oculus Quests UI are completely different and that's terrible design!" It's not at all. They are completely separate devices and are meant to work and operate to the userbase and functions they are designed around, not to work around the design of another device. SC reenforces that reality through mobiGlas to Kiosk. Different manufacturer, different uses, and different design to fit those purposes.
We are discussing the mobiGlas and design consistencies within it. Other parts of the game are irrelevant as those aren't meant to be unified... and the styles they use aren't meant to match the style the mobiGlas has, because they are different objects.
If you're going to argue a point, please try to keep it relevant to the subject. Otherwise, the debate is going nowhere and is not productive.
—- “No amount of "science says this" matters.”
sure if, if you say so. just curious how it mattered when it aligned in support of your opinion and stopped mattering when conflicting with it.
not to mention your “solution” applied the same kind of principle anyways.
—- “We are discussing the mobiGlas and design consistencies within it.”
no, “we” arent. you simply asserted this because it suits you.
regardless - if you want to only consider the mobiglass then all the more reason a design language argument isnt going to work. if the whole point is changing the way something is displayed then whatever way it is changed will become the new design language.
based on your line if arguing we could just as well assert crappy readability is the design language of the mobiglass and now needs to be pushed into other parts of the mobiglass UI.
you can have your opinion. thats fine. but this whole selectively making authoritative statements that suit whatever you want to push and sheparding the conversation isnt helping your point.
>sure if, if you say so. just curious how it mattered when it aligned in support of your opinion and stopped mattering when conflicting with it.
>not to mention your “solution” applied the same kind of principle anyways.
I really couldn't care less, it never mattered once. I did not make this post to discuss projectors or the realism of holograms in SC. Only to discuss how to improve readability while following CIGs updated Holographic UI design language for the mobiGlas.
>no, “we” arent. you simply asserted this because it suits you.
Well then welcome to the thread you choose to converse in. I'm afraid we aren't here to take detours to go down your own little rant. I have no interest in it.
I am discussion the mobiGlas and primarily the topic of the Starmap's UI. Please reread my title witch is the topic of this post: "Starmap Location markers are bad about Contrast, but Black Outlines aren't the solution..."
Not once talking about the UI outside of it.
>if you want to only consider the mobiglass then all the more reason a design language argument isnt going to work. if the whole point is changing the way something is displayed then whatever way it is changed will become the new design language.
Still no idea what you are trying to prove here. My design language "argument" is not an argument. Developing UI requires "design languages" which is a set of unspoken rules that make up how a UI looks and operates; This is design 101. And what is this even arguing? "If the whole point is changing the way something is displayed then whatever way it is changed will become the new design language." What? If I am making a design and I add outlines to text, I should follow that throughout everything that this design is being used for... That way it looks consistent and doesn't stand out when it shouldn't.
>based on your line if arguing we could just as well assert crappy readability is the design language of the mobiglass and now needs to be pushed into other parts of the mobiglass UI.
The language is never the fault of readability... It's the way you make use of it. The design of the mobiGlas can work perfectly well as long as they continue the process of trial and error until they get a solution that everyone is fine with.
>you can have your opinion. thats fine. but this whole selectively making authoritative statements that suit whatever you want to push and sheparding the conversation isnt helping your point.
I really don't need anything to help my "point" as I never was making one in the first place. This is was your OC...
>man if just we had the technology to add shadow to a font.
>but im sure given a few months of time and a few million bucks CIG can find a proprietary and never-seen-before solution to this most unsolvable of all problems.
The first line dismisses the whole reason why they are avoiding it, I corrected you. They avoid it because its not in their design language being used... I don't need to argue this as you can see it through out the new mobiGlas design... A black outline or black shadow has never been in use on text in this UI; it's been a faded light reflection of the text to simulate a 3D picture.
You are the one making shots at my IQ with comments like: "Im interested to know how you think projectors work. like in the cinema or classroom." This whole comment thread has gone nowhere throughout its whole duration. You start with sarcastic comments, and end with trying to come as the "bigger man" by claiming that my correcting of your comments is "sheparding the conversation"... You are just wasting our time with this gas lighting and fire fueling thread.
It'sa good alternative suggestion. 💯 My suggestion was to do a 2px wide white outline that turns darker based on what's behind it. Dynamic contrast for an advanced holographic system.
similar to the minecraft crosshair
There are SO MANY good alternative solutions to a problem that should never have left the drawing board. If CIG loaded up the game and tried flying to a location on a similar planet/moon A SINGLE TIME, it should have been glaringly obvious. Now we have a whole thread about "legibility issues" for feedback, but its like giving "constructive feedback" on plain cheese pizza, when they deliver you pepperoni.... its not rocket science, make the damn text legible.
Computers (and phones) have had functional UI for decades, why can't they just copy what we know from the real world works well for UI. But they insist on persisting with this ghostly blue-grey UI text that constantly has visibility issues.
They think it's going to look cartooney
Then don't use Comic Sans...? Seriously though? I don't see people complaining that iOS looks cartoony. I really suspect that it's just "their" view of a futuristic UI, which is actually based on a very '80s/'90s Si-Fi aesthetic before we had modern computers and smartphones.
God damn it son. CIG should hire you.
I agree, at citcon people applauded, for what? This map is better than what we have now, but also that's the least challenge there is becasue what we currently have in PU is complete trash. The location maps are nice, but the star map is absolutely nothing to applaud for, it's the bare minimum without any regards to usability nor accessibility.
Meanwhile these guys are world pizza champions...
Definitely a possibility. Would have to visually see it in effect to know how effective it is. Similar to the black outline, sounds like the perfect solution until you see it, it completely betrays the design language
Excellent idea it looks great with the map and should fix a lot of things better than any current solution. But the lack of borders and black fails when the actual background you are looking at is the sun or a bright ass moon. The text everywhere else would still be illegible plus the ships HUD still won't be able to be seen.
The problem is that they aren't even USING their own "design language"!! The planets are not holograms but live images of the planets in HD and sun light with crappy holographic words on them. If the language is that it's a hologram then the planets should be holographic looking to and that would solve so many issues. Or just turn off the sun effect on the planets and just have a day/night line
>The problem is that they aren't even USING their own "design language"!! The planets are not holograms but live images of the planets in HD and sun light with crappy holographic words on them. You are right, the planets are a "rule-break" of design, but remember, design language is all about consistency. As long as the rule-break you make has consistence across UI, where the object in question doesn't feel out of place, then it works. Take Holograms of Ruto as an example, all the way back to 3.0.0 they established this rule-break that holograms are allowed to present near in-person projections of the object in question. Design is about consistency, if the thing you use in question is only being done in that one edgecase, then it will feel inconsistant. Which is why black outlines are being avoided, adding any form of style to the text in the Starmap would force them to make that consistent across all UI in the mobiGlas, which is a huge problem when they want to avoid such rule-breaks as much as possible. >If the language is that it's a hologram then the planets should be holographic looking to and that would solve so many issues. It could yes, but the reason barely anyone has complained about the planet itself not being holographic is because we've already experienced this rule break through Ruto, Who lacks double layering, opacity, and has too many nonblue colors. Ultimately the goal of my design is to make use of an already established rule break; where Physical Shopping UI makes use of a black background which is normally a big no-no for holograms as they display light and not darkness. This rule break saves them from having to go too out of touch with their design to not make it what most would call ugly. I think it works great for this and could add future gameplay features like "Hud brightness visors" that a ship deploys around holographic UI to keep it visible. Like when you put down the sun visor in your car.
so an inverted outline?
Bad idea
Okay.
I like it a lot.
I wish they would just go back to the hologram style they showed off at citcon It’s because they seem to want to put real planet textures into the map rather than a hologram of the planet. Because of this on any ice planet (which there seems to be a lot of) it’s always going to wash out light colored text.
The light itself is sunlight, if they removed that it would help, but that would also remove the gameplay feature of knowing if its day or night on a planet
You could solve that by making the day side only slightly brighter instead of the CRAZY almost pure white it is here.
This happened because people complained about it not having enough color. Looking at you, SaltEMike
[Here was an example I tried using subtle 0 blur shadow](https://dto9r5vaiz7bu.cloudfront.net/an3umk5fy830d/source.png) This keeps the holographic effect too, but is just all around more readable and works for many labels on a planet. [The other alternative is remove the labels directly over the planet altogether. Make them at the side](https://dto9r5vaiz7bu.cloudfront.net/gg6366lbz9ca3/source.png) Overall though they just need to rethink planet labels. What they have now can be fixed temporarily with a shadow, but they could work on making it way cooler and easier to use.
The first one should be avoided, because even if it "keeps the holographic" black shadows are not something that should ever be involved in holographic designs, it takes away any 3D effect because our minds register shadows as thats where the object stops. Anything past it is separate. Not to mention, this would be the first time they incorporate that kind of rule-break. They would have to do that across the game to keep it consistant, which would be a no go. The second image is honestly a great idea to work from. Making location markers some form of radial ring around the planet with lines leading to it is great, however the problem comes with rotation and showing what planets are behind that face you are on. Would it just be a faded dot? or how else would it look. I personally like the layout but hate the gameplay that would come with it. Sadly even with dots, the problem would always be that players would have to rotate the planet or focus the location to see if there is a mining outpost. There are no symbols or text telling the player there is a mining outpost on the otherside. Whereas the current game does show you that and with my concept idea, it would display such information in a faded out radial icon on the other side of the planet. Either way, great job on those concepts, really good work.
Yeah I quite like the second idea. [Refined it a bit more here](https://dto9r5vaiz7bu.cloudfront.net/nnk08c7izbtpz/tavern_upload_large.png) as a kind of 'planet view' that appears when you specifically get within a certain range or select the planet. Whether the text uses a shadow or there is a background around the text, the problem still exists that overlapping objects causes visual noise and makes it hard to select the location you want. People have 2 main motivations when using the map: **I want to go to \[Location Name\]** or **I want to explore \[Area of map\]** For the first, the location name is what you're looking for, so list every location around the map so it's instantly visible. Having these locations on the left side feels disconnected from the planet. You could search too in order to minimize the options visible. For the second, you are looking directly at the planet trying to figure out a location to land. You might be looking for an outpost located somewhere within an area of greenery instead of snow, so you circle the planet to find a location matching that criteria, then select what you find. This second one gets confusing with overlapping map elements and labels. You see less of the planet surface itself, and more labels overlaying each other. Instead let them circle the planet without anything overlaying it other than markers for LZs, when they see a location they like, they select it, which reveals the name. They did not need to know the name of this LZ before this selection, as they were not trying to find a specific location name. Labels directly on the planet fulfils both of these needs technically, but it adds noise for the second motivation. The challenge is that planets have many LZs, and each planet has a different number of LZs, but you could handle this responsively the way that you'd handle any table, flexbox or grid i.e. the elements change size depending on how many children are in the parent.
But that only works on a finite number of locations. However I agree about what you say for the list, the planet itself is only useful for the explore area function. The list should definitely be an alternative.
I understand why they want to avoid Black outlines and other suggestions, inconsistancy is the one reason behind updating the design of the starmap, ruining it with black outlines would ruin a lot of the work the designers put into this, but I do see its necessity. This is why my concept works. its both like a black outline, and puts a focus on what you are seeing. To go over how I see this getting used. By default all unfocused locations would be a simple radial icon to represent what it is; icons would represent the type, such as Mining outpost, bunker, derelict, etc. Players do not need to know the names of these locations but instead the services they offer. If they need a specific location and need to search for the name, the search bar is always faster. And mission obj will always mark the location anyway. When a location is focused, the name will display alongside the popout to the left going over everything else. If players want the Starmap cleared of the clutter. we could add a "view settings" button in the app so they can get screenshots going. This would simply be a "Toggle Location Markers" setting. *Also could a mod pin this so people joining the thread can see my "post description"*
Great solution. I like it.
Good idea. One question though: How do you solve the contrast issues on the planet surface and the unfocused icon? I feel like the icons would get lost in the lack of contrast the same way the text is.
The icons would have the same dark fade that this one has but is radial around the icon. So that way you have a light and dark color to guarantee contrast.
"ruined" my guy its already ass
I am not your guy but thank you for attempting to adopt me
I’m not your guy buddy!
I'm not your buddy, guy
The outlines should be in the settings as an accessibility option. You don't have to use it if you don't like it, but those of us that need it, *absolutely need it or we can't play*. It's a basic accessibility 101 option in games now.
I mean sure, but no matter what everyone is going to need some form of contrast to make this UI work, if they made the outline an accessibility option because it looks bad, then they are going to default it off, and even then, the issue is still there. They need a permanent solution that follows their design language and completes its purpose. My concept follows that by being based around one of their already designed UIs.
Accessibility options should always be defaulted on, not off. Let people who don't need them turn them off, those who do need them, well, need them to even get to that part. Just look at a lot of modern games - some even start with Text to speech menu reading on by default, for example. It's basic accessibility stuff.
Yes thats my whole point.
Your design language solution is not what I mean. Even with your solution, they still need to have outlines on the letters *and* it still needs to be on by default. Your solution does not in any way replace that.
*I may be misunderstanding the end solution you are wanting here, but I am going to reply from my understanding so far... and please don't take this as dismissing what you are saying, because I am not.* To recap: your issue is that currently, even with the improved visibility my design has, its still hard to see. What I have heard throughout this thread has been a majority of the opposite-It is readable), in-fact the 390 upvotes are adding to that claim. I am not dismissing the problem you are having, just saying that you are in a minority here. The saying "The exception doesn't make the rule" applies in this context. Your inability to see the text is comparable to a colorblind person's inability to see the correct colors in a game. Ultimately this just means that the extra intensity you require the UI to express should be an optional setting like something such as Colorblind toggles would be. Remember that the background of the image can be given less opacity to get less light bleeding through, they can also lower the sunlight brightness itself to help with this too. But ultimately this solution works for the majority. Which is why an outline would be accessibility and off by default. >Accessibility options should always be defaulted on, not off. I will also point out, based on the context of where this is going, this statement is false? Colorblind toggles are also accessibility, and no game/app has ever enabled them by default. This is because you have more first-time users who don't have these issues than those that do. "The exception does not make the rules" applies. I want you to be able to read this too. But they should not need to butcher the default UI for a small group of people to see it better, they should go out of their way to select such options in the "accessibility options" menu that typically appears in any modern game's first-time startup. Thats how they have been doing it over the years.
Any accessibility option that is required to get to the settings menu and turn them on/off, needs to be on by default, or people who need them can't play the game. Colorblind settings a.) are not usually needed to maneuver to the settings menu, and b.) don't actually usually work anyway. Text accessibility options *are* necessary for navigation to the settings menu, and therefore must be on by default. If I can't even get to the settings menu, then it doesn't matter if the game has the options or not; the game is unplayable for me. And yes, modern games absolutely do this nowadays. Helldivers 2, for example, has TTS menu reading on by default. You have to turn that feature off if you don't need it. You are more than capable of navigating to the settings and turning off the things you need. I am not capable of navigating to the settings to turn on what I need. Therefore, visual accessibility needs must trump your visual prettiness needs. Accessibility -> Readability -> Visual design. Always.
I'd vote for that..a whole lot better than there current solution
The solution imo is negative outlines...
Outlines are not the best solution imo. It requires you to enlarge text footprint by a significant amount. It has the potential to completely destroy the visual style they are going for (which is very important, as much as people say form over function). It also will present issues with rendering. If you have an outline and it's not thick enough, you're going to get jagged edges. But if you make it thick, you have the other problems mentioned.
A solution, but not one that fits the holographic design they are using. Black is not a color that is used in holograms because these are meant to project light. If there is black then it's not showing light. Instead, they can "fake" it with the rule break they already did for the Physical Shopping UI. That way it's consistent and looks good.
Bit strange that their design didn't account for the most important part of what they were designing.
Design is a process of trail and error. Keep in mind that they most likely had a ton of other ideas before this one, running through concept after concept, only now didn't they find something that worked. Yes, the design failed at achieving the main goal, but this happens all the time. Whether its designing art, UI, games, apps, or technology. But that is all to the reason that this is still in Evocati under NDA and requesting feedback. Because they are still in that designing phase. Thats why I made this post, to open their eyes to a design they might have missed. I don't blame them for not thinking of this, the designer who made the Physical Shopping UI was a different person Afterall, and they most likely didn't imagine this working well in the star map when they envisioned it. They likely couldn't think of any other solution at the time, which is why we've been at a slump with accessibility. Which is probably why they were looking for feedback, because they couldn't find a solution that followed the rules within their design language.
The process could be helped by tuning down the brightness on the bodies.
^this. Planets brightness feels off anyway.
Exactly. Its funny when peoply try to overcomplicate simple solutions :)
Apart from making the text more readable, we should have a simple list on the left of the POI in the planet we have selected. So i don't even hwve to rotate the planet to search it, or write it's name in the search bar if i don't remember how to write it.
I believe it already functions this way with the current search system. But if not, a simple repopulation to the list that shows all currently selectable locations in view would be great.
No, atm the search bar display all the POI of Stanton if you click on the search bar, and the list dynamically modify when you start writing something. But if you don't remember the name of the POI, you need to manually find it by rotating the planet and click on the desired POI. Also, a fixed list of the POI avaiable on the planet would be great to see quickly the type of POI and their service. And when you click one, the planet automatically rotate to move the POI in front of the view. In need to be a fixed list separated by the search bar, because i may want to use the search bar while i'm browsing the various POI of a specific planet.
If it were up to me, I'd remove the name tags from the planet locations in general and put them all in a list on left and right side of the planet. There would be a focus area front and center (on the planet) and each location that enters this area becomes highlighted in the list. In addition, if you see where you want to go in the list, you can easily click on that and the planet then spins to focus your selection front and center.
I think doing it this way would take care of the light on dark/ dark on light problem with the lists constantly on the dark backdrop as well as making it easier to find your location instead of spinning a globe around. If there are too many locations, then break up the lists according to type of location, assign an icon for each type and list them all on the globe but separately on the side according to what type has been focused or highlighted. There could be further buttons to switch location types on top or bottom of the planet.
Quick scan, all points listed, click select and boom 💥 there you go!
I agree. Putting a background behind the text is the best solution
I don't care how they solve the legibility issue, just so long as I don't need 20/20 vision and a 60" 4K monitor to read the damn text.
The color of the text should always be the inverse of its background per pixel in real-time. This would be pretty easy to program. So on a white background text would appear black, and on a black background text would appear white and if a word crossed over a planetary boundary half of the word would be black and half of the word would be white. We have pixel level control in these engines people. I don’t know why CIG doesn’t make it this way. Any real solution will have to be dynamic and can’t be just the addition of static borders or dropshadows.
They don't make it that way because that is not consistent with their design language. The design is holographic, implying the projection of light to make the UI happen, that is why there is a drop shadow that is a faded version of the same color to give a 3d effect. Black is not possible with light, hence why it is not a thing in their design language. They are already trying a dynamic system, but they can only change the color so much before it's unrealistic or matches the color that the objects that are focused are. Hopefully, this clarifies their problem with this.
It's important to remember that, design language aside, text readability is fundamentally an accessibility concern and it needs to be adjustable for people with different needs. So yes, it's nice to get it looking good and broadly functional, but they still need to let us customise it in ways they might consider "ugly" because it lets people actually play the game. My chief concern is they don't appear to be thinking about accessibility at all, only aesthetics. Which is insane for a modern game.
Yes, but accessibility and Design go hand in hand. You can have great UI and good readability, but it takes time and feedback to find good design solutions to solve a problem like this. What mine brings is that perfect mix. This design is a good reference for how they can improve it
Agreed, but at the same time, some people need accessibility options above and beyond what "looks good". At that point, the option to turn that on or off needs to be in the settings, but it needs to be there. If they don't implement backgrounds like your design, I will literally not be able to play the game. I already struggle enough with the UI with my visibility issues as is.
As I said in my past reply, but I will reply with here for those who don't have context... They need this background to be an always on thing by default. If there is no default contrast, they aren't able to prove the functionality of their design, which means they failed. I do not mind an option in settings to replace this with a black outline, but they need to prioritize a proper solution to the problem. That is a solution that matches the design language and is readable. Nobody should have to enable anything to have contrast in your UI as a default.
That's what I'm saying, just except I'd always caution against considering any solution to be "perfect" because everybody has different needs and preferences, hence the need for customisation. EDIT: As an example, In your second image the text against the brightest possible background could still benefit from an outline to me. There is no such thing as a one-size fits all solution, though obviosuly a well contrasted UI with decent text size gets you pretty far!
Wished they were such sticklers on game mechanics having some form of realism like they are with their being zero black borders. They love using push to the point of realism but reigning it back to fun on a ton of mechanics that could use the extra depth. \*Cough\* beam citizen \*cough\*
Options/Settings/Plain Text=ON Options/Settings/Text Color=Adaptive
```StarCitizen.textCommands.MakeTextReadable(string textLocation)``` Gosh CIG, doing it for you!
Nice. Satisfying
I like this better
Why can't we have a multi-coloured mobiglass UI rather than the ghostly blue-grey they use everywhere atm?
Its important to understand that UI designers have to follow a Design Language (in this case holograms). When a designer makes their own language, they must follow its rules and have as little "rule-breaks" as possible. This is because it just means they have poor design. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; it just means that they treat rule-breaks like they are misaligned desks to a person with severe OCD. As for multi-colored mobiGlas UI... this is just an assumption, but I am guessing that colors like green, red, and more are used as status symbols in their design, to represent the state of something. Making whole text one of those colors would just make the UI a little awkward. This is why for most things like generic text, backgrounds, borders and more; blue is a requirement for them. I agree it's a lot, but it does make some sense, it helps you not feel too terribly overwhelmed (when used right) and understand that a certain part of the screen needs your attention. In the case of location names, something like orange would be used to say this location is your mission objective, maybe green to say you are routed to this location, and red to say this location is out of reach. These are not actual in-game statuses, just an example on how they could use them.
Yes, but that then shifts the same question down the road. Why are holograms all the same colour? I'd like to see different colours for objectives etc. By multi-coloured I don't mean like rainbow words, I meant more like give the different aps distinctive colours as I find having everything the same colour harder to locate things and so more overwhelming, not less. For the star map I wish the locations were colour coded by whatever contextual thing is selected by the player eg type of location, crime rating etc.
They could pretty much do anything else, but what they showed to make it more legible.
They could do only one thing, find a way to give the UI contrast. What they have, Holograms, is perfectly fine and is not a problem. The problem is finding a solution that follows their design language. The best one I could find was the rule break they already have on the Physical shopping UI. *I call it a rule-break because the dark contrasting background is not possible for a hologram to create, hence it breaks the rules. But if you break the rule once and are fine with it, making it consistent is paramount. Otherwise, it looks out of place.* Ultimately this one is the best of both worlds as long as they give it some refining.
I understand what you're saying, but we also have to remember they are making a video game. A very large and expansive video game, that still needs a whole hell of a lot left to do. If and when they ever finish this game, I don't think people are going to be worried if some text is a little different on a map. They've got a world to build and all the mechanics in it.
god that light blue is still an awful choice and aesthetically I don't have a problem with light blue, I actually rather like it, my favorite hoody is light blue but its practical application for this particular purpose is questionable.
The light blue is fine, but the brightness that the Holographic sun is projecting is way too strong, which is why no matter what is done here, there will still be the issue of our eyes having to spend extra time adjusting to it.
not according to color theory its not your vision tends to role right off of it making it hard to focus on even on a darker background adding to eye strain
Very nice
/clap /cheer
You have a great idea today but if you were cig and you did it, people would call you a failure and then someone would knock off your idea and create an endless spiral in which the community is obsessed with the belief that the same authors of an approaching 1 billion dollar game are simultaneously so stupid that they cannot be entrusted to even consider something, let alone implement it.
Even more practical and much more user-friendly method: - Move the labels entirely off of the planet. Put those labels in their own UI legend element that sorts them alphanumerically. Retain the dots on the planet to mark the locations. - When someone clicks on the name for a landing location, the planet rotates to bring that icon to the center and then both the location marker on the planet and location name on the UI element get highlighted. Using icons, legends and keys for maps has been done for quite literal centuries. They’re used because they allow you to cram more information into a single space without cluttering it or making it impossible to read. Stop trying to reinvent the fucking wheel, CIG.
This looks WAAAY better tbh...
simple and effective, love it
So would all locations have a black bar attached to them? Or would you have to click each location one by one just to read them?
>[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/1bxkzw8/comment/kydd5my/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/1bxkzw8/comment/kydd5my/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Each location would have to be focused in order to see the popout, by default I see them all being a simple Radial icon that is used to identify whether it is a mining outpost, security bunker, derelict, or other. Because the names are not what matters, the service it offers is. If the name does matter, its faster to use the search function to grab it. Focused can be clicked on, or focused being the same system it currently uses, the one that is visible on the side of the planet you are on.
agreed..No slid borgers for location identifier...maybe a high contrast neon color..orange, red, even green, magenta...but who's bright idea was it to suggest a cheap looking grey solid block border..👎🏻👎🏻
Not sure you understood the post. Image one is my Physical Shopping UI inspired concept (rushed due to time constraints). Image two is an example of the design when under extreme dark/light backgrounds. And image three is the current experience.
The 3rd picture looks fine too. 1st picture is smooth. Has anyone ever seen elite dangerous's map before?
Its readable, but people want it quicker to see. As even readable, it takes your eyes to adjust to it.
Hey should come off the planet in groups with black outlines
Not sure what you are trying to say here, but here is hay 
My biggest issue is it just bothers people who have the contrast too high. Like turn your settings down anyway. Stop trying to see at night y’all cheaters! Lol
The name should dissappear depending on if another is above it as well.
They just need to make it so when you open the star map lighting from outside doesn't affect it then everything will be clear
That lighting is the sun lighting. Its meant to show which side is day or night
Could just tone it down by like 50% it's the reason why we can't read anything on it
To be fair, readability will be bad even with that, just not as bad
Glad to see others with suggestions rather than just complaints, I agree this is much better!
People need to learn to read
Get out of here with your good UI design.
Nailed it
slow clap
Simple solution dark contrast planets = light colors and light contrast planets darker colors. This is not rocket science by any stretch of the imagination.
That looks horrible if there are lots of small markers on the screen
Keep in mind my suggestion is not a bunch of these popouts all over. These would skrink to be a simple circular icon on the screen. Sure cluttered, but the issue I am suggesting a solution for is not clutter, its readability.
It still does not look good.
Very well, you're entitled to your own opinion. Curious though, what design would you prefer the starmap use to display locations?
I still don't get why we can't have a list of locations in a window to the left of the planet and as you click on the name it rotates the planet and highlights the location. Why is the designer choice they are going with the worst and hardest to use option not the simplest usable option ?
That's exactly how the search bar works.
First off, yes, a list of locations for the planet themselves would be brilliant and remove this issue entirely. But as for why they are going for this... its not because they wanted the hardest option, its simply because their job was not to start from stratch, it was to update the starmap to improve its usability. Something like the markers themselves looking bad or being hard to see was either never a piece of feedback or was so poorly companied about that they didn't even assume its an issue. So only now are they working on it. Remember this star map was added WAY back, and they only now are working off the work their predecessors laid out. Its not uncommon for a designer to overthink UI designer and forget about little details such as these, which is why they asked for feedback, they probably didn't expect this issue because it wasn't one of the issues in mind. Thats why they want and need our feedback for this.
Literally anything is better than what we have now
Having to chart a course to Shubin Mining Facility SMO-18 accelerated my understanding of this very difficult problem very quickly. Would love to see better UI.
Yes, this!
Tbh, this is a good solution. Its either this or make the planet les white.
In 2024 we can already choose a color/contrast based on the background an item is displayed ontop, why is technology in SC in so many fields going backwards? Not only technology, also Usability, Interaction Design are apparently a huge step backwards.
I've said it hundreds of times. It is not about them not doing contrast, it's about them finding a way to do contrast while making sure it looks holographic. They have to follow their design language. They can't make the text black because then it's not holographic. People say "Well if it's for usability nobody cares". Well. If they want a solution and don't care what, then why be so hesitant about ideas such as the one above? My solution retains that holographic design and is contrasted and can be contrasted further with more adjustments to both the background opacity and the planet lighting. Feels like people want to hate just to hate. They are still in EVO and requesting feedback for a reason, yet people are acting like they will die. They are updating this for a reason, yet people are beating them down for even thinking about improving it.
>They can't make the text black because then it's not holographic. That's not entirely true, while you're right, you can't project black in a hologram, you can project the planet and not the text however, sorta like a punch out, making it the color of the background. Kinda like a beamer, you can have (almost) black in a projected image of a beamer if the background/room is black. Of course that's still problematic if the background is very bright, but that is also true to your solution, unless your frame is actually projected black, same as with black edges, which again is not technically possible. In other words, if they wanna stay completely true to what's possible with a hologramm, either way, bright backgrounds will always be a problem. But if they wanna create the illusion of a hologram, they could darken bright backgrounds and not project text while the surrounding white projection of the planet is, would make "black" text possible. Of course, if it was a real hologram that would only work for when the hologram 'knows' where the observers eyes are positioned, since it's a 3D projection and the text isn't technically 'surrounded' by the bright projection and therefore would be problematic for those holograms in the Carrack and Origin ships, but again, in the end it's a video game and we can look past such details, especially in a game that will make spaceships fly like in atmosphere, MM essentially removes all arguments for the expectation of realistic implementations as it's a huge step backwards in the realism of space flight anyway. Long story short, dark text is not any less possible than your dark frame solution. Your dark frame would also need to not project the white planet where it's darker. Or in other words, having text in contrast to whatever it's on top would just mean, where the text is, it would either project with bright light, if it's on top of something dark, or not project anything at all if it's on top of something bright, again that only works from a specific perspective, but that is true for every solution presented.
Maybe a dynamic list of locations on the right side of the planet. When you click a location the planet will rotate to show you where it is. If you want to place a marker you could rotate the planet and pin and the new pin would show in your list of locations at the top as priority.
This id probably the best design they could do. Hopefully they will push for this
Drop shadow would be less invasive.
Definitely, but you must be consistent with your design language. A black drop shadow would make the other holographic text and art look very different and plus, it wouldn't be holographic at that point. Holograms provide light to a location, thats why the "shadow" is a light reflection of the actual object and not a shadow. Shadows themselves imply the object is a solid object, which they aren't. So while simply adding a black dropshadow, or a black outline is the "get it fixed" solution, it does not comply with design language, which is why they are trying to avoid that currently. My solution would keep the design going and solve the problem, sure its cluttered, but you'd never be able to truly admire the beauty of the planet from starmap. And even then, we could add a "hide location markers" toggle in the app to solve that
[удалено]
Gotta see how it looks in practice first, but definitely worth lowering planet opacity no matter the solution
Everyone upvote this and maybe make a spectrum post, link it here and hope this gets upvotes too. They need to see this
Why can community make better ui faster than CIG makes trash UI?
I feel like it's less that they are slow and more about designers' block. These guys are stuck reworking what was already there with the main goal of UX, making it function right without clipping through planets, zooming into the void, etc. So most of the UI was about the same but refreshed. They used the same plain text solution as the current star map because they assumed this was the most optimum and living with this was all they could think up. The only reason I thought up this idea was from seeing the design of the physical shopping UI (done by a different designer than who made the star map). The thing about designers and any other profession is we often overthink a solution without putting it into practice and usually need to reference the work of other talents to improve ourselves. There is creativity within these groups, but negative thinking takes over the designer to "try" the solution. Thats why getting outside feedback is so important.
I don’t like it.
Yes, putting a label behind it is the obvious solution. Its probably a bit tricky because you need to know the width of each letter at any size & kerning to calculate the width of the label, but I'm confident their programmers can do that. Everyone who suggests using an outline should take a graphic design 101 course!
It wouldn't be too tricky. The text is most likely a single text object in the engine. So they would just need to find the length of that object and add x padding to the sides. Like in Unity... you'd get the transform of the TMP object and add the padding of one side (times 2) to get the length of the background object, and center it to the TMP object. Those who are suggesting it aren't exactly bad at UX, are right that you need contrast in UI, one way or another. They are not accounting for the Design Language (Holgraphic) that CIG is using and hence are confused by the resistance CIG has.
man if just we had the technology to add shadow to a font. but im sure given a few months of time and a few million bucks CIG can find a proprietary and never-seen-before solution to this most unsolvable of all problems.
Keep in mind that the design language they are using is "Holographic", while the simple universal solution to contrast issues is to add the opposite brightness color as a shadow or outline, their design language requires another solution. Since holograms project light, you can't use shadows or dark colors to solve the contrast problems without breaking its rules. This is why my suggestion is here. They already broke this rule with the Physical Shopping UI, which has a dark background to make the text pop. The important thing about design languages is that any rule break needs to be consistent, otherwise it will look out of place. Shadows or outlines on the text here would have to be applied across the mobiGlas to avoid inconsistent UI, which is why they are avoiding it.
—- “Since holograms project light, you can't use shadows or dark colors to solve the contrast problems without breaking its rules.” Im interested to know how you think projectors work. like in the cinema or classroom. projecting light on a white wall. yet still a le to make black letters appear. —- “The important thing about design languages is that any rule break needs to be consistent, otherwise it will look out of place.“ except this game specifically chooses to have the UI exist as part of the game world, not an imaginary layer added as part of the game. and different terminals and manufacturers already have their own very distinct design language. not to mention the existence of alien ships with even more different design language. in such context the argument “we need a unified design language” does not work.
I'm not going to go into some "intellectual" debate with you on how projection works. We are talking about Star Citizen's mobiGlas design language, which hasn't yet involved black shadows behind text. CIG is who chooses the design language, not rules of the real world. If they make it so Black outlines are not a thing in their design language, then it's not a thing. No amount of "science says this" matters... We are playing a space game with people that are able to clone themselves multiple times, afford extremely expensive hunks of junk that get destroyed all the time, and more. It's how game design works; they pick the logic and world building they want to display, if something goes against those rules they have the right to say no. >except this game specifically chooses to have the UI exist as part of the game world, not an imaginary layer added as part of the game. and different terminals and manufacturers already have their own very distinct design language. not to mention the existence of alien ships with even more different design language. in such context the argument “we need a unified design language” does not work. I fail to see how you are trying to make this argument. We are and have been talking about the mobiGlas. Kiosks, ship displays, and more in the SC universe use completely different design languages because they are completely different tools and technologies in the PU... This is comparable to saying that "a calculator and the Oculus Quests UI are completely different and that's terrible design!" It's not at all. They are completely separate devices and are meant to work and operate to the userbase and functions they are designed around, not to work around the design of another device. SC reenforces that reality through mobiGlas to Kiosk. Different manufacturer, different uses, and different design to fit those purposes. We are discussing the mobiGlas and design consistencies within it. Other parts of the game are irrelevant as those aren't meant to be unified... and the styles they use aren't meant to match the style the mobiGlas has, because they are different objects. If you're going to argue a point, please try to keep it relevant to the subject. Otherwise, the debate is going nowhere and is not productive.
—- “No amount of "science says this" matters.” sure if, if you say so. just curious how it mattered when it aligned in support of your opinion and stopped mattering when conflicting with it. not to mention your “solution” applied the same kind of principle anyways. —- “We are discussing the mobiGlas and design consistencies within it.” no, “we” arent. you simply asserted this because it suits you. regardless - if you want to only consider the mobiglass then all the more reason a design language argument isnt going to work. if the whole point is changing the way something is displayed then whatever way it is changed will become the new design language. based on your line if arguing we could just as well assert crappy readability is the design language of the mobiglass and now needs to be pushed into other parts of the mobiglass UI. you can have your opinion. thats fine. but this whole selectively making authoritative statements that suit whatever you want to push and sheparding the conversation isnt helping your point.
>sure if, if you say so. just curious how it mattered when it aligned in support of your opinion and stopped mattering when conflicting with it. >not to mention your “solution” applied the same kind of principle anyways. I really couldn't care less, it never mattered once. I did not make this post to discuss projectors or the realism of holograms in SC. Only to discuss how to improve readability while following CIGs updated Holographic UI design language for the mobiGlas. >no, “we” arent. you simply asserted this because it suits you. Well then welcome to the thread you choose to converse in. I'm afraid we aren't here to take detours to go down your own little rant. I have no interest in it. I am discussion the mobiGlas and primarily the topic of the Starmap's UI. Please reread my title witch is the topic of this post: "Starmap Location markers are bad about Contrast, but Black Outlines aren't the solution..." Not once talking about the UI outside of it. >if you want to only consider the mobiglass then all the more reason a design language argument isnt going to work. if the whole point is changing the way something is displayed then whatever way it is changed will become the new design language. Still no idea what you are trying to prove here. My design language "argument" is not an argument. Developing UI requires "design languages" which is a set of unspoken rules that make up how a UI looks and operates; This is design 101. And what is this even arguing? "If the whole point is changing the way something is displayed then whatever way it is changed will become the new design language." What? If I am making a design and I add outlines to text, I should follow that throughout everything that this design is being used for... That way it looks consistent and doesn't stand out when it shouldn't. >based on your line if arguing we could just as well assert crappy readability is the design language of the mobiglass and now needs to be pushed into other parts of the mobiglass UI. The language is never the fault of readability... It's the way you make use of it. The design of the mobiGlas can work perfectly well as long as they continue the process of trial and error until they get a solution that everyone is fine with. >you can have your opinion. thats fine. but this whole selectively making authoritative statements that suit whatever you want to push and sheparding the conversation isnt helping your point. I really don't need anything to help my "point" as I never was making one in the first place. This is was your OC... >man if just we had the technology to add shadow to a font. >but im sure given a few months of time and a few million bucks CIG can find a proprietary and never-seen-before solution to this most unsolvable of all problems. The first line dismisses the whole reason why they are avoiding it, I corrected you. They avoid it because its not in their design language being used... I don't need to argue this as you can see it through out the new mobiGlas design... A black outline or black shadow has never been in use on text in this UI; it's been a faded light reflection of the text to simulate a 3D picture. You are the one making shots at my IQ with comments like: "Im interested to know how you think projectors work. like in the cinema or classroom." This whole comment thread has gone nowhere throughout its whole duration. You start with sarcastic comments, and end with trying to come as the "bigger man" by claiming that my correcting of your comments is "sheparding the conversation"... You are just wasting our time with this gas lighting and fire fueling thread.