If the icons were scattered and intermixed with other icons that were new, I might agree with you, but they’re in their own menu and panel, where for the most part that’s the only icon type used - in fact it distinguishes the fact that “this icon is a modifier” - something the blue colour seemed to previously be intended to do.
The eye candy is nice, but it’s not a “must”. A user will be used to it after a short time working with it.
The old icons have been serving just fine for a very long time, they seem to be reasonably distinguishable. If the new style guide cannot come up with icons for a concept that we previously had icons for, I’d say that’s a failing on the styling guides, not on the things that should have icons.
You’re within your rights to not want to make the icons, as anyone would be. But then given the choice between keeping - these specific - icons, or removing them because they don’t fit the style, it seems they’d be being removed purely out of vanity rather than for an objective reason.
I’m sure people will notice the icons are different, but after they do, they’ll get on with their work.
Well you can’t generalize like that - there is not one kind of users.
What is visual noise for some, may not be for others. So the trick is how to deal with different kind of users, with different needs for visual guidance.
But yes, the UI philosophy in the end should be consistent.
It’s a common hell of community driven designs. I live from designing spaces and one of the fundamental things that I have learned over the years of practice is that the design process is not based on democracy. Listening to the needs of users is completely different than striving to please everyone.
I’m assuming that, like node-based materials, there will still be a ‘uber-shader’-like UI that allows interaction with the modifiers. Going full nodes is never the most optimal solution, and I hope node-based modifiers function similarly to the current system, only with the ability to create your own modifiers from nodes.
We will see how it turns out. But yes, currently you can adjust Cycles and Eevee nodes via the Properties. I would imagine that this kind of thing would be used for node-based modifiers as well, maybe with some additional improvements to better show node hierarchy. But it all depends on how it is implemented and how generalised the system will be.
That is just a stunning post! Thats a real good example of very functional icons. Yet this is for a light theme, i wonder how these keep up in a dark theme. I also noticed Brecht pointed out a very good point. Which is with almost no color added, it is very hard to distinguish icons and functions when they are all gathered together in one big UI
The good thing with UI design for programs compared to interior design (if ‘designing spaces’ is correctly understood) is that a UI can på customized to fit different needs way more than design in a physical world.
But yes, if you want to please everyone 100 % - a design process eventually grinds to a hold.
Side note: The whole idea of uber customizable architecture - like the Pompidou Centre - never really worked in real life.
(And I bet that Google’s idea for uber customizable buildings - referring to BIG & Heatherwick Studios projects in Silicon Valley - will not work either).
I do not mean architectural experiments, but the proper shaping of everyday space. Architecture is a broad concept and - regardless of yours or my understanding of it - it is all about creating structures. You do not change the structure that is the foundation of Blender in the name of privately understood customization, just as you do not move the walls at home. Everything we talk about in this thread is nothing more than exchanging rugs, curtains and adding or putting pillows here and there … Anyway, whatever I want to convey is that the design process, regardless of the subject, should not be controlled vox populi. None of the great works were created by democratic vote.
End of the side thread.
What I want to convey is that with customization of a UI, you can make it look different for different users. Both for users that needs visual clues, and those who don’t need it. So in this sense it is way more customizable than anything physical.
And you don’t need a democratic vote to do that. We both agree on the bad idea of micromanaging by democratic vote (some macro things can be a good idea though, like what should be default settings).
Yes,end of side thread. Even if its kind of interesting.
The active action is definitely more valuable than the fountain of words. Hats off!
A great piece of work @ a.monti. Some of the icons are very good, others not very, mostly because they use visual styles provided for specific purposes or specific semantic subcategories.
I started to develop guidelines that will roughly describe the visual grammar I designed. Hold the horses for a moment for this very reason, though I can not determine when these guidelines will be finished - everything takes time.
You’re right - customization of a UI will look different for different users. Nevertheless, what this thread was meant to be about boils down to allegorical rearranging of furniture, use of colours and stuff
Architecture is not only about shaping the structure of space, however you understand what space is. It’s about creating a kind of interface between the user and the function that architecture should serve. For this purpose, it is not limited to arranging the layout of walls, ceilings and furniture, but it requires action in many dimensions - physical, psychological, behavioral, symbolic … A well-prepared architect shapes the space in such a way that it influences the user’s behavior triggering specific reactions , helps to perform activities, even (or perhaps especially) if the user does not realize that he works in a manner programmed by the author of the space. User’s needs can be implemented in different ways, more or less efficient, but not always the most effective methods meet expectations or imaginations.
That’s why I think that the user’s expectations are different than his real needs.
Extremely interesting topic … Thank you for a moment of reflection.
Now let’s go back to choosing the type of cushions for our Blender;)
Fascinating discussion for an architect & Blender novice. My sense is that, as many have commented, the interface one uses has to be customizable to the greatest extent possible - as individual as one’s talent.
My own preference has always been 1st to set things up so that my “mind-map” of relations of tools, editors, etc. is displayed for me to spot right away, & distinguish from anything similar that might waste a second or 2 in choosing what I want.
A personal rule is “color clarifies,” & should be used for the minimum needed to keep everything fast & clear.
This might be different for different projects.
Just to rest the eyes in long hours of work, the overall interface for me should be soft & as glare-free as possible.
So, that said, the new icons proposed by jendrzych seem very clear, & well thought out.
I’d like it if, again in agreement w/ several comments, I could choose to color-code some or all of them, if a given project would be helped by that modification.
An individual issue for different designers may be avoiding having the interface itself, in any of its aspects, compete w/ one’s design, while one is actually working.
I tend not to have that problem - just as w/ spam/clickbait on a screen, I tune it out, cognitively, in normal workflow.
From time to time, print or display the work in progress elsewhere to inspect it, & get a sense of how it may appear to others?
So that whatever one uses to get the work composed, detailed & finished need not “compete?”
