There have been those who have taken offense in the past in my using analogies to characterize Eve behavior; the roles ones play in Eve. I am sometimes accused of of getting the game confused with real life over this. But am I really confusing the game with real life? Take a look at my previous blog post, and you see I use analogies to things like Borg Drones and Firefly Reavers, clearly neither of which are real life comparisons. Even if they were from real life, it wouldn't matter, as these are analogies.
Analogy (noun): a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Furthermore, and most significantly, I am most often discussing character behavior, not the disposition of the real life person behind the character. So at what point might I actually be saying something about the real life person behind the character? When is there some crossover into real life as I see it?
First, lets clarify my position on villains versus good guys. In most games, it doesn't really matter much. There is usually no loss associated with getting killed by another character. If I kill your character in Battlefield 1942, you don't lose anything. You respawn with all the same gear you had before. But in Eve, there is a real loss, and it takes real in game effort to replace that loss. This makes the distinction of good guy versus villain far more significant in a game such as Eve.
How does this translate into the interactions between characters in Eve? At first, it might not be apparent that there is much difference between attacking an opposing alliance member who is a known enemy in terrible standing with your alliance, versus attacking a neutral player who happens across your space. Here's where the analogy can help with clarification. If two countries are at war, and one uniformed combatant comes across an enemy uniformed combatant, and the first kills the other, who is the villain? There generally isn't one; it was state sanctioned combat. Now what if one uniformed combatant comes across a plain clothed person carrying a Playstation, and he then kills that person and takes the Playstation. Now there is a clear villain in the interaction.
At this point, we are still just talking about what happens in game. Why does any of this matter? Here is where real life starts to creep in just a little bit. If a clear villain attacks without provocation, and that is causing a real loss in terms of game effort to replace that loss, this can cause negative emotions in some players whose characters were the victims. Now, if they are level headed, they will let it go, as it was just part of the game as it was designed. But those emotions were still both real and negative, and can drive players away. And that is why I feel it is better for the entire community if players refrain from playing villains in a game like Eve where losses have significance. Try to stick to the "state sanctioned combat", as there is still plenty of that to go around and it helps avoid driving people away.
Now that's all still pretty minor. So where does real life get confused with game in a significant way? There is only one case I can think of, and it's been at the heart of a lot of the controversy over the last year or more. When players, often beginning with high-sec ganking, attempt to grief other players. When this happens, their intent is to anger and/or emotionally hurt the real life player on the other end of a character. When they are called out for this, they hide behind a shield of "it's only a game". So I ask you -- who is it really that is confusing game with real life?
Friday, July 17, 2015
Thursday, July 9, 2015
What Is NRDS?
NRDS is a philosophical categorization for the behavior of an organization within Eve. The common categories an organization's philosophical behavior can fall into include:
Members of such organization can be anywhere, but behavior is tightly controlled by CONCORD within the core high security systems, so it's only out in low security and null security space where this becomes significant.
Eve is the world. Your organization's sovereign space is your yard. Your main outpost or station is your home.
NPSI means anyone not in your fleet is a valid target to attack. Such groups are short term and unorganized, having no sovereign space. They are, by definition, just a fleet. If you are NPSI, you really can't be anything else, as being NPSI for even a day likely would violate the rules of any NBSI or NRDS organization. NPSI groups are nomadic savages that attack anything they come across. Like Reavers in Firefly.
Using the home metaphor, NPSI groups are herds of rabid dogs that occasionally run through your yard looking for anything they can kill.
NBSI means anyone who hasn't been set to good or better standing (set blue) is a valid target to attack. Unknown visitors are not welcome. While NBSI groups generally have their own sovereign space, their NBSI rules generally apply across the entire universe; it doesn't matter if an NBSI ship or fleet is out in someone else's space, if they come across someone not set blue, that someone is a valid target to attack. Arguably like the Borg in Star Trek, or lesser known, perhaps the Krenim Imperium from Star Trek Voyager.
NBSI groups are classic stereotypical backwoods hillbillys. They have a home and a yard, but if some stranger happens across their yard, they shoot first and ask questions later, if they ask questions at all.
NRDS means only those who have aggressed or have been set as terrible standing are valid targets to attack. Individuals, corporations, or alliances are set to terrible standing when they have proved themselves as aggressive and in violation of NRDS rules. Visitors or those previously unknown are safe around those who are NRDS, and may find NRDS pilots to be friendly, but sometimes stern if they have not obtained good standing. Somewhat like being around the Federation and the late generation Federation-allied Klingons in Star Trek. Run across a Federation ship, and they generally greet you with a smile. Run across a Klingon ship, and you may find your encounter less friendly. But you are still safe so long as you haven't been declared an enemy and you are following the rules.
Visitors to NRDS soverign space should consider themselves safe around NRDS pilots, but are strongly encouraged to obtain good standing so as not to potentially disrupt the activities of others in NRDS space (unfortunately, neutral visitors often turn out to be aggressive, so generally speaking, NRDS folks don't like seeing neutral parties in NRDS space. Work on getting your standing set blue if you plan on frequent or extended visits into NRDS space). Even if you consider yourself a neutral visitor, YOU SHOULD VERIFY YOUR NEUTRALITY BEFORE VISITING NRDS SPACE. You may be considered to be of terrible standing without your knowing it. For example, if your corporation or alliance have been set to terrible standing, all those members within are also considered to be of terrible standing. To verify your standing, use a publicly available KOS checker, if they have one, or join a diplomacy channel for the organization to ask, or ask around folks in the NRDS alliance and they should point you in the right direction.
Non-NRDS pilots and fleets frequently tresspass in NRDS space, so even if you have your standings in order, note that it is not always safe space. NRDS protectors are often standing by to render assistance should someone be unjustly attacked, but response time isn't instant, and fights often don't last long. Be wary of pilots with bad or unknown standing in the system.
NRDS groups are civilized patriots. They have a home and a yard, and if some stranger happens across their yard, the stranger may be greeted with a friendly smile or may be asked to leave until they are better known and verified non-aggressive.
Simple. If you don't consider yourself a rabid dog nor a backwoods hillbilly, you have no other choice; you have to be NRDS. If you don't aspire to be a Firefly Reaver or a Borg drone, you have to be NRDS. If you are not NRDS, then you are either a rabid dog, a Reaver, a backwoods hillbilly, or a Borg drone. Own up to it. Either accept that you are one of these things, or straighten out your shit and be NRDS.
CVA and it's allies are all NRDS. CVA and it's allies traditionally hold sovereign space in the Providence region, and operate in a number of nearby low security regions as well. Many groups operating primarily in high security space are probably also NRDS, but just haven't really thought about it. Come by Providence some time and say hello, but check your standings first, and be on the lookout for rabid dogs and trespassing hillbillies.
Fly Safe!
- NPSI: Not Purple, Shoot It
- NBSI: Not Blue, Shoot It
- NRDS: Not Red, Don't Shoot
Members of such organization can be anywhere, but behavior is tightly controlled by CONCORD within the core high security systems, so it's only out in low security and null security space where this becomes significant.
Eve is the world. Your organization's sovereign space is your yard. Your main outpost or station is your home.
NPSI: Nomadic Savages
NPSI means anyone not in your fleet is a valid target to attack. Such groups are short term and unorganized, having no sovereign space. They are, by definition, just a fleet. If you are NPSI, you really can't be anything else, as being NPSI for even a day likely would violate the rules of any NBSI or NRDS organization. NPSI groups are nomadic savages that attack anything they come across. Like Reavers in Firefly.
Using the home metaphor, NPSI groups are herds of rabid dogs that occasionally run through your yard looking for anything they can kill.
NBSI: Closed And Aggressive
NBSI means anyone who hasn't been set to good or better standing (set blue) is a valid target to attack. Unknown visitors are not welcome. While NBSI groups generally have their own sovereign space, their NBSI rules generally apply across the entire universe; it doesn't matter if an NBSI ship or fleet is out in someone else's space, if they come across someone not set blue, that someone is a valid target to attack. Arguably like the Borg in Star Trek, or lesser known, perhaps the Krenim Imperium from Star Trek Voyager.
NBSI groups are classic stereotypical backwoods hillbillys. They have a home and a yard, but if some stranger happens across their yard, they shoot first and ask questions later, if they ask questions at all.
NRDS: Open And Civil
NRDS means only those who have aggressed or have been set as terrible standing are valid targets to attack. Individuals, corporations, or alliances are set to terrible standing when they have proved themselves as aggressive and in violation of NRDS rules. Visitors or those previously unknown are safe around those who are NRDS, and may find NRDS pilots to be friendly, but sometimes stern if they have not obtained good standing. Somewhat like being around the Federation and the late generation Federation-allied Klingons in Star Trek. Run across a Federation ship, and they generally greet you with a smile. Run across a Klingon ship, and you may find your encounter less friendly. But you are still safe so long as you haven't been declared an enemy and you are following the rules.
Visitors to NRDS soverign space should consider themselves safe around NRDS pilots, but are strongly encouraged to obtain good standing so as not to potentially disrupt the activities of others in NRDS space (unfortunately, neutral visitors often turn out to be aggressive, so generally speaking, NRDS folks don't like seeing neutral parties in NRDS space. Work on getting your standing set blue if you plan on frequent or extended visits into NRDS space). Even if you consider yourself a neutral visitor, YOU SHOULD VERIFY YOUR NEUTRALITY BEFORE VISITING NRDS SPACE. You may be considered to be of terrible standing without your knowing it. For example, if your corporation or alliance have been set to terrible standing, all those members within are also considered to be of terrible standing. To verify your standing, use a publicly available KOS checker, if they have one, or join a diplomacy channel for the organization to ask, or ask around folks in the NRDS alliance and they should point you in the right direction.
Non-NRDS pilots and fleets frequently tresspass in NRDS space, so even if you have your standings in order, note that it is not always safe space. NRDS protectors are often standing by to render assistance should someone be unjustly attacked, but response time isn't instant, and fights often don't last long. Be wary of pilots with bad or unknown standing in the system.
NRDS groups are civilized patriots. They have a home and a yard, and if some stranger happens across their yard, the stranger may be greeted with a friendly smile or may be asked to leave until they are better known and verified non-aggressive.
Why Be NRDS?
Simple. If you don't consider yourself a rabid dog nor a backwoods hillbilly, you have no other choice; you have to be NRDS. If you don't aspire to be a Firefly Reaver or a Borg drone, you have to be NRDS. If you are not NRDS, then you are either a rabid dog, a Reaver, a backwoods hillbilly, or a Borg drone. Own up to it. Either accept that you are one of these things, or straighten out your shit and be NRDS.
Who And Where Is NRDS?
CVA and it's allies are all NRDS. CVA and it's allies traditionally hold sovereign space in the Providence region, and operate in a number of nearby low security regions as well. Many groups operating primarily in high security space are probably also NRDS, but just haven't really thought about it. Come by Providence some time and say hello, but check your standings first, and be on the lookout for rabid dogs and trespassing hillbillies.
Fly Safe!
Thursday, June 25, 2015
When To Use Autopilot
I may have touched on this at some time in the past, but thought I would give it it's own blog post.
Autopilot is a dangerous thing. People like to attack ships on autopilot. Many other pilots out there will advise never to use autopilot, and for the most part, I agree with them.
However, there are a few cases where autopilot is okay.
First, and perhaps most obvious, is if you just don't care about your pod or your cargo. Then go ahead, autopilot away and reach (or maybe reach) your destination while afk.
Second, and the more interesting use, is for docking. Call it autodocking. Set your destination to the station. Engage warp to the station (preferably to an insta-dock bookmark). Once you are in warp, engage autopilot. As soon as your warp ends, autopilot will dock you in the station. This is a cool use for autopilot, because it ensures you get docked as soon as possible, without having to worry about misclicks and operating the user interface through near station lag.
A word of caution about autodocking however. It can backfire if you are not careful. Just make darn sure your destination is set to the station you are heading to. If destination is set to some other station, or something that is not a station, autopilot will try to warp you away as soon as you arrive, exposing you to more danger instead of less. So always double check that destination set before engaging autopilot.
Cheers!
Autopilot is a dangerous thing. People like to attack ships on autopilot. Many other pilots out there will advise never to use autopilot, and for the most part, I agree with them.
However, there are a few cases where autopilot is okay.
First, and perhaps most obvious, is if you just don't care about your pod or your cargo. Then go ahead, autopilot away and reach (or maybe reach) your destination while afk.
Second, and the more interesting use, is for docking. Call it autodocking. Set your destination to the station. Engage warp to the station (preferably to an insta-dock bookmark). Once you are in warp, engage autopilot. As soon as your warp ends, autopilot will dock you in the station. This is a cool use for autopilot, because it ensures you get docked as soon as possible, without having to worry about misclicks and operating the user interface through near station lag.
A word of caution about autodocking however. It can backfire if you are not careful. Just make darn sure your destination is set to the station you are heading to. If destination is set to some other station, or something that is not a station, autopilot will try to warp you away as soon as you arrive, exposing you to more danger instead of less. So always double check that destination set before engaging autopilot.
Cheers!
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
A Response To Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad
In my last post, I wrote Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad. There have been a few comments on that post that I would like to respond to. Initially, I was just going to post a follow up comment, but what I wrote ended up being longer than a simple comment should be, so I decided to make a new post of it.
The comments on the Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad post are actually helping reinforce the message of that blog post. I have explained from a position of neutrality how the actions of infamous High-Sec ganking organizations can bring people to escalating tensions and an unhealthy level of real hate. In response, there have been several hate filled responses and a comment from Kudzu who is escalating tensions by suggesting I was comparing blowing up ships to real life murder.
The "tear collecting" style comments need no response. They are clearly meant to be antagonizing and are without any real substance.
As for the close to real crime comparison, it would be far more accurate to compare the more infamous actions of High-Sec ganking organizations to theft, vandalism, harassment, and defamation, all of which can be real life crimes. In making such comparison, we are talking not just about the High-Sec ganking of ships, but more importantly the actions of awoxing and attacks on a person's real life character that often go along with it. It is that combination that I am talking about when I wrote about Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad. In affect, I let myself fall prey to the stereotype that organizations like CODE. are building for High-Sec ganking in general. Perhaps I should call it, High-Sec CODEing.
Some people seem to have a naive view of the world as being black and white, when in reality it is mostly shades of grey. Real life money is nothing more than a virtual construct that determines how much stuff a person can acquire with the time they spend earning the money. Once you are past basic needs, the difference between time in game for isk or time in life for dollars doesn't look as clear. Harassment and defamation can happen in a game just as easy as it can outside of a game, especially when in game keeps creeping further and further out of game, like on gaming message boards or people's personal blogs or the infamous bonus rooms. The line can get blurred.
It takes a level of decency and maturity to be able to step back and realize when you are pushing conflict too far with someone in a game -- when the line is getting blurred -- even if it was all for role play, and to step back and give them some breathing room. Maybe come out of character occasionally and demonstrate that being a dick is just a role and not your natural disposition (assuming that's the case). I'm pretty level headed and can take the heat, but clearly some people are getting real life upset about ganker actions and the ganker image CODE. is popularizing. It's bad for the players who are upset by their actions, and bad for other well meaning gankers who will be lumped into the stereotype being built for them. And that, my fellow capsuleers, is Why High-Sec CODEing Is Bad.
The comments on the Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad post are actually helping reinforce the message of that blog post. I have explained from a position of neutrality how the actions of infamous High-Sec ganking organizations can bring people to escalating tensions and an unhealthy level of real hate. In response, there have been several hate filled responses and a comment from Kudzu who is escalating tensions by suggesting I was comparing blowing up ships to real life murder.
The "tear collecting" style comments need no response. They are clearly meant to be antagonizing and are without any real substance.
As for the close to real crime comparison, it would be far more accurate to compare the more infamous actions of High-Sec ganking organizations to theft, vandalism, harassment, and defamation, all of which can be real life crimes. In making such comparison, we are talking not just about the High-Sec ganking of ships, but more importantly the actions of awoxing and attacks on a person's real life character that often go along with it. It is that combination that I am talking about when I wrote about Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad. In affect, I let myself fall prey to the stereotype that organizations like CODE. are building for High-Sec ganking in general. Perhaps I should call it, High-Sec CODEing.
Some people seem to have a naive view of the world as being black and white, when in reality it is mostly shades of grey. Real life money is nothing more than a virtual construct that determines how much stuff a person can acquire with the time they spend earning the money. Once you are past basic needs, the difference between time in game for isk or time in life for dollars doesn't look as clear. Harassment and defamation can happen in a game just as easy as it can outside of a game, especially when in game keeps creeping further and further out of game, like on gaming message boards or people's personal blogs or the infamous bonus rooms. The line can get blurred.
It takes a level of decency and maturity to be able to step back and realize when you are pushing conflict too far with someone in a game -- when the line is getting blurred -- even if it was all for role play, and to step back and give them some breathing room. Maybe come out of character occasionally and demonstrate that being a dick is just a role and not your natural disposition (assuming that's the case). I'm pretty level headed and can take the heat, but clearly some people are getting real life upset about ganker actions and the ganker image CODE. is popularizing. It's bad for the players who are upset by their actions, and bad for other well meaning gankers who will be lumped into the stereotype being built for them. And that, my fellow capsuleers, is Why High-Sec CODEing Is Bad.
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Why High-Sec Ganking Is Bad
For many of you, the content of today's blog post probably goes without saying. But I know some people, especially the gankers out there, would benefit from being reminded as to why High-Sec ganking is bad.
Yes, it's just a game. It's only pixels. Or is it? CCP has done something with Eve that very few other games do. When someone blows up your ship, your ship doesn't respawn, and you can't just go run to your wreck and put all of your modules back on (maybe a few of them if someone else didn't loot it first). Each loss is a real loss. The killboards have gone so far as to attach real currency values to every loss. Real time is lost. Real effort is lost. It is this kind of battle for resources that makes real conflict in the real world really serious. It spawns hate, endless war, and causes real suffering. And CCP has brought a piece of this undesirable realness to Eve by making losses so real.
To keep a game fun and civil in light of such mechanics, neutral zones are needed. Places where people can be free to do commerce without unexpected conflict. Then when it's time to get the battle on, that's when you head to the PvP battle areas to fight with others.
In Eve, Low-Sec and Null space are the PvP battle areas. High-Sec space is the neutral zone. CCP has provided war declarations as a way to bring additional conflict even into the High-Sec space, but in those cases the conflict is expected.
The criminals of CODE. seek to breach this friendly construct and make it so there is no safe place for players, in a world where every loss is real. They wish to steal real people's real time and effort for their own often twisted amusement while allowing no refuge for the weary. It brings their activities frighteningly close to the blurry line between real and fake crime.
These are the reasons why some care bears become so livid at what should be just a game. This is why some within the Anti-Gank (AG) community and the High-Sec Militia believe they are not only playing the role of the good guys, but actually, to some real extent, are real life good guys battling against legitimate real life bad guys.
These AG and HSM community members want conflict within the game to be structured and fun, as a game should be. Those within CODE., whether they realize it or not, are attempting to bring real pain and hardship, the terrors of real world conflict into the game, finding their entertainment in the sometimes real suffering of others.
It is just a game. But even in a game, and perhaps especially in a game, it is important to harbor goodwill towards others and preserve and protect an environment of fun for everyone, and not just oneself.
Yes, it's just a game. It's only pixels. Or is it? CCP has done something with Eve that very few other games do. When someone blows up your ship, your ship doesn't respawn, and you can't just go run to your wreck and put all of your modules back on (maybe a few of them if someone else didn't loot it first). Each loss is a real loss. The killboards have gone so far as to attach real currency values to every loss. Real time is lost. Real effort is lost. It is this kind of battle for resources that makes real conflict in the real world really serious. It spawns hate, endless war, and causes real suffering. And CCP has brought a piece of this undesirable realness to Eve by making losses so real.
To keep a game fun and civil in light of such mechanics, neutral zones are needed. Places where people can be free to do commerce without unexpected conflict. Then when it's time to get the battle on, that's when you head to the PvP battle areas to fight with others.
In Eve, Low-Sec and Null space are the PvP battle areas. High-Sec space is the neutral zone. CCP has provided war declarations as a way to bring additional conflict even into the High-Sec space, but in those cases the conflict is expected.
The criminals of CODE. seek to breach this friendly construct and make it so there is no safe place for players, in a world where every loss is real. They wish to steal real people's real time and effort for their own often twisted amusement while allowing no refuge for the weary. It brings their activities frighteningly close to the blurry line between real and fake crime.
These are the reasons why some care bears become so livid at what should be just a game. This is why some within the Anti-Gank (AG) community and the High-Sec Militia believe they are not only playing the role of the good guys, but actually, to some real extent, are real life good guys battling against legitimate real life bad guys.
These AG and HSM community members want conflict within the game to be structured and fun, as a game should be. Those within CODE., whether they realize it or not, are attempting to bring real pain and hardship, the terrors of real world conflict into the game, finding their entertainment in the sometimes real suffering of others.
It is just a game. But even in a game, and perhaps especially in a game, it is important to harbor goodwill towards others and preserve and protect an environment of fun for everyone, and not just oneself.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Anti-Gank: Uedama 6/16/2015
Wolf Soprano has repeatedly indicated that he really enjoys reading my blog and asked me to write a new Anti-Gank (AG) report for June 16, 2015. It's late, so I'll be keeping this short, but I don't want to let down one of my fans, so here is a quick report.
CODE. was ganking freighters again in Uedama. Greatly outnumbered tonight, High-Sec Militia (HSM) forces had to rely largely on slowing the criminals of CODE. and damaging their will to continue such criminal activities in the future. CODE. forces were forced to use more expensive ships, dozens of their pilots were jammed into irrelevance, and on at least one occasion, CODE. was forced to retry their gank despite having what should have been overwhelming numbers.
In defense of their egos, CODE. once again had to rely on claiming success even when there was none to be found. But in the back of their minds, a truth is growing. A truth that the honorable forces of the HSM are helping the misguided pilots of CODE. to see. Crime doesn't pay. In time, with the help of the HSM, future former CODE. pilots will realize the error of their ways and find the path to enlightenment and salvation. They will leave behind their primitive animal instincts that hold them in servitude. The will find a higher intellect and finally be free of the torment they inflict on themselves.
Pilots of CODE: The HSM isn't just here to save innocent capsuleers from the tyranny of CODE. The HSM is here to save you too. We will help you see the light. You need only reach for it, and all the riches of righteousness will be yours.
CODE. was ganking freighters again in Uedama. Greatly outnumbered tonight, High-Sec Militia (HSM) forces had to rely largely on slowing the criminals of CODE. and damaging their will to continue such criminal activities in the future. CODE. forces were forced to use more expensive ships, dozens of their pilots were jammed into irrelevance, and on at least one occasion, CODE. was forced to retry their gank despite having what should have been overwhelming numbers.
In defense of their egos, CODE. once again had to rely on claiming success even when there was none to be found. But in the back of their minds, a truth is growing. A truth that the honorable forces of the HSM are helping the misguided pilots of CODE. to see. Crime doesn't pay. In time, with the help of the HSM, future former CODE. pilots will realize the error of their ways and find the path to enlightenment and salvation. They will leave behind their primitive animal instincts that hold them in servitude. The will find a higher intellect and finally be free of the torment they inflict on themselves.
Pilots of CODE: The HSM isn't just here to save innocent capsuleers from the tyranny of CODE. The HSM is here to save you too. We will help you see the light. You need only reach for it, and all the riches of righteousness will be yours.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Greyscale Neocon Menu Icons -- Quicker To Identify?
In a prior update, CCP changed the neocon menu items from colored to greyscale colorless. Many of us were left wondering whether this was truely an attempt to improve the game, or if it was just change for the sake of change.
Those within CCP stated numerous times that it was quicker and easier to identify the greyscale icons than the prior colored icons. The explanations were very touchy feely and the general message was that you have to try it out to realize they are better.
These greyscale icons have now been with us for awhile, and I'm still not convinced they are better. They certainly don't look better. They look worse. Or at least, they are less appealing. Photography, television, and motion pictures all went from black and white to color, and most considered this an improvement. Any time black and white is championed today in any of those medias, it is only for what I will call "artsy fartsy" reasons.
So I did a little research to try to find studies that addressed the topic of symbol recognition performance for greyscale versus colored symbols. There are studies out there. Examples include "The role of colour in implicit and explicit memory performance." by Vernon and Lloyd-Jones, and also "The Influence of Colour on Memory Performance: A Review" by Mariam Adawiah Dzulkifli and Muhammad Faiz Mustafar, both available through the web sites for the National Institutes of Health and the National Center for Biotechnology Information. The general findings from these studies seem to suggest -- and I quote this from the latter source -- "participants took faster time to recognise objects in the coloured than non-coloured condition.".
These studies would seem to refute the reasoning provided by those who have commented on it within CCP. This leaves a couple of possibilities (not mutually exclusive mind you).
Those within CCP stated numerous times that it was quicker and easier to identify the greyscale icons than the prior colored icons. The explanations were very touchy feely and the general message was that you have to try it out to realize they are better.
These greyscale icons have now been with us for awhile, and I'm still not convinced they are better. They certainly don't look better. They look worse. Or at least, they are less appealing. Photography, television, and motion pictures all went from black and white to color, and most considered this an improvement. Any time black and white is championed today in any of those medias, it is only for what I will call "artsy fartsy" reasons.
So I did a little research to try to find studies that addressed the topic of symbol recognition performance for greyscale versus colored symbols. There are studies out there. Examples include "The role of colour in implicit and explicit memory performance." by Vernon and Lloyd-Jones, and also "The Influence of Colour on Memory Performance: A Review" by Mariam Adawiah Dzulkifli and Muhammad Faiz Mustafar, both available through the web sites for the National Institutes of Health and the National Center for Biotechnology Information. The general findings from these studies seem to suggest -- and I quote this from the latter source -- "participants took faster time to recognise objects in the coloured than non-coloured condition.".
These studies would seem to refute the reasoning provided by those who have commented on it within CCP. This leaves a couple of possibilities (not mutually exclusive mind you).
- That they really believe the greyscale icons are quicker to recognize based merely on their own gut feelings, in which case, perhaps they shouldn't trust those gut feelings and instead look for more authoritative and well tested hypotheses on such matters.
- That the reasoning wasn't just for icon recognition performance, in which case, they should just own up to having done it to satisfy their own style of artsy fartsy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)