Restore High Contrast Icons

[X.]

For those of you who haven't signed up yet, you should go and have a look at the Next Generation LabVIEW Features Technology Preview (a mouthful, but in short, it is a UI and Development Environment demonstration version of what NI is cooking up for future versions of LabVIEW). There are some cool things and some downright awful ones.

One of them has been sneaking its ugly neck in LabVIEW 2016: reduced contrast. I am (my eyes) getting tired of it. A few examples of the changes introduced in 2016 are shown below:

2015:

2016:

Considering that the trend is for displays to not increase that much in size but increase in resolution, we have now to factors to fight against: the reduction in size AND the reduction in contrast. I won't mention laptop displays going in economy mode and reducing their luminosity, but the point is that it is making LabVIEW even more difficult and unengaging to use. Way to go to loose any chance to attract new users, and run the risk to loose old timers due to added eye strain.

Put simply: Restore high contrast icons  and please, do not go ahead with the washed out IDE and UI objects showcased in Tech Preview.

[X.]

There is an interesting discussion initiated by Michael  Balzer in the in the NI Software Technology Preview Community >> Technology Preview Discussions >> Next Generation LabVIEW Features Technology Preview Feedback (which will only be accessible to those having signed up - see OP), about contrast and design choices by the NI team.

While I am focusing on LV 2016 in this idea, just be aware that what I call decreased contrast is amplified in Next Gen LabVIEW at different levels.

What is interesting about the discussion I am referring to, is that it is not merely subjective but uses standard metrics for contrast (which I am not familiar with). The bottom line, to me, is that this metric fails to capture the subjective perception of contrast of a potentially diverse audience (with now the additional factor of variable monitors and monitor settings). Whether or not NI will lean one way or another remains to be seen. My concern is that, because of the rather significant investment in the new UI and style made by NI, these choices will be seen as non revisable and will therefore be force-fed to future users.

As an aside, I don't mind the rounded and anti-aliased icon borders, as long as the contrast is kept high (maximal?).

Just in case I didn't repeat myself enough...

[donkdonk]

The top image has higher contrast and I like it. The 2016 version (lower image) is worse in my opinion.

[Intaris]

But if they don't adopt the washed out icons now, how are they going to sell the new high-contrast icons as the major feature of LabVIEW 2018? </tongueincheek>

[matt.baker]

When I first saw these in LV2016, I initially thought they indicated deprecated functions. To me they have the same style as being disabled / 'greyed' out to me.

[MichaelBalzer]

I just noticed another dev's comments on LV2016's reduced contrast:

This light grey color is hard to see.  In all previous versions of LabVIEW, the selected objects had a very visible BLACK dotted outline, which was much better!

Indeed it was. I've just started using LV2016 in anger and couldn't agree more.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

> I don't see why it would be a good idea to change from black to a dark grey

I raised the same question. I'm giving you basically the same reply I got.

• Take a look at these forum posts. Notice the text? None of it is black.
• Look at Firefox, MSPaint, Outlook: none of their dialogs, menubars, icons, or chrome are true black any more.
• Take a look at your smart phones and any app made by a professional. Probbaly zero black.
• True white is also becoming much rarer. It's subtle, but becoming universal. The contrast of every appication you use is going down considerably.

This is because (so I am told and [citation needed]) lots of UX studies across many different applications find that users are able to use the applications longer with less eye strain when the colors are constrained between 90% black and 90% white. The off-white tends to look dirty or smudged, so there's still a lot of things that cling to pure white (like the background of this post). But black? Black is vanishing, and it isn't just a style fad, like rounding the corners or glassy gradients. There's (so I am told) an actual practical cost to users for the true shades.

Historically, the off colors were a problem for exactly the reasons everyone here is noting: color shifting across monitor surface. But monitor stability is way up these days. I have two monitors, one from last year and one from three years ago. I see the issue on the 3-year-old monitor, but not the new monitor. Every application in the world is having to make a determination about when to cross that threshold. Most have crossed it. Looking at my task bar, the Command Line icon really stands out... it is the only place I can see true black in any of the apps I have open at the moment.

[X.]

I tend to override the grey color/non white background settings of any UI I use whenever I can. What is indeed aggravating in LabVIEW is the default diagram white background (luminosity issue) and this is why I am using yellow background on my diagrams. That solves the problem of eye fatigue.

The problems of next gen preview go way beyond just the faded icon design. Again, please sign up and provide your feedback, as you may not like what you will see.

[MichaelBalzer]

Thanks for the input Aristos - it's interesting to hear the reasoning for the contrast change. I don't mind off black (90% is fine, 80% is tolerable), and have used it myself when designing UIs with white backgrounds. For all intents and purposes 90% black still looks black against a white background. That said, I think LabVIEW 2016 is closer to dark grey territory at around 70% black, and is noticibly poorer contrast. Hence this Idea Exchange entry. As a counter-point, the default editor colours in Visual Studio 2015 are 100% black on 100% white.

BTW I'd love to see these UX studies - it feels like a lot of UX and usability research done in the early days of graphical computing has gone out the window in recent years, in favour of a 'modern' design aesthetic. <rant> I shouldn't have to guess what is and isn't clickable! </rant>

[RavensFan]

I'd argue that the changes made to the icons aren't comparable to the other style changes going on in computers today or to making it easier to read.

The things you highlighted on the computer may not be black, but they have other features like shading and anti-aliasing effects going on to make them smoother and easier to read.  But the changes in the icon (other than the diagonals on the addition function) don't have that.  All the lines are still 1 pixel wide, they are just lighter.  They don't have the nearby pixels modified to make things look smoother and overall look darker when looked at in their entirety.  There is only a color change and none of the other features that make it easier to look at.

To go along with Michael's last post where he felt 90% to 80% black was acceptable, the new colors are actually about 70% black.  The color is 76,76,61  (I'll round up to 76,76,76).  That is 76 out of 255.  Where 0,0,0 is full black and 255,255,255 is full white.  76 is right about 70% away from white towards black.  (76/256 = 29.7% white so 1 minus that is 70.3% black).

Also, his point about stuff that is somewhat faded makes you think it is disabled is also valid.

Overall, the fact that the color changes were not fully implemented, and that it didn't do all the things that are done like in the smooth fonts example, I'd consider the changes in the icons a miss at the moment.

EDIT:  I just noticed that the background of the pi constant went from the LV yellow to white.

[AristosQueue (NI)]

> <rant> I shouldn't have to guess what is and isn't clickable! </rant>

Your lips to God's ears!