This emote (insert emote here) was rejected for being “unreadable in dark mode”. I could understand this, as although it isn’t completely illegible it may cause a slight strain on the eye.
So, I made it so it could be read in all modes without any strain on the eyes.
However, this was said to be “unreadable in light mode”. I disagree and think this is rather pleasant to the eyes even in light mode, but perhaps there are people who have a differing opinion.
To make things short, I would like to know a simple solution to getting this emote “readable” by the definitions and standards of BTTV. It took 11 days to get rejected twice, so I would rather have a definition of “readable” than wait another 5-6 days to have my emote rejected again.
Surely, I could just make the color an obnoxious vibrant red color, but that would make the emote much less appealing. Would giving the “Z Z Z” a dark purple outline with the light purple base make it legible enough? Do I need to remove the “Z Z Z” entirely? Is there a way that I can know if my emote fits the baseline before submission?
NOTE: I understand that you say “If you disagree with the rejection reason or feel we mistakenly rejected your emote, you can upload it again and make your case in the “Justification” box when uploading.” However, this is extremely inefficient time-wise and I would rather have a more human response than “it is still not legible”.
P.S. The “Sorry, new users can only put one image in a post.” is annoying.
I apologize if you feel like approval process is slow. We get hundreds of emote uploads a day so the backlog is always hard to keep up with.
Here is an image of what your provided emote looks like on light chat:
The “ZZZ” is pretty illegible on light-mode, which is why you were told that in the rejection reason. The easiest way to prevent rejection is to upload emotes and check if they look good. If they don’t, then they will probably be rejected and you can delete them yourself and upload a new version that looks better.
Alright. I followed your advice. I edited the picture to be 100% legible in all modes. I uploaded it, checked it, and thought “Wow! There is no question. This is absolutely, totally, irrefutably legible. However, to be safe I will ask people if they can read it.”
So, I screenshotted the light mode version and I asked ~ten of my friends who haven’t seen the emote before if they knew what the letters were and every single one said they could. I even went out of my way to ask my colorblind friend if it was clear, and even THEY said they could easily make out the letters without trouble.
Yet, this again got rejected for not being readable on light-mode.
This is absolutely ridiculous. There needs to be a clear definition of what standards your team deems as “readable”.
Compare my emote to say this one that was accepted in the last batch
(the same one where mine was just rejected):
The Z’s of this emote are far less legible than my own! That’s not even debatable. You can’t even tell what the emote is supposed to be without knowing beforehand!
Please, stop wasting everyone’s time and tell me what criteria I have to meet in order to be “readable” because I am sensing some major contradictions in your structure. I am losing my patience with this system and all I want is to get this emote approved.
I know I seem angry, and although I may be a little upset, I really am just trying to work with you. This is the support forums so please support me. Give me a human response. What do I need to do?
Thank you for your time,
read·a·ble - ˈrēdəb(ə)l/
- able to be read or deciphered; legible.
It’s common sense. Make an emote that can be read when scaled down to 28x28, and then it is approved.
Sir, this emote is able to be read, deciphered, and is legible. The screenshot I gave you is at 28x28. It was not approved. Your “snappy” response is not helpful at all.
The screenshot you provided shows an illegible “ZZZ,” the same issue from the first reply to you. Unless you fix the issue, your emote won’t be approved.
I understand that working this forum is stressful. You probably have more work on your plate than I can imagine. I apologize if I have aggravated you. I promise that is not my intention. But please, is it possible to give criteria that are less subject to interpretation? I know that you believe it is common sense, yet when things are left completely up in the air like this, it can be very difficult to find a solution that works for everybody.