Usually when you have a red dot mark on the UI, it means a notification or something you need to deal immediately. This is such a random icon design. I don't even know what it's supposed to mean.

Me neither...
The Work Light options look good in theory, but after a few hours trying them out the reality is not so successful. A feature that doesn't seem to have been really thought through IMHO.

it doesn't seem completely random to me
in Solaris red dot means Viewport Overrides and choosing Work Lights or No Lights option will ignore the scene lights and therefore is also a viewport override, so my guess would be that's what the red dot could mean

if that's the case there is a bit inconsistency in the notation, as with actual viewport overrides being on on the stage and also turned on under the Sunglasses icon, I'd also expect sunglasses icon to have a red dot to suggest that some other Viewport Overrides are actually in use

Yes, it's a carryover from Solaris. The Material toggle also does the same thing when off. The UX team wanted some sort of indication that WYSI*not*WYG for a couple of very common cases that people kept tripping over when rendering with husk, especially with the physical sky and domelight worklights. It's definitely a bit of a slippery slope change - there's dozens of settings that can change what the viewport shows versus what husk renders - but we decided to start with the main offenders.

malexander
Yes, it's a carryover from Solaris. The Material toggle also does the same thing when off. The UX team wanted some sort of indication that WYSI*not*WYG for a couple of very common cases that people kept tripping over when rendering with husk, especially with the physical sky and domelight worklights. It's definitely a bit of a slippery slope change - there's dozens of settings that can change what the viewport shows versus what husk renders - but we decided to start with the main offenders.

So I suppose the red dot simply means "you're not using scene light"...?

raincole
So I suppose the red dot simply means "you're not using scene light"...?

Yes that's a good way to think of this, for the lighting override buttons. I like to say the red dot, whether in the Viewport buttons or the Scene Graph Tree, means "My appearance in the Viewport is altered by this option, so I will look different when rendered/saved to disk."

goldleaf

raincole
So I suppose the red dot simply means "you're not using scene light"...?

Yes that's a good way to think of this, for the lighting override buttons. I like to say the red dot, whether in the Viewport buttons or the Scene Graph Tree, means "My appearance in the Viewport is altered by this option, so I will look different when rendered/saved to disk."

Not sure who the UX team us but this is just bad design and the red dot - both the look and inconsistency or lack of clarity is quite distracting.

LukeP
Not sure who the UX team us but this is just bad design and the red dot - both the look and inconsistency or lack of clarity is quite distracting.

I strongly disagree, and if it is distracting you then it is doing its job perfectly by informing you that something is not as it should be, so watch out.

Work lights are meant to be a quick lighting override for when you don't have scene lights set up, and will not render as you see them in the viewport, and having a clear warning sign to that effect is pretty good UX in my opinion.

Mike_A
The Work Light options look good in theory, but after a few hours trying them out the reality is not so successful. A feature that doesn't seem to have been really thought through IMHO.

Can you elaborate on where they are falling short? My experience with them has been pretty good so far. They're doing what they are supposed to be doing (a couple of bugs notwithstanding, that should get sorted soon enough).

Edit: @Mike_A, I just saw your post detailing your issues with the Work Lights. Yes, there are bugs with the properties not working, but I expect those to be sorted fairly easily. When you say that the Work Lights haven't been really thought through, that implies that the feature is fundamentally askew, but I'm not seeing that.