This feature has been talked about and answered on the forum:
There’s no such plan to add this feature at the moment, as we already have “Display As.”
the “display as” function does not solve the problem, although it helps to improve clarity, but adding a display of how many lights are on does not help. it would be amazing if this review would take this input into account and delay the device according to the “show as” setting, similar to how Google home does. it would also be amazing if it were possible to choose in the device settings whether the device will be visible or hidden and whether it should be allowed to be controlled from the main screen or only after opening it. I still have more devices that just measure, and I can accidentally turn them off when scrolling through the application. it would be awesome to have this option to hide them or limit their quick activation.
1 Like
All that you suggest is roughly available in eWeLink Cast. Just try it out.
it’s not and if it is, show me. your snarky posts don’t help anything as much as a response from a politician who just blurts out. if you know the answers, you can show yourself and not just blankly write off how everything is going or that nothing is a problem. you don’t need to join the discussion.
I know.
You’ve got a hell of a lot of problems and nobody has good enough advice for you. How sad 
I also want to add my own wishes to yours. I have door opening sensors used in homemade smart locks and they display whether the lock is closed or not. But it is displayed as a door sensor, which is very inconvenient. It is necessary to be able to put a different picture, in my case a lock, and there should be an animation of the lock being open or closed. I also use the sensor together with a pressure sensor, like in cars. It is located on the seat of the chair. It would also not hurt to designate it somehow differently. And in general, why should the door / window sensor be designated only as a sensor, and not as an open or closed door or an open or closed window??? What is the difficulty in adding more pictures to display for all devices???
Probably no excessive difficulty, I think. But then the size of the app would be fat, very fat.
Another troublesome aspect of the issue is the icons, about which everyone has their own ideas. Some want an icon for the pressure sensor in the chair, others for the whistle in the kettle and still others for the cat door. The number of possibilities is endless. I, for one, would like a rice cooker sensor icon. As you can easily guess, it is difficult to cram all this into one and at the same time satisfy everyone.
Since (suddenly) so many forumers need such icons to be happy, why not add an option to upload images? Let everyone interested indulge their passion for creation and make illustrations for everything they have managed to automate.
do you think the user icons would be stored directly on the device? interesting and I think a good idea.
I don’t know but it’s possible. If the idea appeals to the guys at eWeLink, they have the brains and means. I’m sure they’ll come up with something sensible.
I’ve been writing about the idea of downloadable icons for a long time - images of rooms and the like. But there’s no progress. And of course, in order not to overload the servers, the images should be stored on the phone. But in my case, the difficulty is that I need an animated icon for the lock (lock closed / lock open) and the same with the door - open / closed)
Not just the app, we have to sync them with eWeLink WEB and CAST. And our design team also has to redesign or fine-tune them from time to time.
Uploading images to the cloud is also troublesome; just think: every time you open up the app/WEB, you have to wait for all kinds of pictures to load up, depending on your network condition. Stock device images have strict guidelines in design and size, format, and ratio optimized for all eWeLink platforms.
Right! I missed that. So it will also be fat and over-complicated.
Leaving aside the difficulties you describe, one can assume that it is theoretically doable. But there is one thing: do we really need it and how useful will it be for users? Somehow I’ve never felt the urge to individualise icons to such an extent, have you?
I agree, synchronization would be very complicated.
but the first thought was not the icons as such, but how the application understands each end device. They probably describe it wrong, but I meant groups, lights, switches, sockets, and maybe others.
1 Like
We can find a thousand reasons for and against.
Here I am just giving the expectations of an average user of the application.
As a user of the application, I am not interested in technology, protocols, frames, synchronization, but I am interested in ease of use and functionality of the operation!
Whoever wants and knows, he can!
1 Like