GUI proposals - Images for the wikipage

Tux2B · Post by **Tux2B** » February 17th, 2006, 8:38 pm

And (but I suppose that'll be fixed), the default colour of units, in the recruit menu, in the campaign menu etc... should be red and not magenta.

Post by **Zhukov** » February 17th, 2006, 9:49 pm

I'm looking forward to seeing these concepts in the game. The campaign server (expanded view) looks particularly good.

Congrats to frame for the great work.

EDIT: I agree with Tux2B, magenta on the recruit list looks pretty awful. (Great big savage orcs should not be seen wearing magenta, period.)

Post by **freim** » February 17th, 2006, 10:31 pm

Zhukov wrote:I'm looking forward to seeing these concepts in the game. The campaign server (expanded view) looks particularly good.

Congrats to frame for the great work.

EDIT: I agree with Tux2B, magenta on the recruit list looks pretty awful. (Great big savage orcs should not be seen wearing magenta, period.)

Thats a bug (team color not applied in dialogs), I forgot to recolor it in the mock-up. No big deal though imo.

Post by **turin** » February 17th, 2006, 10:57 pm

Frame: I think that splitting the campaign list into a tab for official campaigns and a tab for UMCs is a really bad idea. Currently, it takes three clicks to start a UMC - select "campaigns", double click on campaign you want. You going to make me not only add a click, but also move my mouse up and down quite a distance.

The rest of the changes to the campaign dialogue looks nice, but IMHO this change is a really bad idea.

Post by **freim** » February 17th, 2006, 11:11 pm

turin wrote:Frame: I think that splitting the campaign list into a tab for official campaigns and a tab for UMCs is a really bad idea. Currently, it takes three clicks to start a UMC - select "campaigns", double click on campaign you want. You going to make me not only add a click, but also move my mouse up and down quite a distance.

The rest of the changes to the campaign dialogue looks nice, but IMHO this change is a really bad idea.

Sure, it doesn't have to be split, no biggie to leave that out. Although I'm not entirerly convinved that starting a new UMC is something you do so often that an extra click would be so terrible.

I am just exploring ideas here, so there will probably be a lot of changes based on feedback. Thats why I put them there

Post by **Sangel** » February 17th, 2006, 11:11 pm

I have a problem with the proposed campaign selection screen as well: The unnatural position of the "Play" button. Surely the natural position for it is in the lower right area of the campaign box, if not the screen?

Switch the positioning of the "Play" and "Delete" buttons in your proposal and I'll be far happier.

Post by **freim** » February 17th, 2006, 11:13 pm

Sangel wrote:I have a problem with the proposed campaign selection screen as well: The unnatural position of the "Play" button. Surely the natural position for it is in the lower right area of the campaign box, if not the screen?

Switch the positioning of the "Play" and "Delete" buttons in your proposal and I'll be far happier.

I have a version with an alternative button placement. I can upload that one tomorrow.

Edit: two more prefs variants

Post by **Zhukov** » February 17th, 2006, 11:29 pm

turin wrote:Frame: I think that splitting the campaign list into a tab for official campaigns and a tab for UMCs is a really bad idea. Currently, it takes three clicks to start a UMC - select "campaigns", double click on campaign you want. You going to make me not only add a click, but also move my mouse up and down quite a distance.

The rest of the changes to the campaign dialogue looks nice, but IMHO this change is a really bad idea.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I find it really hard to believe someone is actually complaining about having to...*gasp*...move a mouse and, horror of horrors, actually click four times.

I have just trialed the new system by moving the mouse around the screen and clicking four times. I give my assurance that is not at all an effort-intensive operation, requires no conscious use of mental processes, and is entirely non-toxic and child safe. Anyone who has mastered the most basic levels of computer use should have no difficulty.

JW · Post by JW » February 17th, 2006, 11:43 pm

I like splitting the campaigns into official and non-official. It makes the official campaigns seem more distinguished, which is exactly what they should be.

Post by **turin** » February 17th, 2006, 11:43 pm

frame wrote:Sure, it doesn't have to be split, no biggie to leave that out. Although I'm not entirerly convinved that starting a new UMC is something you do so often that an extra click would be so terrible.

When I'm debugging, I start a new campaign every minute or so - and I usually debug for at least 30 minutes at a time.

Zhukov: I'm not joking. Given the amount of time I spend testing campaigns, even adding a click and a mouse movement would be, if not a huge timewaster, at least a huge annoyance. A small movement like a mouse up and then back down 100 pixels adds up if you do it 100 times a day... the problem isn't wasting my time. It might waste a minute a day. The problem is annoyance. You don't want a GUI that frustrates people.

Also, since I usually play UMCs, and almost never official ones, it would just get really frustrating to have to see the list of officials and not be able to see the list of UMCs for a second or two. Not a timewaster, but an annoyance.

Anyway, good work freim. Hope to see code support added for these changes.

romnajin · Post by **romnajin** » February 18th, 2006, 12:44 am

freim?

But yeah, I do see your point if you start campaigns a million times a day, for a non-developing user, you basically start the campaign, then play for an hour, not start stop, edit cfg files, start stop, edit cfg files...and on...and on.

Post by **turin** » February 18th, 2006, 1:18 am

[ot]

romnajin wrote:freim?

Frame's IRC name. And, IIRC, the more "correct" of the two.[/ot]

JW · Post by JW » February 18th, 2006, 2:43 am

turin wrote:When I'm debugging, I start a new campaign every minute or so - and I usually debug for at least 30 minutes at a time.

Zhukov: I'm not joking. Given the amount of time I spend testing campaigns, even adding a click and a mouse movement would be, if not a huge timewaster, at least a huge annoyance.

Although the game isn't made specifically for you, it is made with the devs preferences first I believe (the whole "we make the game for us" idea).

If the official campaigns are not seperated from the non-official ones by tabs then I would suggest having some way to tell the difference. Perhaps a star or something by the side along with a key at the bottom of the screen saying *official campaign.

If you haven't guessed by now, I am a fan of organzation.

Post by **Darth Fool** » February 18th, 2006, 5:33 am

turin wrote:
frame wrote:Sure, it doesn't have to be split, no biggie to leave that out. Although I'm not entirerly convinved that starting a new UMC is something you do so often that an extra click would be so terrible.
When I'm debugging, I start a new campaign every minute or so - and I usually debug for at least 30 minutes at a time.

Zhukov: I'm not joking. Given the amount of time I spend testing campaigns, even adding a click and a mouse movement would be, if not a huge timewaster, at least a huge annoyance. A small movement like a mouse up and then back down 100 pixels adds up if you do it 100 times a day... the problem isn't wasting my time. It might waste a minute a day. The problem is annoyance. You don't want a GUI that frustrates people.

This problem, at least, can now be solved using the --load FILE command line option. Should save you quite a few mouse clicks.

Post by **Jetrel** » February 18th, 2006, 5:38 am

Precisely what needs to be done to improve things around here. I wholeheartedly endorse Frame's pushing these changes; sure, there are a few teensy things to clean up, but by and large these are some major improvements.