MWIF Game Interface Design

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Are you still going with rounded squares/rectangles for the indicators; maximum number of pixels and all that? Are you going to size the indicators proportionally to their importance?

Cheers, Neilster

1 - What you see above is the current design. The shades of the colors might vary slightly because the above was done in CorelDraw where I use the colors that are most conveniently at hand, rather than the ones that I have more or less standardized on for MWIF.

2 - The proportions of the circles and rectangles to the unit size are almost exact.

3 - The idea for different sizes was when I was still stuck on the concept of a solid row of rectangles across the top. Now, using circles, the indicators look better if they are all the same size. An alternative would be to use ellipses but that seems excessively fancy for no purpose. Instead I am using position of the circles to indicate their purpose/importance. The ones on the left hand side are either minor issues, or come up infrequently (e.g., onlt during combat).

[Capitaine]

Might it be possible to have a toggle for varying degrees of status information for counters on the map? I think I'd prefer less clutter on the map counters, but would like for the status detail to appear in the unit display panel. Perhaps I'd like some of the detail on the map counters, but not all. Maybe have a key cycle that goes from no status for on map counters, and about 3 more levels with low to full status shown.

The "quasi" counter shading is a good start! [;)]

[YohanTM2]

Um, let the first of the color blind speak <g>

I'm not sure all these shades/colors are going to be easy for the color blind.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Yohan
Um, let the first of the color blind speak <g>

I'm not sure all these shades/colors are going to be easy for the color blind.

Always a concern, but I am pretty sure we can work something out here.

1 - The position of the indicator is much more important than the color.

2 - Some of the positions are binary (#2 & #7); there is either a circle there or not.

3 - the most colors that have to be differentiated are 6 (#1).

4 - I haven't used white as a color; it is in reserve.

5 - I expect to use a variety of colors just to make the indicators look pretty, instead of having a basic group of 6 colors for all 7 positions. A great diversity is not required by the design.

6 - If push comes to shove, I can have a toggle for using a different set of colors tailored specifically for color blind players. That would be a player interface setting somewhere.

Let me know which colors/positions are a problem and I'll start tweaking them.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
Might it be possible to have a toggle for varying degrees of status information for counters on the map? I think I'd prefer less clutter on the map counters, but would like for the status detail to appear in the unit display panel. Perhaps I'd like some of the detail on the map counters, but not all. Maybe have a key cycle that goes from no status for on map counters, and about 3 more levels with low to full status shown.

The "quasi" counter shading is a good start! [;)]

When I said there often will be no status indicators at all, I was serious. The default setting is for a unit to not need any status indicators.

The ones that are most likely to appear are #1 and #2. Since when they do appear, they are vital for almost all decisions, I do not think removing them would be helpful.

The HQs will always have a #3 but if any other unit has a #3, that is very important information that should not be hidden.

Numbers 4, 5, and 7 only appear during combat phases. During those phases they are important. Once the phase ends, they disappear.

#6 (transport) occurs rarely, but when it does appear, it is very important.

In summary, I think the status indicators only appear when they are quite important to game play. The only one I have some hesitancy about is #3 for HQs. I have that indicator on all the time to reemphasize that HQs are a secondary supply source. Now that is redundant information because every HQ has a third digit, within parentheses, at the bottom. They also have names of their commanders which tend to be longer than other land unit names. Nonetheless, I think it would be especially helpful to beginners to have forceful identification of HQs as supply sources. Nor do I think it would hurt experienced WIF players to be reminded either.

[Klingon]

For the color blind, I'd suggest a black/white pallette; using patterns for different statuses. Half black/half white circle; white; black; 2 or 3 shades of grey; also, possibly having a mouse-over popup explain the status, and the reason for it (apologies if that was mentioned before, and I missed it).

[c92nichj]

Having played a fair deal of CWIF and been givin this a fair bit of thought during the day I like to share my comments.

Firstly what information do you really need when glancing around the map, when playing CWFI I quickly memorised which box meant "passive" and the different shades of supply. None of the other boxes I learned the meaining of and never really paid any attention, didn't have to know them.

So the use of circle 4-7 I am uncertain of, do you really need to see that kind of information on the map, isn't it ok to have it just in the detailed status box?

Also I would like to thank you for including a little bit of shading of the counters that will make the game look so much more professional.

[Froonp]

In summary, I think the status indicators only appear when they are quite important to game play. The only one I have some hesitancy about is #3 for HQs. I have that indicator on all the time to reemphasize that HQs are a secondary supply source. Now that is redundant information because every HQ has a third digit, within parentheses, at the bottom. They also have names of their commanders which tend to be longer than other land unit names. Nonetheless, I think it would be especially helpful to beginners to have forceful identification of HQs as supply sources. Nor do I think it would hurt experienced WIF players to be reminded either.

I think it is OK for HQ to show they are secondary supply sources.
Now, a suggestion : Why not having all others secondary supply sources having the same consistent sign of they being a secondary supply source (a consistent sign in the hex) ? And also, the Primary, a different but consistent sign. This would be an improvement from WiF, who can(t have such signs, because secondary supply sources can change.

Also, just to be sure I understood : The circles only appear when needed, which means that if not needed there is no circle ?

I think I like it.

But I cannot help to think that those "lights" could also have been embedded in the counters. But now that the work on the counters is nearly finished I guess it is too late. But I'm sure there will be people wondering why those "lights" are not inside the counters.

[pak19652002]

The use of colors for this purpose will be extremely confusing for the colorblind no matter what you do. There is probably too much information to be communicated in the 7 circles to avoid a confusing array of colors. You've got 24 different messages contained within 7 circles. That's a lot of data to be imbedded on the rim of a little counter!

Maybe it's my understandable aversion to color-coding, but I'm wondering if we really need all this. Is it possible to create an information overload? Counter density will be high and all these colored circles may become overwhelming. Could we look at a screenshot with maybe a dozen counters in full regalia to see if the map gets too busy?

I've been wrong before, but my spider sense is tingling about all these circles.

Peter

[Zorachus99]

If you hide the indicators that are unneccesary then you average 3. This will reduce confusion nicely because the purpose of the indicator doesn't change. A little getting used to, and you will know the status of a unit at a glace (usually disrupted/not disrupted, and then whether it has moves available).

Naval units may have up to 7, but some of them may be unneccesary as well, such as indicators that appear during combat.

[scout1]

I have worked independently for quite some time and discovered early on that no matter what you do, you always have a boss

I believe this IS the definition of a wife [;)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: pak19652002
The use of colors for this purpose will be extremely confusing for the colorblind no matter what you do. There is probably too much information to be communicated in the 7 circles to avoid a confusing array of colors. You've got 24 different messages contained within 7 circles. That's a lot of data to be imbedded on the rim of a little counter!

Maybe it's my understandable aversion to color-coding, but I'm wondering if we really need all this. Is it possible to create an information overload? Counter density will be high and all these colored circles may become overwhelming. Could we look at a screenshot with maybe a dozen counters in full regalia to see if the map gets too busy?

I've been wrong before, but my spider sense is tingling about all these circles.
Peter

Spiders, Peter, hmmm.[;)]

I won't screw this up. Here is what status indicators currently look like (in development).

1 - the cursor is on a stack of 4 units and they are shown to the right in the Units Panel (whose sizing for the units I haven't fixed yet). There are two units available for movement (this is the German land movement phase) and they have green indicators on the upper left (as shown in the units panel).

2 - The top unit under the cursor can move. The naval air unit (N3) has already flown a mission (port attack) and is now Passive as indicated by the orange circle in the second position. The last unit in the hex is a bomber which is still available for a mission assignment this turn, just not in this phase (land movement).

2- Note that the naval air unit's Passive status is partially shown in the hex under the cursor. I am letting the status of units underneath come through to the top to give some visiblilty as to what is in the rest of the stack. I have a priority list for each of the indicators and show the highest priority status if more than one exists. The status of units underneath only comes through if the top unit does not have that status box in use.

3 - If you see no partially hidden status indicators, then you know that the hex does not contain units that have non-normal status. For example, the Russian 1-4 3rd infantry division is the top unit of 2 units in its hex and neither is disrupted. Meanwhile the 3 Siberian corps is fully functional, but underneath them is at least one unit that is currently Passive (it is an infantry unit that was disrupted by a ground strike).

4 - Conversely, the Stuka has already flown (Passive indicator) but there is a German land unit underneath that is still eligible for movement, as indicated by the green availability that is partially covered.

5 - Notice that the N4 Condor is on top of its stack and is Passive. However, there is a second unit underneath it about which we know very little. It is not a land unit that is elgible for movement, but is could be a land unit that moved in a previous impulse, a naval unit, or a second air unit. we do not know whether the second unit is Passive or not.

6 - I am using different thicknesses of shadows as a supplemental source of information on how many units are in a hex. The thicknesses vary: 2, 4, or 6.

7 - The bitmapped air units need to have their corners rounded - perhaps tomorrow, if I can find my nail clippers.

I am pretty happy with this. The status indicators appear infrequently and when they do, they provide information that is vital to the player's current activity. They really make it easy to identify which air units can fly missions during each air phase. They show up quite well at even zoom levels 3 and 4 (75% and 100%).

I have a lot more work to do with these, especially for the different combat phase (air, land, and naval). As I get farther along, I'll post more screen shots.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I forgot to mention in the previous post.

8 - there is an HQ underneath the 7-4 X Corps. That is a partially covered dark green supply status indicator. The Russian HQ also has a dark green (secondary supply source) status indicator. I will probably change the color from dark green because it is not readily noticeable.

[c92nichj]

A few comments, on graphics.
1) The rounding of the corners are nice but almost too round.
2) The shadowing works well for the one unit in stack for the thicker shadings it is not quite there yet, maybe you can give it to the graphics artist.
3) Can we see a screen shot at zoomlevel 3 or 4?
4) It does not look that cluttered with the circles yet, but at this point, almost no combat have occured, how will it look like further in Russia after a turn or two of combat, with a few units OOS and a lot of flipped ones?
5) I do not think that people will memorise the meaing of the circles on the side, maybe you'll need a hoover help text on them.

Otherwise I think this is a big improvement over CWIF's boxes.

[Froonp]

Here is what status indicators currently look like (in development).

This is quite beautifull !
My comments :
- I would like the counters to be a little less rounded at the corners. But I could live with this.
- Why not putting the shadow the other way around ?
- You must add tooltips to the indicators circles, that appear after 1 sec delay, so that explanation is available for them quite quickly. The players will be quickly used to them, so you should make them desactivable too.
- About the indicators, would it be possible to make them graphicaly look like to lights some more ?

[Neilster]

I agree with your plan for the indicators Steve. There are a zillion things to learn about this game anyway and with some practice, players will soon become familiar with the meaning of the indicators. Some mouseover help or suchlike should sort out any problems.

This is looking really good. I also think the counter corners are a tad too rounded. Perhaps in answer to Patrice, the shading is on the left and top because of the indicator placement. It looks like the shading thickness is proportional to the number of units in the hex. Will there be some upper limit to this? I'm thinking of major ports with many naval units in them.

Cheers, Neilster

[Neilster]

- About the indicators, would it be possible to make them graphicaly look like to lights some more ?

I had an idea that making the periphery of the indicators slightly darker and adding a highlight might help with this so I whipped this up really quickly using MS Paint. They obviously could be done much better, with more graduation of the darkening toward the periphery and a less blobby highlight. Also, what about the different zoom levels? Still should be doable, I think, perhaps abandoning this chrome when the indicators get too small.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Here is what status indicators currently look like (in development).

This is quite beautifull !
My comments :
- I would like the counters to be a little less rounded at the corners. But I could live with this.
- Why not putting the shadow the other way around ?
- You must add tooltips to the indicators circles, that appear after 1 sec delay, so that explanation is available for them quite quickly. The players will be quickly used to them, so you should make them desactivable too.
- About the indicators, would it be possible to make them graphicaly look like to lights some more ?

Ok. As several people have requested, I'll reduce the rounding effect on the counters themselves.

I originally had the shadows bottom and right but they ran into the status indicators (space is extremely tight). Quite by chance I found that by placing them under the status indicators (in order to save room) I stumbled upon the possibility of partially covering the status indicators for the units underneath. I consider this a big plus.

Tooltips et al are polish to come later. I expect to include them for a whole lot of stuff on the screen.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

- About the indicators, would it be possible to make them graphicaly look like to lights some more ?

I had an idea that making the periphery of the indicators slightly darker and adding a highlight might help with this so I whipped this up really quickly using MS Paint. They obviously could be done much better, with more graduation of the darkening toward the periphery and a less blobby highlight. Also, what about the different zoom levels? Still should be doable, I think, perhaps abandoning this chrome when the indicators get too small.

Cheers, Neilster

You are right, the indicators are very drab. Let me get them all functioning correctly and then I'll look into jazzing them up. Buff and polish, buff and polish.

[YohanTM2]

I originally had the shadows bottom and right but they ran into the status indicators (space is extremely tight). Quite by chance I found that by placing them under the status indicators (in order to save room) I stumbled upon the possibility of partially covering the status indicators for the units underneath. I consider this a big plus.

Tooltips et al are polish to come later. I expect to include them for a whole lot of stuff on the screen.

The tool tips solves the color blind issue (and also have a nice PDF page I can print and put on the wall beside my computer to reference) and I think your shading idea to show an indicator on units underneath is perfect.