Matrix Games Forums

Here are the first couple of pages for the last Introductory tutorial.

Second of 2 in the series.

You might have noticed that I presently expect this tutorial to run to 20 pages!

I presume there is a loop:   X11 End of Impulse  - 111 New Impulse.
 
Is that the case?
 
 

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

I presume there is a loop:   X11 End of Impulse  - 111 New Impulse.

Is that the case?

Yes. Given your question, I obviously have to make that more clear.

One more new page before going to bed. I want to clean up the text displayed in the screen shot but I am too tired to figure out how to do that easily.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are the first couple of pages for the last Introductory tutorial.

I'm sorry but I've formally studied human-computer interaction and apply it every day in my job and the flags randomly distributed around the first screen are confusing and clutter the screen without serving any purpose. I know you want the players to be introduced to the flags but I don't think this is the best place. It's already a packed screen and needs clarity, not distracting decoration. A small gap between the sections would improve the look too. I'm compelled to say this again because I know what reviewers will think of this screen. Not much. The next 2 screens are much clearer.

Cheers, Neilster

Edit: I'm talking about the actual game screen, of which this tutorial is representing.

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are the first couple of pages for the last Introductory tutorial.

I'm sorry but I've formally studied human-computer interaction and apply it every day in my job and the flags randomly distributed around the first screen are confusing and clutter the screen without serving any purpose. I know you want the players to be introduced to the flags but I don't think this is the best place. It's already a packed screen and needs clarity, not distracting decoration. A small gap between the sections would improve the look too. I'm compelled to say this again because I know what reviewers will think of this screen. Not much. The next 2 screens are much clearer.

Cheers, Neilster

Edit: I'm talking about the actual game screen, of which this tutorial is representing.

Agree.

I also am not happy with the question-marked shaped flow of choices -- 1,2,3 from l to R, then veer sharp left and do 4, then go down to 5. I think it would be much more sensible to have a scrolling screen that goes top down from 1 to 5 in a nice linear list.

To drop in my own bit of street "cred", a couple of jobs ago I managed the 14-person user interface group for the $1 b/year revenue business unit of a global corporation (although, to be fair, I didn't last long at it ... turns out I prefer doing to managing, and am not very good at grinding out the few flickering embers of individuality that remain to me...)

Joey & Fred,

About the Start New Game form, ...

If this form were being used frequently, I would agree immediately with your comments. However, it is only used once at the start of the game.

My primary goal was to display all the tasks for starting a game simultaneously. CWIF had separate screens for these tasks displayed in a series without the ability to readily go back and change previous decisions. I found it very confusing because I never knew what decisions remained to be made and when the program was going to actually let me start playing the game.

The vertical scrolling idea didn't occur to me and it offers some more flexibility in the design layout. However, it does mean that all the decisions are not visible at the same time. I really like the player to be able to look at this screen and know that there are 5 steps to starting a new game. He doesn't have to leave the screen - all those decisions are made with this form.

As for the flags, I went back and forth on including and excluding them. I want the 5 steps to have similar but different color schemes and using the backgrounds that appear during game play seemed a natural fit. It serves the dual purpose of introducing the color schemes/themes to the player. Anything else would be something unique that did not tie in with the rest of the program's ambiance. Since each color is for a major power, then the accompanying flags complete the presentation of the major power color schemes.

Yes, it is crowded/cluttered. Yes, it could be stripped down to bare essentials. Yes, it could be stream-lined for efficiency of data entry.

But austere efficacy is not my design goal here. And as I said at the beginning, this form appears only once during a game.

I will build a different form for accessing/reviewing the optional rules while playing the game. For that layout the focus will be enabling the player to find a specific optional rule quickly. The other pieces of the Start New Game form will not appear elsewhere, nor will the form itself be accessible while a game is in progress.

Here is a revised verision that makes the loops clear.

I think the presentation of the 5 groups is a very good one. They all fit on one screen and the use of different colors make it easy to understand which information is part of which group. The naming makes it easy to understand the sequence as well (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th).

But there is one thing I find confusing. That is the use of the flags. When I see flag inside one of the groups then I instinctively think the player playing the flag shown is responsible for adding data for this group. I don't mind using the major power colors to differentiate between the groups, but I think this form will be even easier to use if the flags were omitted.

Another thing I would change is the name of the "Major Powers OK" button. This button is special because it will load the game and they you have no chance to alter anything if you forgot something. I therefore think this button should be called "Major Powers OK and start game" or you can have a separate big button with the name "Start Game". This button should be greyed out until all necessary data to start the game is filled in.

It's great to see all those nice tutorials. I knew we will get a really amazing MWIF when it's released. The only bad thing about looking at the great tutorials is that I want to have MWIF installed on my computer NOW. [:D]

Appreciate what you say Steve about the lack of frequency that this page will be used. However I have to agree with previous posters about the layout of the 5 steps for Page 1. My first impression is that it is cluttered and confusing. As a player familiar with the game I'm sure I would have no problem navigating it, but for a newbie's first impression of the game, it strikes me that it would be confusing and somewhat daunting. And sorry, the flags are also an added confusion factor.

If you wanted to have a clear progression perhaps you could do it by a tabbed form perhaps- with a final big red button to set you off on the game. The tabs would show the number of steps and gives you a linear flow as you flip from page to page, its a format that people are familar with.

Just a suggestion and sorry for a negative post!

ORIGINAL: Jimm

Appreciate what you say Steve about the lack of frequency that this page will be used. However I have to agree with previous posters about the layout of the 5 steps for Page 1. My first impression is that it is cluttered and confusing. As a player familiar with the game I'm sure I would have no problem navigating it, but for a newbie's first impression of the game, it strikes me that it would be confusing and somewhat daunting. And sorry, the flags are also an added confusion factor.

If you wanted to have a clear progression perhaps you could do it by a tabbed form perhaps- with a final big red button to set you off on the game. The tabs would show the number of steps and gives you a linear flow as you flip from page to page, its a format that people are familar with.

Just a suggestion and sorry for a negative post!

Tabbed form is a great idea.

Another way to do it would have been wizard-like dialog, with "Next" and "Previous" buttons to go from one step to another, and a "Finish & lanch the game" final button in the final step of the wizard.

ORIGINAL: Jimm
Appreciate what you say Steve about the lack of frequency that this page will be used. However I have to agree with previous posters about the layout of the 5 steps for Page 1. My first impression is that it is cluttered and confusing. As a player familiar with the game I'm sure I would have no problem navigating it, but for a newbie's first impression of the game, it strikes me that it would be confusing and somewhat daunting. And sorry, the flags are also an added confusion factor.

If you wanted to have a clear progression perhaps you could do it by a tabbed form perhaps- with a final big red button to set you off on the game. The tabs would show the number of steps and gives you a linear flow as you flip from page to page, its a format that people are familar with.

Just a suggestion and sorry for a negative post!

Not so keen on the tabs, even though I have two possible interpretation of what you mean.

1 - A large page with tabbed sheets, only 1 sheet is visible at a time. That is how the Scenarios and Optional Rules are laid out. I find it annoying that all the optional rules can't be seen at once. You have to keep flipping back and forth using the tab to see what the settings are. But that is a function of there being 81 optional rules. I would find it more annoying if that is how the 5 steps were presented.

2 - Press the Tab key and the form advances to the next step. I see at most marginal gain from this. Windows has this as part of its standard interface and many players will be familiar with it, including the use of Shift Tab to reverse direction. As a programmer, I get to see Delphi automatically assigning Tab Sequence number to every component on the form - there are hundreds of them. Encoding this would require the tedious disabling or numbering of all those tab sequence settings.
--
On the plus side, I agree that the final button that sends the player off into the program starting should be shown more clearly. I'll think about how to do that.

P.S. - Wasn't it standard practice in the American Civil War to shoot at the guy carrying the flag?

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


Not so keen on the tabs, even though I have two possible interpretation of what you mean.

1 - A large page with tabbed sheets, only 1 sheet is visible at a time. That is how the Scenarios and Optional Rules are laid out. I find it annoying that all the optional rules can't be seen at once. You have to keep flipping back and forth using the tab to see what the settings are. But that is a function of there being 81 optional rules. I would find it more annoying if that is how the 5 steps were presented.

That was kind of what I was thinking rather than the other. I would see a benefit for instance in being able to see all the optional rules on one page; I dont see the benefit of having all the 5 steps visible in detail on one page.
I think Froonp's idea of the wizard navigation would work equally well.

But you clearly have a strong vision of how you see this setup thing working with everything on one page.

P.S. - Wasn't it standard practice in the American Civil War to shoot at the guy carrying the flag?

Ready, aim... fire!

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Jimm
Appreciate what you say Steve about the lack of frequency that this page will be used. However I have to agree with previous posters about the layout of the 5 steps for Page 1. My first impression is that it is cluttered and confusing. As a player familiar with the game I'm sure I would have no problem navigating it, but for a newbie's first impression of the game, it strikes me that it would be confusing and somewhat daunting. And sorry, the flags are also an added confusion factor.

If you wanted to have a clear progression perhaps you could do it by a tabbed form perhaps- with a final big red button to set you off on the game. The tabs would show the number of steps and gives you a linear flow as you flip from page to page, its a format that people are familar with.

Just a suggestion and sorry for a negative post!

Not so keen on the tabs, even though I have two possible interpretation of what you mean.

1 - A large page with tabbed sheets, only 1 sheet is visible at a time. That is how the Scenarios and Optional Rules are laid out. I find it annoying that all the optional rules can't be seen at once. You have to keep flipping back and forth using the tab to see what the settings are. But that is a function of there being 81 optional rules. I would find it more annoying if that is how the 5 steps were presented.

2 - Press the Tab key and the form advances to the next step. I see at most marginal gain from this. Windows has this as part of its standard interface and many players will be familiar with it, including the use of Shift Tab to reverse direction. As a programmer, I get to see Delphi automatically assigning Tab Sequence number to every component on the form - there are hundreds of them. Encoding this would require the tedious disabling or numbering of all those tab sequence settings.
--
On the plus side, I agree that the final button that sends the player off into the program starting should be shown more clearly. I'll think about how to do that.

P.S. - Wasn't it standard practice in the American Civil War to shoot at the guy carrying the flag?

I meant option #1. It seems to me that a folder like progression from 1 to 5 along the top of the page would make the form more clear.

Jimm is acute to point out that you are invested in this version of the form ... this reminds me of the adage that authors need to be ready to murder their children, i.e. edit out their most cherished flights of ingenuity.

In usability testing, it's always important to remember 1) you can't test everything -- in fact, you can only test a few things 2) testers aren't users and 3) users are dumb. (the first two are fairly canonical, but #3 is my own addition).

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Jimm
Appreciate what you say Steve about the lack of frequency that this page will be used. However I have to agree with previous posters about the layout of the 5 steps for Page 1. My first impression is that it is cluttered and confusing. As a player familiar with the game I'm sure I would have no problem navigating it, but for a newbie's first impression of the game, it strikes me that it would be confusing and somewhat daunting. And sorry, the flags are also an added confusion factor.

If you wanted to have a clear progression perhaps you could do it by a tabbed form perhaps- with a final big red button to set you off on the game. The tabs would show the number of steps and gives you a linear flow as you flip from page to page, its a format that people are familar with.

Just a suggestion and sorry for a negative post!

Not so keen on the tabs, even though I have two possible interpretation of what you mean.

1 - A large page with tabbed sheets, only 1 sheet is visible at a time. That is how the Scenarios and Optional Rules are laid out. I find it annoying that all the optional rules can't be seen at once. You have to keep flipping back and forth using the tab to see what the settings are. But that is a function of there being 81 optional rules. I would find it more annoying if that is how the 5 steps were presented.

2 - Press the Tab key and the form advances to the next step. I see at most marginal gain from this. Windows has this as part of its standard interface and many players will be familiar with it, including the use of Shift Tab to reverse direction. As a programmer, I get to see Delphi automatically assigning Tab Sequence number to every component on the form - there are hundreds of them. Encoding this would require the tedious disabling or numbering of all those tab sequence settings.
--
On the plus side, I agree that the final button that sends the player off into the program starting should be shown more clearly. I'll think about how to do that.

P.S. - Wasn't it standard practice in the American Civil War to shoot at the guy carrying the flag?

I meant option #1. It seems to me that a folder like progression from 1 to 5 along the top of the page would make the form more clear.

Jimm is acute to point out that you are invested in this version of the form ... this reminds me of the adage that authors need to be ready to murder their children, i.e. edit out their most cherished flights of ingenuity.

In usability testing, it's always important to remember 1) you can't test everything -- in fact, you can only test a few things 2) testers aren't users and 3) users are dumb. (the first two are fairly canonical, but #3 is my own addition).

Actually, the issue here is priorities. I am loathe to go back and redesign anything that has functioning code.

Thoroughout this project I have gone through design phases where I am open to a lot of suggestions from forum members, but once that is past and the design has been turned into code, revisiting the design requires enormous justification.

Remember McClellan who always want to buff and polish his army some more rather than actually send it into the field?[:)]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


Not so keen on the tabs, even though I have two possible interpretation of what you mean.

1 - A large page with tabbed sheets, only 1 sheet is visible at a time. That is how the Scenarios and Optional Rules are laid out. I find it annoying that all the optional rules can't be seen at once. You have to keep flipping back and forth using the tab to see what the settings are. But that is a function of there being 81 optional rules. I would find it more annoying if that is how the 5 steps were presented.

2 - Press the Tab key and the form advances to the next step. I see at most marginal gain from this. Windows has this as part of its standard interface and many players will be familiar with it, including the use of Shift Tab to reverse direction. As a programmer, I get to see Delphi automatically assigning Tab Sequence number to every component on the form - there are hundreds of them. Encoding this would require the tedious disabling or numbering of all those tab sequence settings.
--
On the plus side, I agree that the final button that sends the player off into the program starting should be shown more clearly. I'll think about how to do that.

P.S. - Wasn't it standard practice in the American Civil War to shoot at the guy carrying the flag?

I meant option #1. It seems to me that a folder like progression from 1 to 5 along the top of the page would make the form more clear.

Jimm is acute to point out that you are invested in this version of the form ... this reminds me of the adage that authors need to be ready to murder their children, i.e. edit out their most cherished flights of ingenuity.

In usability testing, it's always important to remember 1) you can't test everything -- in fact, you can only test a few things 2) testers aren't users and 3) users are dumb. (the first two are fairly canonical, but #3 is my own addition).

Actually, the issue here is priorities. I am loathe to go back and redesign anything that has functioning code.

Thoroughout this project I have gone through design phases where I am open to a lot of suggestions from forum members, but once that is past and the design has been turned into code, revisiting the design requires enormous justification.

Remember McClellan who always want to buff and polish his army some more rather than actually send it into the field?[:)]

I think I may have voiced similar thoughts during that phase, but am too lazy to go back.

I would suggest that it is a true (although perhaps totally academic) statement that there are some usability issues that are severe enough to be worth the cost of recoding. This form, which is the first thing the user sees, may possibly fall in that category. But I agree it is not the right time to redo it.

I would suggest that you add a "UI refresh" task later in the schedule where we can review, estimate, and prioritize those few interface changes that may be worth a few days of schedule slip.

I don't have a problem with everything being on the one page. I just think the flags add confusion. Having said that, people are used to wizards and having to click a back button a couple of times to check or change something is easy and intuitive. The advantages in clarity and extra screen space to help explain each step are worth it I think.

I appreciate, Steve, that you don't won't to revisit things that work but I'd argue that this is aesthetically broken. It fails every human-computer interaction test and I've only seen negative feedback about it. I think the vast majority of your decisions on this project have been correct but this section needs work.

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: Neilster
I don't have a problem with everything being on the one page. I just think the flags add confusion. Having said that, people are used to wizards and having to click a back button a couple of times to check or change something is easy and intuitive. The advantages in clarity and extra screen space to help explain each step are worth it I think.

I appreciate, Steve, that you don't won't to revisit things that work but I'd argue that this is aesthetically broken. It fails every human-computer interaction test and I've only seen negative feedback about it. I think the vast majority of your decisions on this project have been correct but this section needs work.

Cheers, Neilster

You now like the rail lines?[:D][:D][:D][:D]

Sadly,[:(] I have come to the opinion that judgments about whether a decision is correct[:)] or not[:-] (and I do not exclude myself here) are 99% based on whether the person making the judgment agrees with the decision.