UI Glitches

raynor · #1 February 23rd, 2003, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by capnq:

quote:
the time honored defense of the lazy programmer. It's not a bug. It's a feature!

The time-honored defense of the careless user. "Why can't the program read my mind and do what I want, rather than what I tell it to?"

It is possible to create, for example, a word processing program that doesn't prompt you to save when you exit the program. Then, when a person loses a ten page document, you can easily say that they were careless not to save their document before exiting.

But... if that is a fair comparision, then I place the burder of proof on you to point out just one word processing program that wouldn't prompt you to save your document before exiting.

If you can name just one, then you were right, "careless user" is appropriate. If not, then "careless programmer" is appropriate.

Fyron · #2 February 23rd, 2003, 02:52 AM

That is an extremely flawed analogy Raynor. There is absolutely no basis of comparison between saving upon exiting from a word processor and clearing the repeat build orders from the build queue when hitting "Clear Queue". For an analogy to work, there has to be some basis of comparison. In this case, there is none.

The Clear Queue and Repeat Build system is not flawed in any way. Your analogy does not show it to be flawed.

Suicide Junkie · #3 February 23rd, 2003, 02:52 AM

That is a laughable comparison!

Se4 does ask to be sure if you want to exit when you go to the trouble of opening the menu and clicking close.

This situation is much more like that same word processing program popping up a message box asking if you really wanted to repeat the same letter twice in a row.

raynor · #4 February 23rd, 2003, 02:53 AM

Let me give you a better example of a UI problem: Ship Design.

An escort size vessel can only have one bridge.

IMHO, a well thought-out UI would either remove or gray out the bridge component after you have added one to the ship. SEIV does neither of these. Instead, it tells you that you have too many.

You might call that a UI choice. I would call it a UI bug.

Did someone say that it makes sense for 'Repeat Build' to repeat build the first item--even if the queue contains ten items? IMHO, if the queue contains more than one item, the program should warn you that the second item will never be built. Similarly, if the 'Repeat Build' option is selected, then the program should not allow you to add another item to the build queue.

Let's face it. The game just doesn't have a very polished user interface, and because Malfador is just one programmer, no one cares. They would rather have better support for modding and new features like drones than a good UI.

[ February 23, 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: raynor ]

Fyron · #5 February 23rd, 2003, 02:55 AM

A bug is an unintended feature, or when something functions differently than originally planned. MM fully intended the bridge to not be greyed out when one is added (or it would be greyed out as you suggested). So, it can not possibly be a bug.

Quote:

Did someone say that it makes sense for 'Repeat Build' to repeat build the first item--even if the queue contains ten items?

Yes, it does make sense, because that is what the Repeat Build function was designed to do. Repeatedly building a lot of different items in the list would be a function like "Cycle Build Queue", not "Repeat Build". It would be nice if both functions were available, but "Repeat Build" should only repeat the top item.

[ February 23, 2003, 00:58: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

raynor · #6 February 23rd, 2003, 03:08 AM

Is there a reason why you would want to have the ability to add two, three, four, ten, twenty, fifty or even one hundred bridges to an Escort class vessel?

No.

Will the game let you successfully create a ship with more than one bridge?

No.

If you add more than one bridge to a ship, how many clicks will it take to remove those additional bridges from the ship without completely canceling the design:

One per ship.

Calling it a bug is analogous to calling this accidental behavior. If you don't to call it a bug and you can't provide any good reason why you would want to add more than one bridge to the ship, then you are saying that Aaron wanted the novice user to engage in the click fest that must ensue when you must remove the extraneous bridges. Calling it a bug is analogous to saying that the game is just so complex that Aaron didn't give this issue any thought. If you don't want to call it a bug and you cannot prove a useful purpose for this functionality, then the next step is to assume malicious intent by the programmer.

Personally, I would rather say this is just so trivial that Aaron didn't have time to consider it. But if you want to say that he's just a mean person, well... I think you are a mean person. :-)

[ February 23, 2003, 01:09: Message edited by: raynor ]

raynor · #7 February 23rd, 2003, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
That is a laughable comparison!

Se4 does ask to be sure if you want to exit when you go to the trouble of opening the menu and clicking close.

This situation is much more like that same word processing program popping up a message box asking if you really wanted to repeat the same letter twice in a row.

Sure. It is laughable. That was the plan. I'm glad it worked.

It *was* a pretty "macro" scale comparision, and I thin your example is pretty apt. It would be pretty annoying if word asked if I wanted to delete the same letter twice in a row.

Using your same example, the UI of SEIV is akin to allowing the user to infinitely delete a letter that doesn't exist. This is the same as using 2200,2200,2200 resources to build a facility that can never be built.

I guess the appropriate Word equivalent to repeat building a facility that can never be finished because the planet is full might be similar to doing a Search and Replace operation that infinitely find and replaces a word that isn't even in the document.