153 replies to this topic

[Heffay]

Roland, on 20 June 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

Pointing out that two of the "major development achievements" you listed aren't actually functional isn't a stupid thing.
It's simply an observation based on the fact.

UI 2.0 is a catastrophic failure in user interface design.
One of the primary features of the launch module which was touted prior to its release, the introduction of the 4x3 team restrictions, has still not been implemented in a way that works, after failing miserably when they attempted to introduce it.

Total failure in interface design, resulting in a laughable mess.

And again, UI 2.0 wasn't just about a UI. Which, by the way *works* even if you don't like the particular implementation. It was a success, and saying it's a failure because you don't like a feature of it is laughable.

Both UI 2.0 and the Launch module were successes, and nitpicking one thing you don't like about them doesn't make them failures. They both do exactly what they are supposed to do, and do it well.

[Torgun]

Heffay, on 20 June 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

And again, UI 2.0 wasn't just about a UI. Which, by the way *works* even if you don't like the particular implementation. It was a success, and saying it's a failure because you don't like a feature of it is laughable.

Both UI 2.0 and the Launch module were successes, and nitpicking one thing you don't like about them doesn't make them failures. They both do exactly what they are supposed to do, and do it well.

Well I agree you can say UI 2.0 works, but a success.... really? You'd have to be madly fond of pushing the "back" button to claim UI 2.0 is anything but kinda usable. No shortcuts whatsoever to go from one part of the mech you want to edit to another directly, every time it's always "back". When you want to choose an engine you get a big pile of large pictures of engines you're forced to scroll through to find the ones you own, no way to filter them out. And when you want to cancel the matchmaking, the button for it is not close to the middle, where you just recently clicked to join a match, you have to click at the small cancel button down in the left corner. UI 2.0 is filled with so many unintuitive and time-wasting clicking and scrolling, the lack of good design decisions is pretty damn baffling.

Edited by Torgun, 20 June 2014 - 01:04 PM.

[Heffay]

Torgun, on 20 June 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

Well I agree you can say UI 2.0 works, but a success.... really? You'd have to be madly fond of pushing the "back" button to claim UI 2.0 is anything but kinda usable. No shortcuts whatsoever to go from one part of the mech you want to edit to another directly, every time it's always "back". When you want to choose an engine you get a big pile of large pictures of engines you're forced to scroll through to find the ones you own, no way to filter them out. And when you want to cancel the matchmaking, the button for it is not close to the middle, where you just recently clicked to join a match, you have to click at the small cancel button down in the left corner. UI 2.0 is filled with so many unintuitive and time-wasting clicking and scrolling, the lack of good design decisions is pretty damn baffling.

And again, UI 2.0 is far far more than just a UI. It's more accurate to call it MWO 2.0. It allows the development of additional features and content at a far more rapid pace. We have seen proof of that with achievements and the launch module (among other things) releasing quickly and on time.

[Roland]

Heffay, on 20 June 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

And again, UI 2.0 wasn't just about a UI. Which, by the way *works* even if you don't like the particular implementation. It was a success, and saying it's a failure because you don't like a feature of it is laughable.

It's an objectively bad user interface. Everyone except for a handful of white knights agree on that. User interface design is not something which is simply subjective at this point. There's actually science behind it. It's not simply a piece of art whose merits are entirely within the eye of the beholder.

You are attempting to minimize the UI aspect of something called UI 2.0. You are being ridiculous.

And while, certainly, an aspect of the UI redesign was intended to replace the apparently terrible underlying framework, you cannot simply suggest that the UI itself which resulted from the redesign is somehow of secondary importance... especially given that you have absolutely no idea about any of the actual underlying framework changes, and thus aren't able to evaluate any of that either.

Quote

Both UI 2.0 and the Launch module were successes, and nitpicking one thing you don't like about them doesn't make them failures. They both do exactly what they are supposed to do, and do it well.

Except provide an improved user interface, and effective chassis balancing, respectively... both of which were major design goals of each project.

[Roland]

Actually, upon further reflection, the discussion of whether things like UI 2.0 and the Launch Module were successes is essentially moot.

The judgement of PGI's success or failure will lie in the future success or failure of the game as a whole, and whether its community thrives or withers. Ultimately, it does not matter whether Heffay or myself believe PGI's direction and action on such things is good or bad, but rather what the overall gaming community believes.

I guess we'll see what happens.

[Heffay]

Roland, on 20 June 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

Actually, upon further reflection, the discussion of whether things like UI 2.0 and the Launch Module were successes is essentially moot.

The judgement of PGI's success or failure will lie in the future success or failure of the game as a whole, and whether its community thrives or withers. Ultimately, it does not matter whether Heffay or myself believe PGI's direction and action on such things is good or bad, but rather what the overall gaming community believes.

I guess we'll see what happens.

Good point. I feel pretty confident in my choices though.

[Roland]

I'm sure your confidence will serve pgi as well in the future as it has to date.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Can somebody please explain precisely why UI 2.0 is so terrible, rather than saying it is for the sake of saying so.

Also saying too many clicks or it takes forever why out justifying exactly the specifications is also a poor logic.

A detailed explanation is the only thing that will satisfy, and the occasion deserves no less.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 June 2014 - 02:59 PM.

[Hastur Azargo]

Sometimes I imagine an anectodotal development, where PGI does bring CW in, making MWO more of a global sandbox like EVE or SC, and then it appears that it's suddenly too complex/demanding/involving for the majority of the playerbase, and the game starts declining exactly because of CW...

[BLOOD WOLF]

Azargo, on 20 June 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Sometimes I imagine an anectodotal development, where PGI does bring CW in, making MWO more of a global sandbox like EVE or SC, and then it appears that it's suddenly too complex/demanding/involving for the majority of the playerbase, and the game starts declining exactly because of CW...

ummm............It is possible I would think, the chances though are close to nothing.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 June 2014 - 03:03 PM.

[Roland]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 June 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

Can somebody please explain precisely why UI 2.0 is so terrible, rather than saying it is for the sake of saying so.

Also saying too many clicks or it takes forever why out justifying exactly the specifications is also a poor logic.

A detailed explanation is the only thing that will satisfy, and the occasion deserves no less.

It's been explained in detail, with specific examples from the current interface and how they violate core principles of user interface design... I'm pretty sure I explained it to you, specifically, in a prior thread.

Feel free to go read those posts again, as I really can't be bothered to repeat them again.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Roland, on 20 June 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

It's been explained in detail, with specific examples from the current interface and how they violate core principles of user interface design... I'm pretty sure I explained it to you, specifically, in a prior thread.

Feel free to go read those posts again, as I really can't be bothered to repeat them again.

actually no you did not, and I always get the same response. Either somebody states that they explained it before, or they tell me to start fishing for threads.

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 20 June 2014 - 03:23 PM.

[Goregrimm]

I bought the Dire Wolf yesterday and still don't have it. Anyone know why that would be?

[Roland]

BLOOD WOLF, on 20 June 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

actually no you did not, and I always get the same response. Either somebody states that they explained it before, or they tell me to start fishing for threads.

Well, feel free to look through my post history and find where I gave the detailed breakdown of the UI and its problems... As I said, I believe it was directed at you personally at the time, but perhaps it was in response to someone else.

Either way, you can find it there and read it.

[Kilo 40]

Roland, on 20 June 2014 - 03:29 PM, said:

Well, feel free to look through my post history and find where I gave the detailed breakdown of the UI and its problems... As I said, I believe it was directed at you personally at the time, but perhaps it was in response to someone else.

Either way, you can find it there and read it.

why did you even bother to reply if you were going to do exacty what he said you were going to do? IE: "Either somebody states that they explained it before, or they tell me to start fishing for threads."

[Roland]

Kilo 40, on 20 June 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

why did you even bother to reply if you were going to do exacty what he said you were going to do? IE: "Either somebody states that they explained it before, or they tell me to start fishing for threads."

Well, two reasons, really.
1) To point out that he keeps asking the question, and then people answer it, but he apparently doesn't read the answers.
and
2) To let him know that if he really is interested in the answer, that he can find a detailed one in my post history.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Roland, on 20 June 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

Well, two reasons, really.
1) To point out that he keeps asking the question, and then people answer it, but he apparently doesn't read the answers.
and
2) To let him know that if he really is interested in the answer, that he can find a detailed one in my post history.

I looked in your post history and i could not find it, why does giving a little direction such a bad thing?

[ShadowStyx]

I tried looking at Roland's post history via profile, but I could only see his last 5.
I then did a search and found a few threads talking about UI 2.0 and feedback.
http://mwomercs.com/...to-old-ui-back/
and a much longer one
http://mwomercs.com/...ui-20-feedback/

For me, Lostdragon sums up a lot of my gripes:

Lostdragon, on 18 May 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

UI 2.0 is terrible and here is a non-comprehensive list of some of the reasons why it is terrible:

1. It still consumes massive amounts of resources
2. It is unintuitive
3. Getting the information you need is much harder than it should be
4. Building a mech is needlessly complicated and convoluted (really, this could be said of the UI in general)
5. Commonly accessed elements are spread all over the screen
6. Moving things between mechs is a chore, it is difficult to find what you need if you don't remember which mech was using it last, then when you find it transferring it to another mech takes way too many clicks
7. The button used to save mech builds is labeled "Checkout", which is confusing as hell for first time users, especially if they are not buying anything but simply changing a loadout using equipment that is already owned
8. The flaws in the UI slow down the process of being able to get into the game
9. We told PGI all of this prior to the release of the UI, they didn't listen and apparently think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread

To reiterate some specifics:

• The first time I used UI 2.0, it took me awhile to figure out that checkout actually means save.
  
• I don't like that stripping an engine and saving, forces an additional prompt to confirm saving. Idiot check I suppose, so it probably should be there, but then I want a setting to allow me to bypass that prompt in options.
  
• When selecting equipment (such as engines), icons dominate the main view, but little information is given. I want to see how much speed using that engine will give me.
  
• I prefer the layout from Mech Details. Old UI mostly looked like that (from what little I remember), so I could tell where everything was located. Either you remember where everything is or click to it or click mech details and remember.
  
• Too many clicks, that back button gets abused. Improvements to a UI should reduce the number of clicks or streamline a process to make it faster.
  
• Group menu. God forbid you pick a mech and forget to click to home ( more clicks!) before readying up. Old UI was still pretty bad here. Would much rather have the group screen on the right, above friends, and concurrent with Home/Mechlab/Skills. Stop making me make more clicks!
  
• I equip weapons first, then ammo. Would prefer the ammo screen only show ammo for weapons/equipment currently equipped or had an option to allow this.
  
• Using the mouse scroll wheel is slow. Don't use it.
  
• Saving a mech after making changes seems to take 10-15seconds.
  
• Beep beep beep. Move your mouse and it goes beep. I play with sound on low so it doesn't bother me as much.
  
• The skill tree. Why is it ordered by light,medium,etc, then by release date? The mechs in mechlab aren't organized by release date.

What I would have liked to see is a menu on the left (Engines, Weapons, Ammo, Equipment).

I want heat sinks? Let me drag them to all the places I want them. Even if I have to click left torso, then right torso, it saves me time and clicks by still having the equipment menu open.

Edited by ShadowStyx, 21 June 2014 - 12:54 AM.

[BLOOD WOLF]

A video would better serve to justify the workings of UI 2.0. funny how it takes me no time at all to strip and rebuild a mech. Do us a favor and make a video because text does not do any justice. If you cannot make one then get someone to help you. As a matter of fact, get somebody who can use it fluently to better help you out. I have offered many times to help people use the New UI efficiently, last but not least this is what we have and what is needed for core features so spend an half our to get used to it.

I also have a feeling that some are not really having trouble and are still trying to make some point. any issue to whine i suppose. Funny how new players who never played with the old UI can get used to it pretty fast. I would know because I play with new players all the time. They never display the frustrations displayed on the top list instead they learn how to use it better. Stop whining about the UI 2.0 and learn how to use it.

that is an old video but it can teach you something

Edited by BLOOD WOLF, 21 June 2014 - 02:19 AM.

[Torgun]

• Because you can learn to live with a badly designed UI doesn't make it good
  
• When there is no way to go from one part of the mech to another without being forced to click the back button, there's nothing you can learn to not having to waste time on all the back clicking. God forbid you want to test out a new build entirely in the UI without finishing it on smurfys first, you'd click back so many times to edit small things to make the tonnage work it's horrible.
  
• New players have not seen MWO have a better UI, as the old UI had strengths that were totally abandoned when they made the new one. If all you've seen is bad you might think it's the norm.