FreeOrion

We have a mostly vector interface, so we might as well embrace scalability, as much as possible.

If text and Graphics scale separately moderate differences in the settings would tend to make the interface look like junk. For instance if you increase the text size to 200%, the production numbers would overlap each other or force weird spaces between each production bar. Or if you increase the UI without the text, various boxes for holding text would oversized, dwarfing their content.

Sure it's theoretically possible to carefully rig everything so text and graphics can be scaled independently, but it's not commonly done, and is a lot of work, with dubious rewards. Usually if the user needs the text to be larger he needs buttons, and small graphic elements (even those without text inside) to be larger too.

However, smaller text is much less problematic than larger text. Probably the most practical approach would be to allow the user to scale up interface indefinitely, provided there's screen real-estate. The text size could be shrunk to something like 25% of it's normal relative size. That allows flexibility without wasting effort making a GUI that doesn't break when the proportions are changed too much.

If a text and UI size results in unusable layout, presumably users won't select such a text and UI size. So, do we really need to worry? If it looks bad, the user won't use it, so there's no real need to impose restrictions, it would seem... Maybe a warning note if the user selects text that much out of the standard range...

Also, not all text has to be treated equally. If there's text that needs to fit into a single-line box, like titles or labels, this can scale with the UI, whereas text that would scale separately from the UI would be stuff like the length tech or building descriptions, which appears multi-line with auto-resizing scrollbars.

A good GUI, allows the user flexibility and freedom, but doesn't normally allow itself to be easily broken. We don't allow the user to zoom the galaxy to the size of a pixel, or so that a star fills the screen.

Um, so what's the benefit in allowing the user to configure the interface to be unusable? Why should we let them waste their time configuring and un-configuring? What if it's broken so badly that it's hard to get back to the preferences, or to use them? Users are more likely to comfortable tweaking the preferences if fiddling with them doesn't easily lead to destruction.


These are sensible distinctions, but the UI would still break, or become very clumsy if the relative proportions are too different.

The benefit is that it's a lot less work to make if we don't impose too many restrictions on what the user can do.

If the user thinks the UI is broken or clumsy with particular font and interface scales, they wouldn't use those scales. Playing with the font size won't trash their computer, so I don't think there's much need to worry about them not feeling comfortable tweaking. We could also put an unscaling reset / default button.

OK, this forum has a relatively simple layout. Increase the font size a couple times. Is it still easy to use? Increase it a few more time. Would any sane person (without near blindness) want this forum to look that way?

Without a ton of work (i've never seen a complex interface that successfully allows a high degree of independent scaling of interlinked parts of a GUI) FO would scale much less elegantly, because it will have a much more info-rich and compact interface. It will look appear badly done.

I've done a bit of functional enhancement (filtered builditem list) on the production screen in the last few days, and I'd like to get some input on the appearance as well...

The buildable items list needs a way to distinguish between various classifications of item in the list.

There are buildings, ship designs and (at present) orbital defense stations (though these might disappear pending future design decisions). The various items in the list might be buildable at some locations but not others... So the list should proabbly reflect this, depending on the particular planet selected, the system and its contents, relevant specials, availability of strategic resources to the empire / at this location (subject to blockades and supply limitations) etc.

In addition to buildability at a particular site, there is the issue of whether something is buildable at all due to being unlocked by researching the appropriate techs, which is currently referred to as availability. There are now filtering buttons on the buildable items list for this criteria, as seen above.

We might also have a few different types of buildable items. Currently there are buildings, ships and orbitals. I'm not sure what else might be added, if anything.

There could also be classifications added to various buildable items to define their function for the player. Buildings might be classified by what resource (food, minerals, mining) or game subsystem (resource generation, espionage, defense) they are most relevant to.

So my question(s) are what are the best way(s) to display this information on the buildable items list. Options include things like italics, bold and underlined text, backround colours, text colour, altering or replacing the icons at the left or adding more icons to convey additional info, or adding text to describe the situation. Note that I plan to have the list be resizable, so don't feel limited by the apparently nonexistant extra horizontal space.

The particulars of the layout at present are quite temporary; I just needed to get the presently-functional buttons in there somewhere to ensure they were working.

Thoughts?

Actually, i'd take a step back, and instead of having a long list with multiple classifications, simply make each classification it's own list— selectable one at a time by normal buttons or tabs. I don't see much benefit in being able to see ships and building simultaneously in the same list. That would make the "category" column obsolete.

IMHO the most important thing to indicate graphically is weather a building can be built at the selected planet or not. Unavailable items should be "grayed out" to make it easy to deal with the possible. Off the cuff i'd like to see a visual distinction between stuff that you can currently build somewhere, and stuff you don't have the tech to build anywhere.
I question the usefulness of seeing un-researched items in the list, but i realize some people have requested it. I'd rather see such things listed in our "Orion-opedia" help/info system. Why present the player with 500 options in early game if he can only choose 10? If these totally-unavalable items are included it needs to be obvious. Perhaps they can be more strongly grayed out.


Also we can't have the buttons replacing the column headings. Columns of numbers need headings. Also headings are great for sorting lists, by clicking on the headings to sort by that field.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy
—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—

The rightmost column isn't intended to be category. Rather, it's "short description", similar to what appears on the tech screen to describe a tech's or building's function in one line / five words or less. I just don't have / haven't written any such descriptions for any buildings or ships, so used "building" or "ship" as filler.


Having un-researched items selectable on the list is useful because it allows the player to see what locations at which an item can be built using the same interface for researched and un-researched items, and lets the player quickly compare the cost and build times for them on the production screen, without having to open a separate 'opedia screen. Also, we don't have an 'opedia yet, so it's sort of the only option at the moment.


The default setting should be to display only available items. Having to specifically toggle un "unavailable" or similar items should make it clear what's going on...


Rather than, or in addition to, degrees of greying, what about alternative ways to indicate these things? Perhaps there could be a column where available and buildable at the selected location could be shown with a green checkmark icon, avaialble but not buildable at the selected location could be a yellow circle or yellow triangle, and not available could be a red X, or similar?


I agree, and the buttons weren't meant to be the headings.


I agree, and I considered making a sortable-by-column heading listbox control, but doing so is rather non-trivial and I had and still have lots of other things to work on... so it will likely have to wait a while.

OK, a short description is a great idea, but i still don't see the point in lumping all types of constructs into the same list here.



Hopefully a streamlined ways (with GiGi?) of making lists sortable-by-column can be added sometime. It's a good things to have with almost any columned list. And i'm sure there will be more lists.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy
—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—

A combination of this plus coloring the Building in what it primarily effects or which research-category it unlocked, would be good. I think most of the time a player will not display the unavailable items, the switches do the work.

Is it planned to show a tooltip or something similar, which shows the effect the building would have to the currently selected planet?

Building effects are not restricted to the planet on which they are built. Were such a display to be made, it would need to give an indication of the effects on all planets, systems, ships, other buildings, etc.

I'd like to suggest a method that could provide more space on the sidepanel by removing less relevant information.
Consider this mockup:



The basic idea is that the user may choose from different methods how the sidepanel is drawn. Notice the two buttons at the top of the sidepanel:

- the left button is supposed to activate the sidepanel state that is shown in the mockup: planets that have not been colonized by your empire are shown at approx. 1/5 of their original size
- the other button is supposed to completely remove all planets that have not been colonized. Planets colonized by your opponents are shown in reduced size.
- to return to the original sidepanel state, press the button of the current active mode (alternatively, a third button could be provided)

This simple concept would allow us to increase icon sizes or display more information.

And a second suggestion:

the resource bars are often changing so slightly that you can barely see the change. Wouldn't it be good to have a, let's say, 5 turn progress estimate?



dark = 1 turn change
bright ~ 5 turn change

I'm not a fan of your first idea, which involves changing the displayed planet size. I think this might get confusing. I really like your second proposal though. Although, the colors should be reversed. Bright green for the progress in 1 turn and darker green for the progress in 5(or 10 or whatever) turns.

Agreed.


I think it's a good idea to allow the player to "hide" the uncolonized planets in the sidepanel. After all, most of the time he'll be dealing with his colonies.
But i don't think shrinking any planets in the sidebar is a good idea.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy
—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—