Lean advanced game option

[Alberth]

It needs a drop/down or combo thingie I think.

The big puzzle is however how to do that in a canvas.

[Hyronymus]

i don't like the settings being on the right side. it may make it difficult to see which setting belongs to which entry, if the lines are very long and very empty.

also, for selecting different values a "radio button" is usually available, instead of independent yes/no selections...

But how would you tag those radio buttons? Most likely with yes or no too. Personally I like having text before the choice but if the majority likes it the other way round I won't veto it.

I honestly don't see how this "yes/no" format improves on what we have now. If anything it's more confusing, and it's only going to add a significant amount of bloat to the menu.

I diagree (naturally). The current way is sloppy and inconsistent. What I propose is a way to increase readability, understanding (also by creating space for a description) and consistency. Also, having written yes/no on green/red buttons helps the colour blinded people and the use of colours is highly intuitive.

It needs a drop/down or combo thingie I think.

The big puzzle is however how to do that in a canvas.

Perhaps device a new type of arrow based on the default scrolling arrow. If you tilt it 45 degrees it looks like half a wiki hyperlink.

[Transportman]

i don't like the settings being on the right side. it may make it difficult to see which setting belongs to which entry, if the lines are very long and very empty.

also, for selecting different values a "radio button" is usually available, instead of independent yes/no selections...

But how would you tag those radio buttons? Most likely with yes or no too. Personally I like having text before the choice but if the majority likes it the other way round I won't veto it.

I think Eddi was talking about the same thing I was talking about, for example the date format should be done using "radio buttons' instead of multiple yes/no buttons.

Another suggestion from my side, instead of two buttons next to each other (one for yes and one for no), make it one button like the NewGRF parameters, just one button for on/off.

[Hyronymus]

i don't like the settings being on the right side. it may make it difficult to see which setting belongs to which entry, if the lines are very long and very empty.

also, for selecting different values a "radio button" is usually available, instead of independent yes/no selections...

But how would you tag those radio buttons? Most likely with yes or no too. Personally I like having text before the choice but if the majority likes it the other way round I won't veto it.

I think Eddi was talking about the same thing I was talking about, for example the date format should be done using "radio buttons' instead of multiple yes/no buttons.

Another suggestion from my side, instead of two buttons next to each other (one for yes and one for no), make it one button like the NewGRF parameters, just one button for on/off.

In my current proposal there are no yes/no buttons for date setting though. Your other suggestion would look something like this, which isn't bad:

Basic2.png (4.92 KiB) Viewed 2506 times

The button colour then changes as it does in the NewGRF parameters window.

[PaulC]

I diagree (naturally). The current way is sloppy and inconsistent. What I propose is a way to increase readability, understanding (also by creating space for a description) and consistency. Also, having written yes/no on green/red buttons helps the colour blinded people and the use of colours is highly intuitive.

In what way is the current system "sloppy and inconsistant"? I just don't see any of the problems you seem to see, it all looks perfectly straightforward to me. What you could do to make things "more consistant" is get rid of the green/red buttons and use <> buttons for everything - just like the "Difficulty" menu in the original game. I know that's the opposite of what you're suggesting, but your proposal looks very awkward and bloated to me.

Another suggestion from my side, instead of two buttons next to each other (one for yes and one for no), make it one button like the NewGRF parameters, just one button for on/off.

The buttons in the "Advanced Settings" and "NewGRF Parameters" windows are exactly the same...

[Hyronymus]

In what way is the current system "sloppy and inconsistant"? I just don't see any of the problems you seem to see, it all looks perfectly straightforward to me. What you could do to make things "more consistant" is get rid of the green/red buttons and use <> buttons for everything - just like the "Difficulty" menu in the original game. I know that's the opposite of what you're suggesting, but your proposal looks very awkward and bloated to me.

I'm glad you contradict yourself and admit inconsistencies exists . While using <> buttons would grately increase the consistency there remains 1 consistency problem in my point of view. That problem is that with all the available options you get "inconsistent" confirmations. For one options the confirmations is "Yes", for anothen option the confirmation is "For all companies" and yet another option is confirmed with "Most used". In my proposal that variety is decimated to yes/no and occasionally a number.

[PaulC]

In what way is the current system "sloppy and inconsistant"? I just don't see any of the problems you seem to see, it all looks perfectly straightforward to me. What you could do to make things "more consistant" is get rid of the green/red buttons and use <> buttons for everything - just like the "Difficulty" menu in the original game. I know that's the opposite of what you're suggesting, but your proposal looks very awkward and bloated to me.

I'm glad you contradict yourself and admit inconsistencies exists . While using <> buttons would grately increase the consistency there remains 1 consistency problem in my point of view. That problem is that with all the available options you get "inconsistent" confirmations. For one options the confirmations is "Yes", for anothen option the confirmation is "For all companies" and yet another option is confirmed with "Most used". In my proposal that variety is decimated to yes/no and occasionally a number.

I don't see that as a contradiction - it's only two different types of button, not a dozen! But your proposal is no more consistant, because as you've already noticed not everything is suited to a simple "yes/no" choice (e.g. the coloured newspaper). As for the confirmation text, I really don't see your point. The text simply tells you what option you have selected, sometimes this is a simple yes or no and sometimes it needs to be more specific - you call this "inconsistant" but that doesn't mean that it's problematic or confusing to anyone. If anything you're making it more confusing by giving the impression that more than one option can be selected at any one time.

To expand on what I said by bloat: currently the date format (to use your example) takes up one line, but under your system it would take up four. Now apply that to all such options and you make the whole thing considerably larger than what it is now. That makes it less user friendly in general, but especially so for those with low resolutions or using smaller windows.

Bear in mind also that these same buttons are used elsewhere: in the difficulty menu, the newgrf parameters window, the AI/game script window, possibly elsewhere. To maintain your goal of consistancy you need to consider these as well.

[Hyronymus]

Bear in mind also that these same buttons are used elsewhere: in the difficulty menu, the newgrf parameters window, the AI/game script window, possibly elsewhere. To maintain your goal of consistancy you need to consider these as well.

I know, I didn't invent any of the buttons.

The mere fact that they are used elsewhere too doesn't mean to me that therefor it shouldn't be changed. You could also change other dialogues that contain buttons after all. I also fail to see how the concept of multiple choice confuses people. And if it does many official tests are doomed, voting becomes impossible and such.

My proposal does indeed require more lines but the usage of lines already is language-dependent in most dialogues. The advanced options dialogue happens to be one where that isn't the case, in Dutch many lines are cut off by the dialogue box. I value the ability to at least read the entire option larger than using less space. I also seriously wonder if we should really focus on those few people with small screens or the majority that plays OpenTTD on a desktop or laptop computer, as it was intended to be.

[PaulC]

The mere fact that they are used elsewhere too doesn't mean to me that therefor it shouldn't be changed. You could also change other dialogues that contain buttons after all.

I'm just saying that if you were to change the buttons in one menu then you would have to change them in all, and that you should also consider the effect this would have on those other menus. The difficulty menu for example would become more than twice as long as what it is now. And it may require action 14 data to be rewritten for many grfs...

I also fail to see how the concept of multiple choice confuses people. And if it does many official tests are doomed, voting becomes impossible and such.

Perhaps, but then the current menus should be no more confusing to people either.

...but the usage of lines already is language-dependent in most dialogues.

That doesn't seem to be the case from what I've seen. In other languages the boxes merely seem to be wider to accomodate the longer text.

The advanced options dialogue happens to be one where that isn't the case, in Dutch many lines are cut off by the dialogue box.

I've had a quick look at the Dutch translation and I see what you mean, though it doesn't look like a major problem - it doesn't look like that many lines that are cut off, and is it such a chore to resize the box? If it is a problem then perhaps the default width of the box could be increased, or maybe the translation could be improved to make the wording more concise?

[Hyronymus]

I'm just saying that if you were to change the buttons in one menu then you would have to change them in all, and that you should also consider the effect this would have on those other menus. The difficulty menu for example would become more than twice as long as what it is now. And it may require action 14 data to be rewritten for many grfs...

I agree, you cannot stop at one dialogue and leave the rest unattended. I'm not sure what you mean with the action 14 stuff, does that refer to explanation texts?

it doesn't look like that many lines that are cut off, and is it such a chore to resize the box? If it is a problem then perhaps the default width of the box could be increased, or maybe the translation could be improved to make the wording more concise?

But what about people with smaller screens then ? Wording is possibly a way but this is only Dutch and there are more languages available than Dutch.

[PaulC]

I'm not sure what you mean with the action 14 stuff, does that refer to explanation texts?

Yes.

But what about people with smaller screens then ?

Even on the lowest resolution (640*480) there is room to make that window quite a bit wider:

[Hyronymus]

Currently not all artists provide action 14 data. That surely is up to the artists though and a slap in the face of users if they don't supply it. And good to see minimalistic people can have a larger default advanced option dialogue too .

[XeryusTC]

As far as I see it your proposal turns the entire advanced settings dialogue into a form of 20 questions. Settings like which railtype to select by default would need to be turned into a set of 5 questions which might not be available depending on whether you picked yes on a previous question (answering yes to "Do you want to build the latest railtype?" means that you don't have to answer "Do you want to build the most used railtype?" anymore). IMO this would just make the entire configuration window more complex and it a whole lot longer. This seems quite counter productive to me.

[PaulC]

Regarding the default width of the "Advanced Settings" window, I've raised the issue on FlySpray: http://bugs.openttd.org/task/5141

In short: even using the lowest screen reolution there is room to increase the width of this window, and most if not all translations - even the English ones - would benefit by having fewer texts cut off.

[Hyronymus]

So where does this topic go now? Die off because of 2 opposing views and leaving the advanced options in a "less optimal" state?

[Supercheese]

Perhaps add a poll? Although that might not result in anything either, at least there's some quantitative representation for things...

[PaulC]

So where does this topic go now?

Compromise? Refine your ideas? Look at other means of improvement? Surely you don't expect everyone to share your view of what's wrong, or agree that your proposals are an improvement on what we have now? But there's nothing wrong with a bit of brainstorming. Going back to your first post:

Lastly, in the parameter window for NewGRF's you see a more detailed description below. I think it's good to provide such a more detailed description below the advanced options list too.

This is a good idea. I've not looked at it in any depth, but there are surely some settings that would benefit from having a more detailed description.

What about some of the other things that have been mentioned? Increasing the default width of the window is a simple fix that would address one of your concerns - it's a shame no one has commented on my FlySpray proposal. Or perhaps there are other options to resolve this, such as wrapping text?

Then there's the idea of using <> buttons for everything, and getting rid of the red/green on/off buttons. You said yourself that this would "greatly improve consistancy" (another of your concerns), and it could perhaps improve things for the colourblind as well. For example, this screenshot was taken using Color Oracle to simulate one of the more common types of colourblindness:

deuteranopia.png (121.54 KiB) Viewed 2344 times

Also, perhaps Yes/No would be better than On/Off, for the English translations at least? And perhaps there are some options that we don't really need and would be better off without?

Something else that might be nice is an option to save or cancel your changes to the advanced settings, like we already have in the "Difficulty" window.

[Hyronymus]

So where does this topic go now?

Compromise? Refine your ideas? Look at other means of improvement? Surely you don't expect everyone to share your view of what's wrong, or agree that your proposals are an improvement on what we have now? But there's nothing wrong with a bit of brainstorming. Going back to your first post:

Lastly, in the parameter window for NewGRF's you see a more detailed description below. I think it's good to provide such a more detailed description below the advanced options list too.

This is a good idea. I've not looked at it in any depth, but there are surely some settings that would benefit from having a more detailed description.

What about some of the other things that have been mentioned? Increasing the default width of the window is a simple fix that would address one of your concerns - it's a shame no one has commented on my FlySpray proposal. Or perhaps there are other options to resolve this, such as wrapping text?

Then there's the idea of using <> buttons for everything, and getting rid of the red/green on/off buttons. You said yourself that this would "greatly improve consistancy" (another of your concerns), and it could perhaps improve things for the colourblind as well. For example, this screenshot was taken using Color Oracle to simulate one of the more common types of colourblindness:

deuteranopia.png

Also, perhaps Yes/No would be better than On/Off, for the English translations at least? And perhaps there are some options that we don't really need and would be better off without?

Something else that might be nice is an option to save or cancel your changes to the advanced settings, like we already have in the "Difficulty" window.

The idea of using <> throughout the option settings, having a larger width for the bounding box and going for Yes/No rather than On/Off sounds like a plan. Also saving settings to a file makes sense.

[frosch]

Or perhaps there are other options to resolve this, such as wrapping text?

Somewhen I started on a patch to truncate text at other positions than at the end. But I got lost somewhere in RTL processing


Wrt. the buttons: I like bool buttons a lot more than left/right. Even in the monochromised image the up/down state is easier visible than the shaded state. Esp. as shaded left/right does not trigger any relation to on/off for me.

[Hyronymus]

So let's say we come up with an approach that everyone can live with, where do we go then?