transparency and invisibility merged, how?

[PaulC]

Usually (well, when i play ) I have to transparency options permanently opened and positioned next to the other toolbars. So IMO it should not be a huge GUI of the size of the news settings.

I second this. Replacing the existing window with something substantially larger would not IMO represent any kind of improvement.

[frosch]

Wrt. "full details":
I guess we should rename that setting. Currently it controls drawing of:

• Rail fences
• Trees and lamps at roads.

While these items fit fine under the "catenary"-button (all three make it easier to see the present road and rail track bits), "full details" should be split in two items.


Wrt. "full animation":
If the "blitter" setting would be exposed to the GUI, I would put "full animation" next to it. Esp. since "full animation" has no effect when using a 32bpp blitter other than "32bpp-anim".
So I would prefer putting it into the "game settings" as that would be the most likely place for the blitter setting.

[AndersI]

I'm not sure if these options are exactly the same in OTTD as in TTDP, but why not do something in the style of TTDP - tri-state buttons with CTRL-Click to lock?

[Eddi]

because three state buttons are Bad (tm).

and i think the ctrl+click to lock [which is the current behaviour] is too hidden.

[AndersI]

because three state buttons are Bad

Please elaborate...

[Eddi]

the current window has these separate functions:

1. the button itself toggles visible/transparent state for each individual category
2. ctrl+button toggles the lock
3. the 'X' key toggles all categories simultaneously that are not locked
4. the extra (currently unlabeled) button below toggles whether the transparent state should be "shadow" or "invisible"

with three-state-buttons, at least one of these functions will lose usability.
e.g.:
you need one more click to switch an individual category from visible to invisible and back again.
or you lose the ability to chose whether 'X' should toggle between shadow or invisible, because if you define it as "last used", then this information gets reset when you manually toggle the button to visible

[3298]

I think tri-state buttons are a good idea to make the window smaller. I reworked my picture a few posts back and deleted those arrow buttons, because they are not needed anymore when the buttons to their right (in my original design not clickable) become clickable tri-state buttons. Also, one of the (until now) empty buttons - the one controlling "full animation" - is left out (thank you for the explanation frosch, didn't know what that option is supposed to do). This makes my design only four buttons wider and a couple of pixels taller than the old transparency window. By the way, in my first design I forgot that the catenary can also be transparent, not just invisible.

[Alberth]

Hello again,

It took a while to understand the issue of the 3-state versus 2 2-state buttons, and I was away for a couple of days, so I am a bit late with my response.

To cut a long story short, I was wrong with my 3-state button proposal. Thank you Eddi, and Roujin for objecting, and Planetmaker to explain it in simple enough terms to make an idiot like me understand it

To understand why, open the transparency window, and click at a button. It toggles. Click again, it toggles back. No need to move the mouse in between, no need to look where you click, you can look at the main view while testing the new change. With a 3-state button you need 1 click to toggle and 2 to go back, OR you need 2 clicks to toggle and 1 to go back. Very confusing.

@Zuu: A radio button implies having to move the mouse (and look where you click instead of looking at the changes in the main view). You also need more screen space for the window.
On the positive side, it is definitely more intuitive, as John_Smith stated (I would like to have the same simplicity in the new window!!).

@3298: I pondered about two rows of settings too, like in both your mockups. It does however not fix the 3-state button issue, it takes a lot of screen space, and '1' and '2' too free, ie you could make '1' less visible than '2'.

@frosch/planetmaker: Your mockup+comments of both looks like a good direction.

@AndersI: Why not have 3 graphics for each state (with an outline for the 'invisible' state)?
People complain about too little graphics all the time.

It seems we are left with two challenges then:
1. 'the ctrl+click to lock [which is the current behaviour] is too hidden' (reported by Eddi)
2. Nobody understands the green button row below it, imho.
(and for mucho bonus points, make the window more intuitive. People don't understand they can click at the graphics as well.)

[frosch]

Extending my mockup from above:
If there would be dropdowns for every button, the dropdown could also contain the 3 states and one one item for the lock. Only some dropdowns would contain additional stuff e.g. for hiding some signs.
Simliar to the order GUI clicking on the left part of the dropdown instead on the arrow could trigger a default action. So you can still click on the icon to toggle transparency and on the left part of the dropdown button to toggle invisiblity; while the dropdown contains everything including the more rarely needed details.

I.e. put everything in dropdowns for the novice user, and keep the current behaviour as shortcuts.

[planetmaker]

As explanations for the two rows one could, as Alberth says, introduce two descriptive icons. Attached a quick idea of how they could look like: the first is for the switch visible to (transparent or invisible). The lower two are different versions, I don't know which would be better.

The right ones are alternative versions for the switch which indicates the switch between transparent and invisible.

[3298]

Okay, frosch's dropdowns are something I can live with, but...

@3298: I pondered about two rows of settings too, like in both your mockups. It does however not fix the 3-state button issue, it takes a lot of screen space, and '1' and '2' too free, ie you could make '1' less visible than '2'.

It was my intention to make the transparency settings more flexible than they are now. I already mentioned the possibility to switch between "transparent" and "invisible", which could be useful for all types of signs. And why shouldn't it be possible to make setting 1 less visible than setting 2? The player may choose which mode he uses for what. The X key just toggles between them, as well as the "1" and "2" buttons (they are included to show which one is currently activated).
The 10 pixels of additional vertical size are probably not too much (the signals gui is also 60 pixels tall), but okay, the 111 pixels added horizontally could be. But the "build rail"-toolbar is even wider!
3-state button issue ... how often do you double-click on something when using Windows? Also, with the two independent settings you shouldn't have to toggle a single transparency option as often as with the old transparency window.

It seems we are left with two challenges then:
1. 'the ctrl+click to lock [which is the current behaviour] is too hidden' (reported by Eddi)
2. Nobody understands the green button row below it, imho.
(and for mucho bonus points, make the window more intuitive. People don't understand they can click at the graphics as well.)

1. The two independent rows solve this, just set both to the same state.
2. 3-state buttons are my solution ... but apparently not everyone is happy with them ...
3. Where else should they click in my design? The window is way too big for just a choice of "1 or 2". But it needs additional graphics for the new columns (station/waypoint/town names share their pictures with other columns, full detail has no picture at all).
Also to 3: In OpenTTD you click on pictures everywhere, why should the transparency options be different?

By the way:

the dropdown could also contain the 3 states

You need four states: transparent, invisible, normal/X switches to transparent, normal/X switches to invisible.