FOF2004: One favor, please

Buccaneer · 10-18-2003, 07:57 PM

I don't know if this is a small one or a big one, but it doesn't involve adding or deleting anything. I pulled up FOF4 just to see what failed to get me into it and despite my whinings on micromanagement and casual simmers-need-not-play, it was this...

I can understand a spreadsheet mentality for rosters and such, but not for a primary user interface.

I liked the user interface in FOF2 and in FOF2001 (despite the ludicrous controls), heck I even liked the UI in TCY. What was presented in FOF4 just did not make sense, esp. breaking away from a group control (like putting all gameplan related selections in a tabbed control box called "Depth Charts and Gameplans", ala TCY).

Why have Roster, Trade, Staff, Gameplan, etc. all in one unorganized menu?

If this is changed for FOF2004, thank you. If not, does it make sense to do it like you did in previous versions and TCY?

I hope I am not alone in this. (Subby, don't call me a fucknut.)

SackAttack · 10-18-2003, 08:02 PM

Agreed. There does need to be some delineation between the different subsets in the command menu, and I hope that's changed for FOF 2004.

That was one of the things that eventually slowed my play frequency as well. Well, that and the start of baseball season, but that's another matter entirely.

Ben E Lou · 10-18-2003, 09:13 PM

Actually, I've got to disagree. I LOVED having an interface that had the ability to put every single link needed on the desktop. Once you memorize where everything is, nothing is more than a click away.

Solecismic · 10-18-2003, 09:26 PM

You know what's hilarious. One of the beta testers made the same comment last week, I sent out email to everyone last night asking about this, and I split the menus not three hours ago.

Top 12 commands in the "Roster Menu", which includes some new screens. Bottom 38 in the new "Depth Chart and Game Plan" menu, which is what you have now, plus the load and save commands.

Buccaneer · 10-18-2003, 09:28 PM

I have spent considerable time at work designing and developing user interfaces and like what I have stated previously, any UI can become intuitive (remember, I like the infamous Gothic UI). However in such a list as shown above, it works best if there are a limited number of items (less than what was presented there). Besides the unorganized groupings, it forced the some/most users into scrolling and that is a no-no in UI design standards. I go back TCY, which was a Gindin product. While I am of the opinion that the UI in FOF2/2001 was better, TCY certainly worked and was logical in its groupings (or menu selections). I believe this should not have been abandoned for FOF4 and now hopefully, this can be improved to where more than just SkyDog can like it.

Buccaneer · 10-18-2003, 09:28 PM

dola

Thanks Jim, didn't see that you were on. But I would have to ask why not go with something similar to TCY?

mckerney · 10-18-2003, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buccaneer
dola

Thanks Jim, didn't see that you were on. But I would have to ask why not go with something similar to TCY?

I'm pretty sure that Jim is always hiding.

SackAttack · 10-18-2003, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Solecismic
You know what's hilarious. One of the beta testers made the same comment last week, I sent out email to everyone last night asking about this, and I split the menus not three hours ago.

Top 12 commands in the "Roster Menu", which includes some new screens. Bottom 38 in the new "Depth Chart and Game Plan" menu, which is what you have now, plus the load and save commands.

Sweet. This is good news, indeed.

Solecismic · 10-18-2003, 09:50 PM

Because there's more in FOF. And real estate is very limited on the background screen when it's displayed at 1024x768. I can't really go outside that boundary, and already it's tough for people with smaller screen resolutions - they have to move commands around to see them.

I went with the newer one-click menu interface for FOF4 to ensure favorite commands were always just one click away. I got rid of tabbed dialogues because of the confirm/cancel debate (does cancel refer to the current screen, or to all screens), and because the MFC implementation of them is buggy - an occasional mystery crash on some machines. Also, there are 36 screens now rather than 7 - well beyond anything you'd ever want to see in a tab format.

So, my choice was either drop-down menus, which add clicks and force you to search for commands, the tree controls from FOF2, which make switching from menu to menu less intuitive, or something like this.

Buccaneer · 10-18-2003, 09:53 PM

That makes sense, thanks. I hope it does prove more intuitive than FOF4.

Ben E Lou · 10-19-2003, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Buccaneer
Besides the unorganized groupings, it forced the some/most users into scrolling and that is a no-no in UI design standards.

Hmmm.... I agree that more organized groupings would work, but don't most use 1024x768? I only have to scroll as it sits now if I would ever (which I can't imagine why I would) want to change my defensive game plan when it is inside my 3 yard-line. {screenshot below} Otherwise, no scrolling. Sounds like what Jim has done will make another box (or two?), but that 800x600 folks might be able to get everything on one screen as well.

RendeR · 10-19-2003, 12:29 PM

As sad as it may seem, the web designers I talk to and even my own experience helping people shows me that only about 40% of people have anything higher than 800x600. I should say "use" instead of have, I'm sure almost everyone should have at least 1024x786 available, but the vast majority of people don't have a clue how to set it up that way.

its really scary to realize that less than 35% of this country(USA) actually uses a computer on a regular basis.

Karim · 10-19-2003, 06:36 PM

I'm glad Bucc and the beta team brought this to attention, and really pleased that Jim has made some corresponding changes. That window was an eye sore.

GrantDawg · 10-19-2003, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RendeR
As sad as it may seem, the web designers I talk to and even my own experience helping people shows me that only about 40% of people have anything higher than 800x600. I should say "use" instead of have, I'm sure almost everyone should have at least 1024x786 available, but the vast majority of people don't have a clue how to set it up that way.

its really scary to realize that less than 35% of this country(USA) actually uses a computer on a regular basis.

I used to always use 860x600. It is easier on my eyes. I use 1024x786 now that I'm used to it. It took a while though. I guess I'm just old.

korme · 10-19-2003, 10:29 PM

800x600... can't believe I ever used that!

Easy Mac · 10-19-2003, 10:41 PM

Did the resolution make you feel bigger?

10-18-2003, 09:13 PM	#3
Ben E Lou Morgado's Favorite Forum Fascist Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC	Actually, I've got to disagree. I LOVED having an interface that had the ability to put every single link needed on the desktop. Once you memorize where everything is, nothing is more than a click away. __________________ The media don't understand the kinds of problems and pressures 54 million come wit'!

10-18-2003, 09:28 PM	#6
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	dola Thanks Jim, didn't see that you were on. But I would have to ask why not go with something similar to TCY? Last edited by Buccaneer : 10-18-2003 at 09:30 PM.

10-19-2003, 12:29 PM	#12
RendeR Coordinator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Buffalo, NY	As sad as it may seem, the web designers I talk to and even my own experience helping people shows me that only about 40% of people have anything higher than 800x600. I should say "use" instead of have, I'm sure almost everyone should have at least 1024x786 available, but the vast majority of people don't have a clue how to set it up that way. its really scary to realize that less than 35% of this country(USA) actually uses a computer on a regular basis. __________________ http://wotlabs.net/s...8/signature.png http://wotlabs.net/sig_dark/na/banichi18/signature.png

10-18-2003, 08:02 PM	#2
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	Agreed. There does need to be some delineation between the different subsets in the command menu, and I hope that's changed for FOF 2004. That was one of the things that eventually slowed my play frequency as well. Well, that and the start of baseball season, but that's another matter entirely.

10-18-2003, 09:26 PM	#4
Solecismic Solecismic Software Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Canton, OH	You know what's hilarious. One of the beta testers made the same comment last week, I sent out email to everyone last night asking about this, and I split the menus not three hours ago. Top 12 commands in the "Roster Menu", which includes some new screens. Bottom 38 in the new "Depth Chart and Game Plan" menu, which is what you have now, plus the load and save commands.

10-18-2003, 09:50 PM	#9
Solecismic Solecismic Software Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Canton, OH	Because there's more in FOF. And real estate is very limited on the background screen when it's displayed at 1024x768. I can't really go outside that boundary, and already it's tough for people with smaller screen resolutions - they have to move commands around to see them. I went with the newer one-click menu interface for FOF4 to ensure favorite commands were always just one click away. I got rid of tabbed dialogues because of the confirm/cancel debate (does cancel refer to the current screen, or to all screens), and because the MFC implementation of them is buggy - an occasional mystery crash on some machines. Also, there are 36 screens now rather than 7 - well beyond anything you'd ever want to see in a tab format. So, my choice was either drop-down menus, which add clicks and force you to search for commands, the tree controls from FOF2, which make switching from menu to menu less intuitive, or something like this.

10-18-2003, 09:53 PM	#10
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	That makes sense, thanks. I hope it does prove more intuitive than FOF4.

10-19-2003, 06:36 PM	#13
Karim College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Calgary	I'm glad Bucc and the beta team brought this to attention, and really pleased that Jim has made some corresponding changes. That window was an eye sore.

10-19-2003, 10:29 PM	#15
korme Go Reds Join Date: May 2001 Location: Bloodbuzz Ohio	800x600... can't believe I ever used that!

10-19-2003, 10:41 PM	#16
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	Did the resolution make you feel bigger?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)