This post is proof you can never satisfy everyone, no matter how hard you try.

Great post in structure and analysis nonetheless, but the new UI, even with its little faults and annoyances, is light years better than the two previous iterations.

NightOfTheDead

Lithuania1711 Posts

February 21 2013 07:52 GMT

#102

well that (PS3/4 announcement) totally explains why there is 4 man party in diablo3 instead of 6 or 8.

ktimekiller

United States690 Posts

February 21 2013 08:02 GMT

#103

On February 21 2013 16:42 BoxingKangaroo wrote:

Show nested quote +

Because given time and technical constraints maybe he couldn't do any better? It's easy to sit back seeing the finished product and nitpick, but you're not privy to the design decisions, discussions, prototypes, deadlines and engine that were needed and used to get to the final result. Ignore the realities of software development at your peril.

Could things be improved? Sure. The OP has pointed out some things. Does this thread need to be on TL? No. If he wants Blizz to see it, post it to them. Otherwise this just becomes a thread for people who like hating on Blizz to get their fix.

Technical constraints? This is design fail and pure lack of direction and planning on part of Blizzard.

There is nothing constricting bnet 2.0 than Blizzard themselves.

You going to tell me that lan isn't possible in current technology next?

graNite

Germany4434 Posts

February 21 2013 08:03 GMT

#104

On February 21 2013 16:49 Eviscerador wrote:
This post is proof you can never satisfy everyone, no matter how hard you try.

Great post in structure and analysis nonetheless, but the new UI, even with its little faults and annoyances, is light years better than the two previous iterations.

but this is not because this one is good, the others were just clearly made by someone how made console uis before.
there is still so much room for improvement...

StayPhrosty

Canada406 Posts

February 21 2013 08:28 GMT

#105

this is a great OP, i think people are just jumping to the conclusion that this is all blizzard hating. Criticism is not the same thing as anger. All of these things are good improvements and by getting them out there blizzard has a chance to see some of the things that can improve things for the community. Now, I'm sure some of these have already been brought up and either rationalized or simply put as low priority, but there's nothing wrong with mentioning it. Personally I love seeing these UI changes that are better fitting the target audience. The new UI is great and these (among other) improvements will only make it better

fezvez

France3021 Posts

February 21 2013 08:32 GMT

#106

I will be honest, that was too long for me, especially because I am not fundamentally interested in UI questions.

However, this does not mean that I do not appreciate the work you have done. Thank you for stating your opinion in such a clear way (well, I didn't read all of it, but I skimmed) and for furthering the discussion.

Hoping someone at Blizzard will see this.

TelecoM

United States10671 Posts

February 21 2013 08:37 GMT

#107

umm wow this was DEEP, amazing read and really intriguing info! Thank you so much for taking the time to write this really super detailed post, took me awhile to read but wow, I totally agree with this and with they would use like the old Broodwar layout :-]

Danglars

United States12133 Posts

February 21 2013 09:19 GMT

#108

Synthesizing what any starcraft veteran has known faulty in the last few patches and today, and going even further in design irregularities, wo1fwood delivers! Man, and that analysis is right on. The console generation/console porting of UI design has marginalized what should be the shining example of where PC gaming can shine. Instead of seeking greater keyboard navigation and simplification (Esc key shortcomings particularly), they make it so that mouse is the only easy way to do many tasks. I have no hopes of this being implemented past 6 months of expansion (given their intractability with the original Battle.net 2.0 complaints). Maybe their design team can listen and prepare some new directions.

Lorch

Germany3679 Posts

February 21 2013 09:30 GMT

#109

On February 21 2013 05:24 Aunvilgod wrote:
I really do like the new interface much better than the previous one.

The previous one was literally the worst interface I have ever seen in any game ever. So yeah it's better, but OP is still right, it's a console games UI for a PC game. For the most part it's just a windows taskbar combined with your average halo ui...

paralleluniverse

4065 Posts

February 21 2013 09:39 GMT

#110

This is a very good post. I've looked at the blog post you've linked and the screenshots look really nice,

I've also pointed out many design issues with the B.net UI as well as UI inconsistencies here. A few of these have since been fixed but most haven't.

paralleluniverse

4065 Posts

February 21 2013 09:39 GMT

#111

Ever wonder why there are so many UI inconsistencies, e.g. why the dialog box to confirm deleting a replay is completely different in style to the dialog box for removing a friend? Or why the right-click menu in the custom games list is clearly different in style to the right-click menu on the replay page? Or why the lists on these pages have completely different styles?

I believe I've figured it out. It's because the tools they've used to make SC2 do not have standardized UI templates. It seems that they can't click a button that opens a template for a generic-right click menu. Instead, they manually design a right-click menu each time it's needed, thus leading to inconsistencies.

This appears to be the only way to explain why there are differences in the right-click menus in the custom game and replay pages, i.e. in the latter the borders are tight, in the other it's not, and in the latter the text is not bold, in the other it is. And there are many other examples.

Inex

Bulgaria443 Posts

February 21 2013 10:03 GMT

#112

Keep in mind that SC2's team is quite small and interface is far from their primary objective right now. These things might get fixed in the future, but as of now I think they've done a very good job. I am your average user and I didn't even register those inconsistencies and bugs, so it's not that big of a deal. Very well written post though.

Prillan

Sweden350 Posts

February 21 2013 10:19 GMT

#113

On February 21 2013 11:19 MaxQT wrote:

Show nested quote +

You don't understanding something doesn't make something a bug, or an incosistency. It's clear that a profile link is something that is used to link to your profile. And how do you open a link? You put it into the navigation bar in any web-browser or the folder navigation bar in windows. SAME AS EVERY OTHER LINK!

It's use is fairly simple. For example; i want to show some profile to a TL member. I don't know the profile character number, and i added him from my match history. I just give him the profile link, and BAM, he can access his profile.

Also, about standard url link structuring:

What the hell? a normal url for a profile page would be along the lines of:

http://www.forum.net/member/x

where x is the userid or the username (depending on forum software or SEO)

is there any difference betwen that and:

starcraft://profile/#/x

where x is the userid

I don't see any. Of course the protocol is starcraft (starcraft://), since it launches for sc2 client.

Calm down

You are correct, but no need to sound that way.

The starcraft-URL does follow the standard. Presumably it opens the SC2 client and navigates to the profile if clicked.

A lot of programs use URLs like this. On top of my head:

magnet:    -  Opens a bittorrent program and starts downloading the specified torrent
spotify:   -  Opens the specified playlist/album/artist/song in the spotify client
xfire:     -  Used to join servers in games

Wertheron

France439 Posts

February 21 2013 11:19 GMT

#114

Great thread, hope the OP will give this to blizzard.

But don't be too hard, they made progress, and creating a game is harder than some of the players could think. Don't want to always blame them for everything, they gave to us a really good RTS

Dghelneshi

Germany82 Posts

February 21 2013 12:14 GMT

#115

Great post!

One thing I would like to add that has bothered me is that in the observer UI, the order of the players in the resource/supply bar to the top right is not always the same as in the other UI tabs to the left (e.g. production/units tab). I find this mildly confusing when regularly comparing supply/bank and unit compositon for example.

It seems to be a rare inconsistency, not sure how to reproduce it since I can't quite figure out what the UI sorts by (maybe color?).

m0ck

4194 Posts

February 21 2013 12:15 GMT

#116

Really impressive work, thank you!

Wertheron

France439 Posts

February 21 2013 12:24 GMT

#117

On February 21 2013 21:14 Dghelneshi wrote:
Great post!

One thing I would like to add that has bothered me is that in the observer UI, the order of the players in the resource/supply bar to the top right is not always the same as in the other UI tabs to the left (e.g. production/units tab). I find this mildly confusing when regularly comparing supply/bank and unit compositon for example.

It seems to be a rare inconsistency, not sure how to reproduce it since I can't quite figure out what the UI sorts by (maybe color?).

Don't know for Wol 2.0.4, but in hots we will have an option to customize the obs interface, so maybe we could change this.

Taefox

1533 Posts

February 21 2013 12:38 GMT

#118

Patch 2.0.4 is just a preparation for HotS so
Great impressive work by OP

fr0d0b0ls0n

Spain51 Posts

February 21 2013 12:45 GMT

#119

I was about to read this, but scrolling I saw that joke about the dice, and someone that doesn't know what perspective is has no moral right to criticize anything. That alone tells the story about the extreme absurd nitpicking from the author. I hope someone makes a post about real UI problems...