- An efficient way to browse information (especially items)
- The ability to compare multiple game elements quickly
- An efficient way to make characters without being forced to follow their "ABC" steps.
- To make use of large monitors/resolution -- the CB won't show you more information.
What audience is Wizards trying to target here? Pre-teen kids who are just getting into D&D?
Is it too much to ask for a "usable" version that is actually useful to those of us with the experience and knowledge of the game?
Frankly, to me, its a worthless tool in its current state. I can live with bugs. I can even live without certain features. I just can't live with being put into a room of tools designed for people with under average intelligence. There needs to be an expert mode with real UI functionality. D&D is for smart people -- so why aren't the tools?
I'm sorry if I've offended anyone -- except for the person(s) behind the UI design. I want them to know its incredibly poor for players with any experience in the game.
Thanks for listening.
Is it too much to ask for a "usable" version that is actually useful to those of us with the experience and knowledge of the game?
Frankly, to me, its a worthless tool in its current state. I can live with bugs. I can even live without certain features. I just can't live with being put into a room of tools designed for people with under average intelligence. There needs to be an expert mode with real UI functionality. D&D is for smart people -- so why aren't the tools?
I'm sorry if I've offended anyone -- except for the person(s) behind the UI design. I want them to know its incredibly poor for players with any experience in the game.
Thanks for listening.
What audience is Wizards trying to target here? Pre-teen kids who are just getting into D&D?
Where have you been for the last six months?
That's exactly who they're marketing to.
What audience is Wizards trying to target here? Pre-teen kids who are just getting into D&D?
Where have you been for the last six months?
That's exactly who they're marketing to.
Apparently I've been ignorant to their marketing strategy...it is really really sad...
However, I think the new CB is severely lacking in things I am intelligent enough to know that I would like to see.
I think the new thing is wonky and slow. My brain moves faster than the website and I don't know a lot of the rules but I often have things figured out while the CB still hasn't gotten it all right.
Since I am new to the game though, I don't think I have as much inherent dislike for the system because I enjoy being able to get acces to so much material without having to buy each and every book and I think that is probably the number 1 feature of this whole thing.
Clearly, the correct business model is to create a character builder that new players can't use. That makes it harder for them to get into the game, so then they can just throw up their arms and go back to playing HALO.
We all no that isn't what was said. The idea was that because the builder is aimed at a lower denominator, it leaves a large portion of the crowd unhappy.
As a relatively new player, I have a slightly different perspective because to some extent I fall into their target audience.
However, I think the new CB is severely lacking in things I am intelligent enough to know that I would like to see.
I think the new thing is wonky and slow. My brain moves faster than the website and I don't know a lot of the rules but I often have things figured out while the CB still hasn't gotten it all right.
Since I am new to the game though, I don't think I have as much inherent dislike for the system because I enjoy being able to get acces to so much material without having to buy each and every book and I think that is probably the number 1 feature of this whole thing.
I agree with your sentiment as well...even someone who is new to the game will quickly become stifled by the limiting UI -- and the lack of the options mentioned above.
Its certainly possible to create a friendly UI and have an option (or make it seamless somehow) to turn on "Expert" mode. I just assert that most of your subscribers will prefer "expert" mode. Those that don't will probably prefer it after 1-2 months.
They may gain a few extra subscribers with the "Barney the Dinosaur" UI (sorry I really do dislike it), but I suspect that gain is offset by losing more experienced customers in the long run.
"Clearly, the correct business model is to create a character builder that new players can't use. That makes it harder for them to get into the game, so then they can just throw up their arms and go back to playing HALO."
Of course, a product so full of errors as to make the game system seem broken (as the sad CB does) is perhaps even more of a turn off?
Clearly, the correct business model is to create a character builder that new players can't use. That makes it harder for them to get into the game, so then they can just throw up their arms and go back to playing HALO.
Because it's impossible to have both? "Exit Tutorial Mode?" would be a great button to have available. Right now you guys are stuck in it.
Clearly, the correct business model is to create a character builder that new players can't use. That makes it harder for them to get into the game, so then they can just throw up their arms and go back to playing HALO.
Because it's impossible to have both? "Exit Tutorial Mode?" would be a great button to have available. Right now you guys are stuck in it.
I agree completely. They need to put a switch modes button at the bottom of each page and have it remember what mode you were last in...
I do however agree that there should be more options on how you can use said program. But I think that WotC has been adding more functions as time has gone on(manyof which was specifically requested on this forum), and will continue to do so in the future.
No, it really doesn't, unless that LCD is the majority of your user base. This does not seem to be the case for DDI. Alienating the majority of the user base to make things better for a new user base is stupid.
How does it alienate current users? By the OP's post he seems to be complaining that the CB is simpler. How is this ever a bad thing? It's not like it's a competitive video game that should have a learning curve. It's a tool that is used for a specific task(creating a D&D character). It should be as simple as possible.
Because the hand-holding is bloody annoying. I've seen plenty of people who are irritated by how very basic and hand-holdy it feels - the role choice screen in particular, but a lot of the unnecessary extra steps in things feel like the kiddy version. Indeed, the existence of thisw thread itself demonstrates that it's alienating. Dummies is quite a pejorative term ;)
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - the dude
Your assumption of how the CB should work seems to be based on what you know. Not everyone knows what you know. So instead of deciding on some arbitrary base line determined by forum goers, perhaps assuming the user is creating a character for the first time would be better?
Virtually all uses of the CB will not be a first time player creating their first character. Virtually all uses of the CB will, in all likelihood, be an experienced player well-used to creating characters. It has a pre-existing customer base in the tens of thousands. Assuming, therefore, that it is being used for the first time risks annying those people. Who pay for it. And are, apparently, rapidly ceasing to do so, because it's crappy and annoying to use.
A tutorial, hand-holdy mode for new players is a valuable thing, but you need to be able to turn it off for everyone else.
It's like the damn paperclip in microsoft word. Could be useful for a first-time user, but a healthy majority of the programme's user base will tell it to GTFO the first time they see it. That option doesn't exist in the new CB.
Iit's particularly annoying when each option selected uses bandwidth to send data back and forth, and takes time to do the same.
Because the hand-holding is bloody annoying. I've seen plenty of people who are irritated by how very basic and hand-holdy it feels - the role choice screen in particular, but a lot of the unnecessary extra steps in things feel like the kiddy version. Indeed, the existence of thisw thread itself demonstrates that it's alienating. Dummies is quite a pejorative term ;)
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." - the dude
Your assumption of how the CB should work seems to be based on what you know. Not everyone knows what you know. So instead of deciding on some arbitrary base line determined by forum goers, perhaps assuming the user is creating a character for the first time would be better?
I can't believe I'm agreeing with thespaceinvader, but it needs a non-noob interface option.
Why?
Because it's cool when new people start playing D&D.
Virtually all uses of the CB will not be a first time player creating their first character. Virtually all uses of the CB will, in all likelihood, be an experienced player well-used to creating characters. It has a pre-existing customer base in the tens of thousands. Assuming, therefore, that it is being used for the first time risks annying those people. Who pay for it. And are, apparently, rapidly ceasing to do so, because it's crappy and annoying to use.
It doesn't annoy me. But then again, I'm not making new characters every other day. I'm sure it's fun to mess about in the CB, trying different character designs. But perhaps that's not WotC's intent for their product?
A tutorial, hand-holdy mode for new players is a valuable thing, but you need to be able to turn it off for everyone else.
I wouldn't be opposed to this.
It's like the damn paperclip in microsoft word. Could be useful for a first-time user, but a healthy majority of the programme's user base will tell it to GTFO the first time they see it. That option doesn't exist in the new CB.
I too hate the paperclip. I would kill him if I could.
Iit's particularly annoying when each option selected uses bandwidth to send data back and forth, and takes time to do the same.
Fair enough. Bandwidth is an issue for some.
Whether or not it's the intent of the builder, plenty of people do use it that way. Though, that being said, the new builder pretty much blows for CharOp purposes given the lack of a forum-postable summary feature, and the general horrific slowness and bugginess.
Yes, indeed. And the option to help them out is a good idea. But it should be an option, so that it can be switched off when you no longer need it.
Whether or not it's the intent of the builder, plenty of people do use it that way. Though, that being said, the new builder pretty much blows for CharOp purposes given the lack of a forum-postable summary feature, and the general horrific slowness and bugginess.
I suppose it could be my super-internets, or my computer-o-badassery, maybe even my choice of character design, but I am not experiencing such issues. Especially since the 1.6 update. There are things I don't like(lack of edit options for character sheets for example), but for the most part I am pleased with the new CB.
As to the intent of the builder, that brings up an interesting point. Should WotC cater to users with such functionality in mind even if that was not their original intent for the CB? In other words, do you think that would increase interest in the product? Or will the CharOp board continue to use it regardless?
Yeah, I would think that removing the remaining bugs (of which there are MANY, mostly data-entry related, missing magic items and the like) and replacing the functionality that was removed would go a long way to bringing back some of the long-term users who have been turned off from DDI by the change.
Well, I wasn't particularly asking about bugs. More specifically about adding more functions that are... CharOp-y. For example, a percentage to hit calculator or even DPR.
I have no idea on those sorts of things. They'd be handy, I guess, but I'd far prefer to see pre-existing features replaced rather than new features added.
But if the idea is to use the CB for such calculations, wouldn't such functionality be necessary? Part of your point was that the CB as current was unusable for CharOp. What features are needed for it to be usable?
In other words: I am clearly more advanced than some of the features but it doesn't alienate me.
The replacement of the Summary feature which gave a forum-postable, copy-pastable, importable summary of a character would go a long way.
I would actually like to see this as well.
Maybe alienate was the wrong word then. Irritate. Annoy. Peeve. Irk. Pick your favourite =)
I think DrNick's point is that people tend to blow things out of proportion. Perhaps it's not nearly as bad as you think it is? Expectation is the death of reason.
Maybe alienate was the wrong word then. Irritate. Annoy. Peeve. Irk. Pick your favourite =)
I think DrNick's point is that people tend to blow things out of proportion. Perhaps it's not nearly as bad as you think it is? Expectation is the death of reason.
This is pretty much the mo of these boards. You'd think I'd be used to it by now (alas, it still irks and annoys me)
The other thing to be aware of though, is that it's very easy to read extra offendedness into peoples' posts that they don't intend. Hyperbole is a tool for rhetoric, after all. Long words are fun =D
Hyperbole is one of those things that should be used in moderation or else it becomes noise because it doesn't really contain useful information. I mainly use it for comedic effect myself.
D&D players are the only people I know that get offended by having to click through an extra screen. I agree that there should be an "Advanced" mode but I refuse to let it offend me on a deeply personal level.In other words: I am clearly more advanced than some of the features but it doesn't alienate me.
D&D players may go over the top with their criticism on occasion, it is a createive game after all. But that shouldn't be used as a reason to dismiss their complaints. Having to click on too many things was one of the main complaints about Windows Vista, remember?
I wanted to see if anybody else hated multiple clicking, so I googled site usability testing and got this. From www dot thesitedoctor dot com:
"Usability" refers to the following kinds of problems:
- It is difficult for customers to find the information they need (takes too many "clicks".)
- Customers are forced to wait too long for the information they need; they become impatient or lose their train of thought
- Customers are having a hard time navigating your site; they cannot find what they need
- Customers are not able to do what you have designed the site to do.
A recent Internet study reveals why usability is so important:
"More than 83 percent of Internet users are likely to leave a website [as opposed to using search] if they feel they have to make too many clicks to find what they're looking for ... half left after just four clicks."
The new CB is suffering from 3 out of 4 of those. For me, the biggie is too many clicks, and that is part of the dumbing down. I am not personally offended, but I do find the new CB annoying.
I agree.
Which of those four do you consider the new CB NOT to be suffering from?!
I'm not sure the "...navigating your site" one really applies, because it's not a website, I guess?
On second thought, the "cannot find what they need" part of the same line item applies to some things (i.e. missing feats, items, powers, etc.). Let's say I was just hedging my bets against potential criticisms. I think my jaw hit the floor when I read that DrNick agreed. ;)
Incidentally, did the forum just cut out for about 5 minutes for anyone else, too?
Discounting bugs/math errors, about the only real issue I have with the character builder setup is the items. That just seems to be the biggest pain to add/remove/find items.
Second to that, is just finding the math behind the numbers... But if the bugs/math errors were fixed, that I could just trust them I wouldn't feel it necessary to look for those any more.
I'd also apply it to the sometimes-illogical reorganisation of the feats (the various Expertise feats aren't in the same place... why?) and the mess that is the MarketPlace [sic] too.
Incidentally, did the forum just cut out for about 5 minutes for anyone else, too?
Yes, the feat selection process is unnecessarily complicated. The marketplace is the least intuitive bit of software I've seen in a while... there's about a question a day (still!) about how do I delete my items.
I came back to D&D with the release of Essentials and walked right into the middle of this fiasco. I don't *want* anybody to lose their job over this, but I'd be pretty surprised (given all the negative feedback) if nobody did. I think I'm about ready to cancel my account.
Site was down for me for about 15 minutes. Good thing I'm reading the forums and wasn't building a character!
I think my jaw hit the floor when I read that DrNick agreed.
I'm actually a pretty reasonable guy once you get to know me.
D&D players are the only people I know that get offended by having to click through an extra screen. I agree that there should be an "Advanced" mode but I refuse to let it offend me on a deeply personal level.
In other words: I am clearly more advanced than some of the features but it doesn't alienate me.
As others have pointed out, excessive clicking is BAD. Some people can and will live with it, but it substantially slows things down, and it alienates some fraction of your potential users. It's one of the worst things you can do on a user interface beaten out only by the user not being able to figure out how to do something at all. (How do you delete an item again?)
If this strikes you as irrational then consider that the physical act of moving a hand from keyboard to mouse and back can kill nearly a second, throw in actually moving the mouse and clicking and a single extra click can slow things by a couple of seconds. Now consider how many complaints a several second delay by a peice of software can generate.
Heck, for the new character builder consider how many people seem to be pissed over a half second or so delay while it sends and recieves data after every change in the character. But in if you needed to type to find or enter the data and to click a mouse to send that data then the mouse click actually killed more time than the slow interface.
It is only the ILLUSION that you are doing something useful during the mouse click that makes most GUI users far more tollerant of extra mouse clicks than of other delays.
But if you KNOW a mouse-click is unnecessary, and you're not distracted by the pretty GUI, then you can be annoyed over BOTH delays.
It takes me far longer to make a character in the new builder than the old one. And this is both noticable and annoying. But not very annoying (yet) since I can still use the CBC at this time, but someday my laptop will die and I'll be more or less forced to "upgrade" to a slower, buggier product that appears to want to insult my intelligence.
The CB is supposed to be used by subscribers only. Presumably most of those subscribers are supposed to also buy the rulebooks or have a friend with the rulebook. A complete newbe is unlikely to be fooling with it unsupervised, and even if he is, the terminology should match the rulebooks. Unlike the extra "choose a class" page which uses terminology which doesn't match the rulebook for no very good reason.
Is it that hard to have the buttons say something like:
Striker: Your character concentrates on doing damage to a single target.
Leader: Your character concentrates on healing and on making other characters more effective.
Controller: Your character concentrates on damaging groups of opponents and on hindering opponents.
Defender: Your character concentrates on forcing foes to attack you rather than your more vulnerable allies.
Instead they give us descriptive text that deliberately avoids their own game terminology. Is it really supposed to help an newbie pick a class that you don't call the button striker when the rulebooks refer to the role as "striker".
This isn't simpler, it's just dumb.
As others have pointed out, excessive clicking is BAD.
Carpal Tunnel is a problem.
As others have pointed out, excessive clicking is BAD.
I agree that from a design perspective, extra clicking is bad. Then again, so is listing out all data and possible choices in a big giant list that everyone has to scroll through for pages and pages and pages.
My point is that it's a balance. There needs to be a way to discriminate data and that line might be different for you and somebody else. For instance, choosing a class is one of those things that's very difficult for people new to the game. For them, a little bit of guidance (ie do you want to kill things quickly or control the battlefield?) is a good thing.
Also I'll reiterate my stance since you don't seem to grasp my point: I agree that at this time, the role selection screen isn't really necessary and there should be a way around it (Maybe a check box that says "don't show this screen again" or something). My primary comlpaint has always been with the level of hyperbolic wailing and gnashing of teeth that can go on in here.
Also if you get carpal tunnel, it's not because you had to click two extra times on an app you use occassionally. It's because you don't know how to type or your chair/desk are at the wrong height.
I agree that from a design perspective, extra clicking is bad. Then again, so is listing out all data and possible choices in a big giant list that everyone has to scroll through for pages and pages and pages.
My point is that it's a balance. There needs to be a way to discriminate data and that line might be different for you and somebody else. For instance, choosing a class is one of those things that's very difficult for people new to the game. For them, a little bit of guidance (ie do you want to kill things quickly or control the battlefield?) is a good thing.
The role screen DOESN'T ask if I want to control the battlefield.
It says "Every enemy has weak spots, you specialize in finding and exploiting them".
Is that a controller or a striker?
Or "You stand back from the front lines and do your best work when you can analyse the flow and pace of combat".
Well, the stand back part sure sounds like a controller. This must be it. But this and the last one both sound like they depend on figuring something out about the enemy. If I'm a newbee I want something simple. (Which is actually a striker, Rangers are dead simple to play, but none of this is actually HELPING the new player it's supposed to benefit.)
"You stand firm in the face of any number of powerful enemies" is probably a defender, except that many defenders have their core powers as single target, and all high level D&D characters can stand firm in the face of allegedly powerful enemies, so that's more a function of level. But then controllers are the face multiple foes class, so maybe this is controller not defender.
"Someone has to lead, and you're the best person for the job." Gosh! They used the role name. That wasn't hard. But if I don't KNOW the role names I'll assume this is the guy on point and that it's a defender or scout. That this is a reference to the MEDIC won't even occure to me unless I know the D&D rulebook role definitions, in which case why don't they USE them for the other three?!
Also I'll reiterate my stance since you don't seem to grasp my point: I agree that at this time, the role selection screen isn't really necessary and there should be a way around it (Maybe a check box that says "don't show this screen again" or something). My primary comlpaint has always been with the level of hyperbolic wailing and gnashing of teeth that can go on in here.
Maybe, but the complaint about the interface is legitimate. With or without wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Once I'm past the role screen, I hit another screen where I click on a HUGE button to pick a build, and it gives me a pop-up screen which would have EASILY fit into the space occupied by the button.
Once I select that it gives me options I should choose for all my other choices.
Shame that I can't make ANY of those other choices without clicking away from that list. This isn't newbee friendly, it's just dumb.
Once I'm done with choose a class I go to the race page where it ACTUALLY lists the recommendations first, and instead of having to click oversized buttons I can scroll down and get the full list. This is actually pretty good. But at this point you've had me make about three choices, with three ENTIRELY DIFFERENT interface designs. Please don't tell me this is supposed to be friendly to new users? It's just bad design to have every page have a different interface.
I choose "human", I'm supposed to be a newbee here so I should go with the race I'm familiar with from, you know, actually being one. So I go to another page, oh look, we're back to the oversize buttons. Huge button, popup screen, two choices for human power choice. Two choices can't be fit into the space of that button?
Second huge button, big list of languages, no obvious way to tell which goes with which setting. I told it "house setting" at the start, but I've still got languages from specific setting player's guides. This list wouldn't fit in the button's space, but that's nice, because it also doesn't fit in the pop-up, so I need to click on a box big enough to hold a scroll bar to get to a scroll bar?
Next up is "details". Stuff like choosing a deity. Again there are choices from setting books I've already told it I'm not using. Why ask if you don't care? Note that if I choose a specific setting the gods and languages from the default setting still all show up. This page has a MIX of scroll menus and popup menus on the same page! With no obvious theme behind which entries get which treatment.
Most choices there's a description when you click on a choice. This doesn't apply for alignment. Do newbiees not need any guidance here because the alignment system is totally intuitive based on just the names?
Gods help a newbie who clicks on "choose a background", the pop-up is a single long list of over 400 options with effectively no description and "organization" by setting (again giving me settings I'm not in with equal precedence with the one I'm using) and then alphabetical by name with no real indication of what any of these things do.
Our hypothetical newbee then goes to the "choose abilities" page, he clicks on use a standard array. The numbers fill in, but the page stays up and the "assign abilities" box on the main list stays unchecked and the "next" box is greyed out. If he clicks "choose for me" then the check box checks. Why didn't choosing an array make the "next" option available? Would that have been too complicated?
Basically, as I go through, almost EVERY page is badly designed and needs too many clicks. And there's no real consistency of presentation.
Okay.
So... in the interest of fostering discussion, what would a redesign that wasn't stupid look like to you? (I'm not disagreeing with you here I'm just curious).
Okay.
So... in the interest of fostering discussion, what would a redesign that wasn't stupid look like to you? (I'm not disagreeing with you here I'm just curious).
Quite a lot like the original character builder, actually, only with some of the more curious flaws fixed - particularly, moving Companion and Familiar choice into a class feature choice rather than a random tab in Management, and making the search work properly. Probably others - but the original is a very usable peice of software, for the most part. It could probably use a newbie-friendly option, though, some of its workings are a little arcane (rimshot).
The first screen the first time you run it pops up and asks "Are you an advanced user or a beginner?".
If you choose beginner then it ushers you through with in program pop ups that give advice or ask questions to help you determine which choices to make and basically acts as a wizard to step you through the creation. If you choose advanced it opens up the program to allow you to click and choose what you want for your character. There would be a list of check marked filters in the free space that is not used right now. You don't want FR feats or powers uncheck it and those are filtered out. This would be on each screen so each screen could be filtered. Choices would be ordered by most used (since this data can now be compiled automatically by the database). So if you chose Dragonborn and lets say the most popular class for dragonborn is cosmic sorcerer (which we know it isn't) the first class on the list would be sorcerer followed by the second most likely choice and so on. Then for power sources it would have cosmic for the first choice. Anything with more than 20 choices would be separated into categories. Mousing over something would give its full description in a tool tip type pop-up. You mouse over a feat its full description pops up in a mouse over. White space could also be used to give a summary of descriptions for selectable items.
If I thought it would do any good I'd give a proper work up, but its way too late in the process for this...
Oh, and as for the newbies, I think the screen describing the roles is a good idea for them, and they could take the idea farther for those who want it. Have the computer ask the sorts of questions a DM might ask a first timer when making a character (Do you want to use magic? Be good with weapons? Do you want to be fast? Strong? Smart?) and have the computer recommend classes and stat spreads based on those answers. I think it could be a useful tool for newcomers. Just as long as they give us oldtimers a means to bypass it.
Okay.
So... in the interest of fostering discussion, what would a redesign that wasn't stupid look like to you? (I'm not disagreeing with you here I'm just curious).
CBC was pretty good IMAO. Even for a relative newbee. The new one COULD be better. There are flashes of good design. The list on the left of what you've done and what you need to do is better than the tabs on CBC.
That said: Fixing the new one:
Page 0:
New, Custom, and Load are poorly chosen names. Quick, Advanced, and Manage Existing Characters would be better.
If I've got characters already built replace the gallery with icons for the existing characters so I can load them directly and save a page click. You've limited me to 20 characters so you can come up with a design where 20 thumbnails will fit in the space! Use the advantage of your silly limit!
Page 0.1:
I pick custom. It now wants me to chose a setting and level. This page is fine except for the annoying part that it doesn't turn any options off if I choose a setting where they don't exist. It doesn't even prioritorize based on this information. Does it use it for ANYTHING other than to tell if themes are on?
Then later I won't be able to turn an option on if it's setting specific and I'm in a different setting.
Page 1:
The role page. Gah! It's so bad it burns! Seriously. Use role descriptions and lables that match the rulebooks. It would be nice if you could click on a check box and never see that page again. But the real problem is that the current descriptions aren't useful for ANYONE! Experienced or raw beginner.
Controller: This character controls the battlefield and hinders his enemies.
Striker: This character does lots of damage to a single target.
Leader: This character heals and assists others in the group, making everyone work better.
Defender: This character draws enemy attacks away from his friends and protects others.
Those sorts of descriptions are (a) shorter, and (b) actually useful, and (c) match the rulebook.
Also: Clicking one of the oversized icons DOESN'T select it, it highlights it and gives more details (including, FINALLY, the rulebook lable), I need to click elsewhere to actually select.
Hint: Additional details come up when I cursor over. The click IS to select.
Page 1.1:
Once I'm past the role page the class selection page is actually pretty good. No oversized buttons. The list has multiple sort options. There are descriptions. I have to click to get details rather than cursor over. But that's minor.
This is a good page. Why can't the rest be like...
Page 1.2:
Gah! My class has options! More big buttons. There are 2-4 build choices for most classes, OBVIOUSLY this needs a giant button and popup list rather than a scroll choice.
And again I click to highlight and get more information, and need a second click to confirm. Cursor over is your friend. I should NEVER need to click an icon to get info and then click a second icon still on the same page to select the icon I clicked on.
Page 2:
The race choice page is GOOD.
But then we're back to the oversized buttons. For a human I have two choices and both would easily fit into the space the button takes. Lose the oversized buttons, two scroll lists would take no more space and work better.
Backgrounds: What a gods awful mess, over 400 and the best organization WotC could come up with had more than 200 in "general". But most backgrounds are based on skills, organize them by skill. Then you scroll to the skill you're interested in, click on it, and up pops the relevant backgrounds.
Page 3:
Choose abilities: Clicking on an array should make the next box come active. You click on an array, all your abilities are filled in. Go. The current design is BEGGING for our hypothetical newbie to click on an array and then sit there staring at the screen with a greyed out next box and the main options list showing abilities still not done wondering what he's done wrong.
I need to go do some actual work. But I think my basic idea is clear.
I'll just add. The marketplace is horrible!
But the new builder ISN'T really dumbed down for newbies or the lowest common denominator. That wouldn't be bad if it were.
The OLD builder had "autobuild" as a FAR better "dumbed down for beginners" choice than anything in the new builder.
If feels dumbed down because there's lots of slow clicking through menues when an expert already knows the choice he wants. But that's not actually dumbed down, it's just slow. It doesn't help a newbee to need to click here and then also need to click there to confirm the choice and oversized buttons are only useful for a newbee if they contain information (say a description of what you're about to choose when you click it under the title).
Okay.
So... in the interest of fostering discussion, what would a redesign that wasn't stupid look like to you? (I'm not disagreeing with you here I'm just curious).
Nice post by Doug. In fact, I'll refer to his post because I'm too lazy to write an entirely new one, and I'll use his page numbering for consistency.
Page 0: The names he suggests make sense, good. Using icons of your stored PCs on the screen to quick-load one is a brilliant bit of UI design.
Page 1: There is NO reason to have this page. At all. The default assumption is that players have the books, so there is no need to explain what the roles are. They will have already read it in the books. Plus, see the next page.
Page 1.1: Good page. Make the default sort use roles, and eliminate the need for the previous page where roles were chosen.
Page 3: I have sat there wondering why the 'Next' button was grey, myself. It was usually because I hadn't clicked on which ability to boost. But yeah, when it fills in the array for me, it needs to pick which score to boost and turn the 'Next' button green.
Power selectoin page: When selecting powers for a 10th level Mage: It's click on Power slot #1, then click on the power I want, then click on the OK button. Three clicks with a 1-2 second wait after each; annoying. Return to a scrollable list like in the old builder. Let us just scroll down a list and double click on the powers we want to quick select. I never liked clicking on the item, then having to click 'Select' in the old builder either. Double-click is your friend.
The main problem I have with the marketplace is in weapon selection. Having to select superior-two-handed-melee weaons in order to get to Fullblade is an unnecessary step. Just provide an alphabetical list. Highlight the proficient weapons, or put them at the top of the list, or whatever. But don't make me have to think about whether my Waraxe is Common, Military, or Superior.
Generally, I think the reason I find it annoying is that so many of the steps feel wasted, it all bleeds together into a too-many-clicks annoyance. I find myself thinking "Why did I have to go to a second screen to select this?" more often than I would like.
I'll just chime in here and say that I, too, hate the new builder. I am new to D&D (again), having not played since 2e (save two sessions of 3.5e).
Some other usability issues that the classic CB has over the online CB:
- Proper window scaling. In the old CB, if I have a larger monitor/resolution/whatever, I can make the window bigger and see more information. The text font doesn't scale with it. I'm not sure if this is a Silverlight deficiency or just bad design. On a big monitor I should be able to see more feats/powers/whatever in a list rather than just bigger versions of the same thing. This really feels "dumbed down" to me. It reminds me of the 800x600 days.
- Using modal dialogs is a no-no. When I want to select a feat or power in the old CB, I have two panes (there are more, but not relevant to this point). One for choosing the slot, and the other for choosing the game element. Choosing these things does not put me in a modal dialog where I must choose while everything else is grayed out and non-selectable. The online CB opens a new dialog when choosing game elements (for most things). This is infuriating and generally bad design. It is not good to change the locus of the user unnecessarily. (UI design books discuss this quite often)
The feeling I get is that the new CB does not take advantage of the real estate available, and it tries to succumb to the lowest common denominator. In doing so it lost alot of the power the old CB had. Using the old CB was delightful. I could spend hours learning and experimenting with it. Using the new CB is tedious, annoying and only useful *AFTER* you decided your exact build.
(I will admit: the new CB has a faster search feature, if you know the key terms to look for)
I can sum it up as follows:
- Old CB: Great for learning, discovering or browsing for ideas.
- New CB: Useful for searching by name, but not for browsing. Better to use once your build is decided.
Like many others said in this forum, the old CB was quite good. We could learn alot on how it was designed and just improve on that...
Okay.
So... in the interest of fostering discussion, what would a redesign that wasn't stupid look like to you? (I'm not disagreeing with you here I'm just curious).
Nice post by Doug. In fact, I'll refer to his post because I'm too lazy to write an entirely new one, and I'll use his page numbering for consistency.
Page 0: The names he suggests make sense, good. Using icons of your stored PCs on the screen to quick-load one is a brilliant bit of UI design.
Page 1: There is NO reason to have this page. At all. The default assumption is that players have the books, so there is no need to explain what the roles are. They will have already read it in the books. Plus, see the next page.
Page 1.1: Good page. Make the default sort use roles, and eliminate the need for the previous page where roles were chosen.
Page 3: I have sat there wondering why the 'Next' button was grey, myself. It was usually because I hadn't clicked on which ability to boost. But yeah, when it fills in the array for me, it needs to pick which score to boost and turn the 'Next' button green.
Power selectoin page: When selecting powers for a 10th level Mage: It's click on Power slot #1, then click on the power I want, then click on the OK button. Three clicks with a 1-2 second wait after each; annoying. Return to a scrollable list like in the old builder. Let us just scroll down a list and double click on the powers we want to quick select. I never liked clicking on the item, then having to click 'Select' in the old builder either. Double-click is your friend.
The main problem I have with the marketplace is in weapon selection. Having to select superior-two-handed-melee weaons in order to get to Fullblade is an unnecessary step. Just provide an alphabetical list. Highlight the proficient weapons, or put them at the top of the list, or whatever. But don't make me have to think about whether my Waraxe is Common, Military, or Superior.
Generally, I think the reason I find it annoying is that so many of the steps feel wasted, it all bleeds together into a too-many-clicks annoyance. I find myself thinking "Why did I have to go to a second screen to select this?" more often than I would like.
I would like to see when it comes to class, and the sorting by roles, have two buttons, one to expand/collapse the category, then if you clicked or hovered over the class role name, it would pop up the description on the left, or had a pop up window come up.
Another thing when it comes to class, and I think this has mainly to deal with the Essentials classes, provide more information as to what the stats are. For example, I am making an Enchanter Mage, I know that Intelligence is my primary stat, but I have to go to the book or Compendium to find out what my secondary/tertiary stats should be (not that they really matter, but that information should be given when you click on your school/build option.
For back ground selection, filtering needs to be added. Setting, Class, Race, Skill name, HP stat, Occupation, Life events, etc.
On stats, make it like the old builder, where I can choose and array, and then tweek it to how I like.
Ramius
The default assumption is that players have the books
Given the quantity of people who cited the biggest advantage a DDI subscription provided is NOT having to buy the books; I would suggest that this is a bad assumption.
The default assumption is that players have the books
Given the quantity of people who cited the biggest advantage a DDI subscription provided is NOT having to buy the books; I would suggest that this is a bad assumption.
I agree, regardless of what the original intent was, this is what is actually happening. I personally fall into this category. I have PHB2 for sorcerer; however, I don't have the book with the cosmic source in it. I do have the OCB, CBC, and CM (CompendiuM) so I can see what they do and play those kinds of characters.
If they truly wanted the "buy the books and use DDi as a supplement" to work they would have tied in the purchase of the books to what material was available...
The default assumption is that players have the books
Given the quantity of people who cited the biggest advantage a DDI subscription provided is NOT having to buy the books; I would suggest that this is a bad assumption.
I don't think it is.
I don't think anyone is ever going to start the game with a DDI account. There are 2 ways to get into the game - be introduced by a friend - who would have explained the roles or buy the players book that defines the roles.
I would be very surprised if a DDI account was the way someone was introduced to the game without one of the above happening first.
One thing that I'm not sure we've mentioned in this thread is that the choice of role doesn't even really matter. It sorts the class list with the desired roles at the top, but it doesn't prevent the user from totally negating the choice they made on the first screen. While that might have been well-intentioned, I consider it to be really bad in terms of user interface design. Every choice a user makes should matter in a significant way. Merely sorting the list but still providing the user with options they didn't select would likely confuse someone that actually doesn't know the roles in advance.
A handfull of core books + DDI/Builder is all a new player needed, instead of saying "you need these 10 books to really make a character", it was very handy.
Now that the Character Builder is awful and I can't recomend paying of money for it, I guess new players may have to magically stumble upon a full and updated copy of the old builder, and as a group we may have to skip buying Essentials... what? Everything is Essentials now? Awesome, we all get to save $10/month AND another 20-90$ a month each on books! Thanks Wizards for giving us lots of reasons to not buy your products!
D&D players are the only people I know that get offended by having to click through an extra screen.
Then you don't know anyone who discusses, or think about, interface design much.
D&D players are the only people I know that get offended by having to click through an extra screen.
Then you don't know anyone who discusses, or think about, interface design much.
Its not just that you have to click through an extra screen, its that each click takes 1-10 seconds to propagate to the next screen. So each click through screen is that much more annoying than in other products. You also have to click several extra unnecessary times in many places so its more of an accumulated annoyance than anything else...
The default assumption is that players have the books
Given the quantity of people who cited the biggest advantage a DDI subscription provided is NOT having to buy the books; I would suggest that this is a bad assumption.
Which books? Since I have DDi I don't need to buy 27 splat books. And in fact I don't. I buy books because I want some or all of the fluff in them, or I want the rules available in an easily read end to end format. Power splat books are nearly pointless for that.
But I do still need the PHB.
Guess which of these I need to get the basic description and names of the four roles...
Guess which one I need for really BASIC familiarity with the system.
Not needing to buy power-splat books isn't the same as "has never glanced at any PHB or essencials book and isn't receiving any guidance from a DM who has read the PHB".
D&D players are the only people I know that get offended by having to click through an extra screen.
Then you don't know anyone who discusses, or think about, interface design much.
Just to clarify: Is your argument that UI people are anal retentive jerks as a broad category? I actually know a lot of UI guys that I work with and they don't slam a poorly designed menu down in a restaurant and storm out screaming about how "dumbed down" it is.
D&D players are the only people I know that get offended by having to click through an extra screen.
Then you don't know anyone who discusses, or think about, interface design much.
Just to clarify: Is your argument that UI people are anal retentive jerks as a broad category? I actually know a lot of UI guys that I work with and they don't slam a poorly designed menu down in a restaurant and storm out screaming about how "dumbed down" it is.
Then you've never been to a restaurant with a menu like this:
cover: If you feel like something hot turn to page 2, if you want something not hot turn to page 12.
Page 2: If you feel like beef turn to page 3, if you feel like chicken turn to page 5, if you feel like fish turn to page 7
Page 3: If you like steak you should order the rib-eye steak, if you like hamburger you should order the cheeseburger. Turn to page 9 to help you decide on side dishes.
Etc...Etc...
D&D players are the only people I know that get offended by having to click through an extra screen. I agree that there should be an "Advanced" mode but I refuse to let it offend me on a deeply personal level.
I think you're reading just a little too much into the statement. And no, they're not the only ones. Clicking through an extra screen pisses a lot of people off.
I manage software development shops and am a business consultant on the topic, and I can tell you from a professional level: extra clicks are bad. Very, very bad. If there were cardinal sins of software design, that's one of them.
In fact, there are quite a few in this CB. Allow me to point a few out:
* Extra traffic - round-trips should be reserved for when you actually *need* to communicate something. If all you're doing is reporting actions, do it in the background. If you're actually requesting information, the first question you should ask yourself is - "Why isn't this information already in the hands of who needs it?" If there's no good reason, then it should have been pulled down either at the same time as the app, or in the background when you saw the user heading that direction. And once down, it should stay down unless it changes so you don't have to pull it again. Worrying about someone cracking a static file is about as dumb as a bag of hammers, because if it isn't there, a sharp and determined hacker will pull it out of memory at runtime or out of the down-stream if you don't cache it.
* Extra clicks - covered above. Never use a "next" button unless you're in a wizard or tutorial screen, where it's important to give the user time to absorb whatever it is you're showing them. Having four big picture plates is not important. And never design a wizard or tutorial screen until after you've designed the "advanced" version, because that'll tell you what needs wizarding.
* Finding information should be easy. Always give at least two methods to find something, try for five if you can. Putting extra clicks into your "find" process breaks this rule. (See the "market" or shop or whatever that aberrant toilet of a chooser is, for an example of this.)
* Never take away from the user. If you've already given them something, don't take it away again. For example, this rule was followed correctly at a meta-level with the old CB - WotC didn't take it away, they just chose not to add to it any longer. At least they got that right.
* Don't use different metaphors for the same type of action. Buttons should always look like buttons, whatever their appearance is in your system, they should always appear the same. New CB breaks this rule by using different colored buttons in various places. Changing color as a visual cue is good, but different colors denoting different aspects of the application is not.
* Popups are evil, and to be avoided if at all possible. Presenting a modal popup breaks the "take away from the user" rule because it denies the person the chance to say "Wait, I was wrong, I want to unclick that thing back there...@&#$, get rid of this popup so I can go do it..." which then introduces extra clicks to accomplish something, which means the unnecessary popup commits a double sin.
* Waiting is bad, and to be avoided at all costs. The whole point of a computer is to be quicker than a pad and paper, and over the years, people have grown impatient with the computer. If your user can type "I'm angry" faster than it takes you to do something, give them an hourglass or a progress bar. Preferably something that shows motion, so they know you're not locked up. Do NOT deactivate your entire interface, because then it looks like your app is hung, and your user will try to shut you down and restart you - which will result in even more frustration.
I could go through a few more, but this I hope gets the point across. From where I sit, it's obvious that someone skilled in design (i.e., good at making things pretty, which is itself a valuable skill) decided to try their hand at software development, decided incorrectly that Silverlight wasn't a turdburger of a tool, and was just this side of reasonable at it that whoever the boss was said "Okay, you've got X weeks, do it." Unfortunately, that person f&#$ed up big-time on the software side, because of amateur errors like the ones I mention above, and those other posters have mentioned.
Looking at the product, it's obvious the designer paid attention to it being pretty...but functional? No. Again unfortunately, the developer didn't have anyone looking at it from a functional perspective.
The sad thing is, for all the **** that has been hurled at them from myself and others, the product is relatively light on bugs, which should have netted some applause. I suspect whoever developed it is feeling pretty bitter right now, because yes, that is something of an accomplishment. What makes it sad is that the predominance and visibility of these problems I've mentioned and the others eclipses what would have otherwise been a laudable effort.
In my office, the team, from the exec that ordered it ("Fix the piracy problem, now! I don't care what gets done, you have until the end of the year!") to the product manager (who should have known these rules and recognized the impact this package would have had on the paying user base), to the dev that thought his/her design skills would be enough to sell it, would be lucky to retain their paychecks.
I would hold the exec most responsible though. The incitement of reckless development to solve a loss-of-revenue problem ended up generating an additional cost that should have been easily predictable.
T
So if WOTC had been honest and forthright about the program and released it as a beta, it would have been a lot more stomachable. But they released it as a fait accompli.
All the UI design stuff is dead-on, and I admire the time you've clearly spent coming up with a rational, calm and thought-out post. Nicely done.
Let the ability score calculate client side. Seriously, there's NO reason you have to send to the server to add 1 to a stat. The point buy chart is shown and it's not even worth the effort to crack when you could just impliment it.
You only need to send it back to save, which is when they click off the ability score screen.
Seriously, it will take one person 4 hours of work at most, and will save alot of annoyance for the customers and bandwidth for WoTC. Heck, it will probably save the developers more time while debuging then it would to write it.
Something easy and quick that they can do to releave some headache.
Let the ability score calculate client side. Seriously, there's NO reason you have to send to the server to add 1 to a stat. The point buy chart is shown and it's not even worth the effort to crack when you could just impliment it.
You only need to send it back to save, which is when they click off the ability score screen.
Seriously, it will take one person 4 hours of work at most, and will save alot of annoyance for the customers and bandwidth for WoTC. Heck, it will probably save the developers more time while debuging then it would to write it.
This.
Beautifully said...I couldn't agree more.
I really do hope they listen to us and fix the lack of functionality and efficiency.
Another +1 to Thomas's post.
Beautifully said...I couldn't agree more.
I really do hope they listen to us and fix the lack of functionality and efficiency.
We had this discussion when they came out with the CBC. They didn't listen then, what makes you think they'd listen now?
Something easy and quick that they can do to releave some headache.
Let the ability score calculate client side. Seriously, there's NO reason you have to send to the server to add 1 to a stat. The point buy chart is shown and it's not even worth the effort to crack when you could just impliment it.
You only need to send it back to save, which is when they click off the ability score screen.
Seriously, it will take one person 4 hours of work at most, and will save alot of annoyance for the customers and bandwidth for WoTC. Heck, it will probably save the developers more time while debuging then it would to write it.
I don't think it is that easy. The OCB is based on the CBC design, in fact, it is mostly the same. From what I know about it, the rules engine sits on their server side. It would require a redesign.
In simple terms, they took the old CB, gave it a facelift with silverlight and made it work with a ruleset that they keep on their servers. (probably the very same ruleset that they had with the old CB). The old CB did not have to worry about how fast it could access the ruleset, as it was local.
It might be what they did but it's bad design all around. Even with the rules engine in local memory it's not great design. The old CB can get away with it because it's not doing anything complex (like calling these routines five thousand times per character or something).
More like 40K times per day or approx. 1.44 times per second (16 active hours in a day * 60 minutes * 60 seconds / 40k members). This assumes everyone clicks on average once a day in the CB...
To a point, the Character Builder does that.
Unfortunately a lot is left out and i understand there are actual errors in it.
For someone who is trying to run D&D Encounters, it is sorely lacking in feats and skills.
I know they want people to buy their books, but to have just about every special ability or attack missing from the Encounters Builder - and have the Encounters Builder as a prerequisite to play -
kind of encourages new players to stop going.
New players compare their "whitebread" generated characters to the "uber" ones allowed with the Encounters books and they just give up.
It might be what they did but it's bad design all around. Even with the rules engine in local memory it's not great design. The old CB can get away with it because it's not doing anything complex (like calling these routines five thousand times per character or something).
In fact, I think alot of the complaints about the CBC being slow is based upon this. The entire XML file is read in memory on startup, plus everything else. People with computers that did not have alot of RAMavailable could get pretty slow as Windows pages out to disk.
Now, we get get latency, and all the headaches that go with it. Local LAN, ISP, Regional providers, Nation Providers, routing, etc. It is not just your computer anymore when something is not quite right.
One of the reasons that it is a bad idea. Wait for the first time there is a major network outage or there is a spat where IP addresses are blocked or slowed down at no fault to the customer.....
I think they should have outsourced the whole online content development completely. Wizards always specialized in physical products. They have absolutely no experience in designing and delivering online services, and it shows. Wizards should have stuck to producing D&D game content, and let someone experienced handle the OCB and VT and such.
Every time they outsource something it ussualy all goes to hell too.
The "old" Character Builder I think has been the only electronic dohickey Wizards has ever done that was really good and popular that I can think of. Can't say I know for sure if it was started in- or out- of house though.
That being said, I agree that outsourcing would be by far the best choice. Even within this very community, I'd be willing to bet that a better tool could be designed within far less time , and in a manner sensitive to WOTC's intellectual property concerns. For free. Find a way to let the open source community at it (and open source architecture with closed-source content can work), and you'd get something even better.
But on the balance of evidence, I don't see any chance whatsoever of either of those happening good choice or otherwise.
Yeah, there would have been outcry if they'd tried to outsource, because apparently (it was before my time) a previous attempt at outsourcing the same tools for 3.5 screwed up HUGELY. Once bitten, twice shy.
That being said, I agree that outsourcing would be by far the best choice. Even within this very community, I'd be willing to bet that a better tool could be designed within far less time , and in a manner sensitive to WOTC's intellectual property concerns. For free. Find a way to let the open source community at it (and open source architecture with closed-source content can work), and you'd get something even better.
But on the balance of evidence, I don't see any chance whatsoever of either of those happening good choice or otherwise.
I know, I'd love to work on something like this. I'd even do it for free. As a software developer myself I cold be using the software spot a bug, go right in and see the variables and source code and fix it right away (or propose a fix anyway).
It makes more business sense to cater to the lowest common denominator. You are capable of using this current character builder. So can "pre-teen kids who are just getting into D&D".
Huh? Are there actually pre-teen kids who are still getting to p&p RPGs? I wasn't aware of that.
I think they should have outsourced the whole online content development completely. Wizards always specialized in physical products. They have absolutely no experience in designing and delivering online services, and it shows. Wizards should have stuck to producing D&D game content, and let someone experienced handle the OCB and VT and such.Every time they outsource something it ussualy all goes to hell too.
The "old" Character Builder I think has been the only electronic dohickey Wizards has ever done that was really good and popular that I can think of. Can't say I know for sure if it was started in- or out- of house though.
That is becuase you have to outsource it to an experienced company that can actually do the job. Lowest bidder and all that...
And yes, the old CB was the best product they have ever had.
I think that was outsourced... there was also another supposedly coming out for 2nd edition that got axed epicly much like the original stuff that was supposed to launch with 4e.
Anyways, yes, oCB is the best electronic product from D&D ever. And of course they delberatley axed it.
There was a pretty good builder for second edition, though it had two flaws, one being it was a bit excessive in graphics and "style". Second is it came out about the time when Spells & Powers crazyness was out and so was kinda obsolete as soon as it was out.
I think that was outsourced... there was also another supposedly coming out for 2nd edition that got axed epicly much like the original stuff that was supposed to launch with 4e.
Anyways, yes, oCB is the best electronic product from D&D ever. And of course they delberatley axed it.
Just a note: OCB has been used to denote the Online Character Builder and CBC has been used to denote the Character Builder Classic. To keep confusion down...
Why?
Iit's particularly annoying when each option selected uses bandwidth to send data back and forth, and takes time to do the same.
My biggest problem with it that it takes 20-40 tries to even get it running! PLEASE let me downlaod it!
[EDIT]
I have been trying to access CB for 45 minutes now. I have yet to actually get into the program, so I could not agree or disagree with the comments being made. Forget it. Going back to the unsupported desktop model that actually works for me. Since CB is the only reason I have DDI, looks like auto renew is off now.
I know this has been said before...but the online CB insults my intelligence. I feel like I'm playing a game designed for an 8 year-old. The entire approach to the online CB's design is terrible for gamers who want:
- An efficient way to browse information (especially items)
- The ability to compare multiple game elements quickly
- An efficient way to make characters without being forced to follow their "ABC" steps.
- To make use of large monitors/resolution -- the CB won't show you more information.
What audience is Wizards trying to target here? Pre-teen kids who are just getting into D&D?
Is it too much to ask for a "usable" version that is actually useful to those of us with the experience and knowledge of the game?
Frankly, to me, its a worthless tool in its current state. I can live with bugs. I can even live without certain features. I just can't live with being put into a room of tools designed for people with under average intelligence. There needs to be an expert mode with real UI functionality. D&D is for smart people -- so why aren't the tools?
I'm sorry if I've offended anyone -- except for the person(s) behind the UI design. I want them to know its incredibly poor for players with any experience in the game.
Thanks for listening.