Bay 12 Games Forum

I may be wrong, but I assume most of the interface was implemented in order of development. As new features were added, access to said features were amended to the existing interface with no regard for 're-design'.
That is not a bad thing.
I think that is a perfectly reasonable process for an alpha release, or any in-development product. It is better to wait until you have all the sub-features determined before spending the time and energy to design how they are presented in the main feature. Take the action menu, it seems kinda obvious that as features were added, they were just tossed into the menu with little regard for design. That makes sense, though, rather than adding a feature, spending days redesigning the menu, then adding a new feature only to spend another several days re-re-designing the menu. Or as new methods for control are implemented, there is no reason to waste the time going back to make all controls consistent- might as well wait until the design requirements are finalized.
But that doesn't mean the interface is good right now. And that doesn't mean interface design should be held off until 'the last minute'... it just means that, while I may criticize the interface, I do not necessarily believe development should be frozen for interface improvements at this time...
Perhaps I'll build a usability test for DF...
Grab some varying level experience users...
mod guide could include tasks including
 installing the game,
running the game,
generating a world,
finding a site with specified features,
setting up a specified embark kit,
getting started and building a basic fort, using specified designs...
hmmm

The lack of dedicated servers was another issue,

Whelp, I didn't even know that was the case. It explains a lot, though.

Quote from: Jiri Petru on May 10, 2010, 05:43:17 pm

Since there seems to be quite a few people interested in the interface, let me use this post to invite you to a topic I created months ago in the suggestion forum: Total Interface Overhaul. It was meant as a repository of constructive ideas and graphical proposals for Toady to choose from. It's been going quite slowly (and I myself am mostly ignoring it), but there have fortunately been contributors who kept it alive (most notably Zwei). So if you're interested in interface and like to come up with solutions, we could use you 

NOTE: That topic should if possible remain practical, so let's keep all arguing here. That being said...

---------------------------

It's hard for me to believe someone could actually like the current interface. A part of me want to say you'd have to either (a) not understand what an interface is, or (b) never have seen a good interface. No insult meant, It's just hard for me to grasp.

A good example is the main menu:


It's basically just a mess, a confusing wall-of-text. A good interface would in the least visually differentiate between the most important (often used) features and the minor ones. There's nothing like it in DF. No visual distinction, not even any semblance of order. The features are listed alphabetically by the keyboard shortcut, for Christ's sake! I can hardly imagine anything more useless. The menu is unusable - you have to memorise it and then hide it, you can't orientate yourself by it.

A functional DF main menu would at least:
- Group features according to frequency of use and function. Eg: (1) Buildings, Designations, Stockpiles, Zones; (2) View unit, View items in building, Use buildings, (3) Military, Squads, Routes, Burrows, etc.
- Break the wall of text! Differentiate between the functional groups using font size, colour, blank spaces. Distribute them along the whole screen. Anything...
- Reduce the visual clutter! Hide the more obscure functions in submenus. Artifacts and civilisations could go into Stocks menu. (why are they here in the first place, when things like animals or kitchen - which you use more often - are hidden?) Nobles could hide under units, or whatever. Depot acces should be accesible wrom the depot building screen, no need to have it here. Options could easily fit into the (Esc) menu, like in every other game.
- etc. etc.

There are just examples I made up while writing this post! The current interface is completely illogical, there seems to be next to no thought put into its ergonomy or whatever. I really, really can't believe you like it more than for example my half-assed proposal here.

(Also, please note the lack of any mouse support or graphics stuff in this post.)

---

ALSO, before a misunderstanding, because I expect reactions along these lines: you can hide a Tooltip in a submenu and still have a shortcut for it. You can hide the text "(l) artifacts" in the stocks menu and still have the shortcut (l) functional in the main game. Most software works like this, just look for example at your browser. Is there a visual clutter? No. Is there a visual distinction of more and less important controls? Yes.

What? I can read it just fine. Perfectly usable, and even when I was starting out it was fine.

You can read it, yea, but not as well as if it was better organized.
Suppose you had to designate every single tile one at a time that you wanted to be mined out, would you like that? Would you say "whats wrong with it? I can do it, its perfectly usable, and even when I was starting out it was fine!" Sure, thats all true but that still doesn't make it reasonable.

I find many people here seem to think that criticizing an interface element is akin to criticizing a gameplay element. They are not the same. It is OK to admit something could be done better. Thats why so many people use Dwarf Therapist, for example. It presents a much better method of completing in-game actions. Do you not agree that therapist is a nice utility to use? Well news flash! Therapist is the result of a poor DF interface! It makes doing things easier and better. Same goes for any of the designation macro apps.
Did the introduction of a zoomable interface ruin DF? Newsflash: thats a usability enhancement!
Did the introduction of an on-the-fly re-sizable screen ruin the game? Newsflash! interface enhancement!

Quote

Right off the bat it seems you have a misunderstanding of what the 'user interface' is.
Keyboard shortcuts are completely irrelevant to the UI. They are related to the user experience, but not the UI.

You have an odd definition of UI.  I'm guessing you are using the term in a way that is particular to the vocab surrounding your field of expertise.  For most of us, UI describes the entire IO layer between the application and the user, not just the presentation (or output) sub-layer.  (For me in particular, it also includes the hardware devices involved, such as mouse vs touchscreen, but that way of thinking is probably unique to me.)

I'll admit fault here. I made a mistake of assuming the discussion would be geared around the use of graphics/ascii, so I focused on the argument of a GUI change, but referred to it only as the UI. I was wrong to do so and really, quite honestly have no valid excuse for doing so... (there goes all my credibility, huh?)

Hi!

Goron: Mmmmhhhh, I am not quite sure whether we should fight it out over terminology as long as the idea that is meant to be conveyed gets conveyed.[...snip...]

I apologize. As explained above I have no real excuse for assuming you'd be referring to graphics. I've rarely heard of someone being anti-mouse support so I lumped you in with the wrong crowd. You cited a 'non-academic source' but I have an excellent 'academic source' book next to me right now that says (basically) the same. So long story short: you are right.

That said....

You mention that there seems to be no one wishing to go against the keyboard controls, and at least that seems not completely true: I recall seeing time and again people mentioning going completely mouse controlled, so there are at least some people who wish to suggest that change - whether they are a large or small group, I can not say.

If you could provide me a link to a post or a quote of someone indicating they would like the game to purposefully lose keyboard support, I will be amazed. I have seen many many people ask for, demand, and beg for full mouse control, but I do not ever recall someone asking for keyboard support to be removed from the game. This is why I was confused over your interpretation of interface changes. The only possible meaning of your reference to interface was the graphical aspect, because thats the only aspect I've ever heard argued before... I've never really heard of someone desiring a change to the keyboard part.

Your point about self-deception is quite interesting, but effectively not what we are talking about. You see, I never asked "Is the user interface objectively good?". I merely asked about people's opinions and feelings. If you perceive it to be good, that is what I want to hear and not some analysis why you should actually consider it not good, despite your personal feelings.

I am really not sure how to respond. You are pretty much advocating that "as long as the user knows no better alternative, it is good". I mean, I really have no clue how to respond. There is no argument with your statement. But there are things morally wrong with it... I attribute it to taking advantage of a drunk chick. She may be saying 'yes' but she is also calling you by some other guy's name- so does that make it right to continue with her? Or social engineering: if you perceive it to be a good idea to give out your financial info and willing do so to some criminal it is not ok, even though you perceived it as a good idea.

I akin this thread to asking "who likes breathing air?" The answer is obvious. When you have no alternative or (in this case) you willfully ignore and prevent the surfacing of alternatives: the only possible choice is... well, the only choice. No one can 'dislike' breathing oxygen until someone presents a possible (better) alternative that makes people aware of how inefficient or bad the existing system is. So to willfully ignore the interface alternatives is honestly just silly.

Interesting topic.
I will start by indicating I am one of the people that state "how horrible it is." I will further my position by indicating I am a Usability Engineer. Every day I work to make software more user friendly. That is my job. Believe me or not, I am very good at it and usually know what I am talking about.

I will start by addressing the OP in detail:

I am wondering and asking whether there are other people who actually like the user interface the way it is right now (with maybe only slight improvements like Escape vs. Space vs. F9)

Right off the bat it seems you have a misunderstanding of what the 'user interface' is.
Keyboard shortcuts are completely irrelevant to the UI. They are related to the user experience, but not the UI.

This strikes me as kind of odd as I find the interface very efficient and very clean and helpful most of the time.

This is a purely subjective opinion. I will refer back to this statement momentarily.

1. No clicking on the wrong pixel: There is no danger of being just one pixel off when clicking with the mouse. You can easily mark what you want to mark.

This is not a UI issue. This is a mouse vs keystroke issue, or more precisely an accessibility issue. Software can accommodate both mouse and keyboard control, and more often than not, does. Take Notepad, for example: Suppose I want to 'save' my document. I can mouse over the 'File' menu, click, then mouse down to 'save' and click. OR I can use the keyboard and press 'Alt-F' (or just alt then down), press the 'down arrow' two times, then press the 'Enter' key.  Using the former method, I may mis-click on the wrong pixel and accidentally activate 'Open'. But while using the keyboard 'there is no danger of being just one pixel off...'
There is even a third option, I can press "Ctrl-S" and save in one simple action. Each method is deliberately designed. The Ctrl-S shortcut is the 'easiest' and 'most efficient' but not friendly to beginners who may not be aware of the shortcut. Most computer users are unfamiliar with even the most basic standard keyboard commands. One solution to get around that issue is to put the keyboard commands on the interface. Notepad actually does this within the file menu (it displays Ctrl-S as the save shortcut) BUT it does not do so on the main interface. It does NOT display "File: Alt-f | Edit: Alt-e | Format: Alt-o" etc. The reason: clutter. It removes from the 'very efficient and very clean' interface. In fact, most software products don't even display the accelerator key anymore (the underline displayed under the Alt shortcut key) until the Alt key is pressed. This is because in the end such things turn out to be clutter and misleading to *most* users. Experienced users, on the other hand, know how to make such hints appear (hold Alt, for example) and thus do not need the accelerator to be displayed at all times.
So while your initial issue with keyboard vs mouse was NOT a UI issue, it touches on UI problems- which happen to relate to your initial statement of the interface being "very efficient and very clean and helpful". Keyboard commands and shortcuts must be prominently displayed on the interface in order to assist users in finding them since there is no other suitable alternative to execute commands. That is 'helpful' but NOT 'very efficient' or 'very clean'. The help text does not contribute to the interface or the application in anyway, its only purpose is to help you in accessing functions. While important, needing help is generally BAD because it means something was not immediately apparent or obvious and presents an initially bad user experience.

2. Fast commands: You can quickly access the commands/command menus you want as a single keypress gets you there.

Again, not a UI issue. Thats a keyboard vs mouse issue. And again I will refer to Notepad: I can quickly access commands and menus with a single keypress, but if I do not know the keystroke necessary I can still do so with a single click and am not burdened with excessive screenspace dedicated to explaining how to execute the most basic of actions.

3. Easy overview: The command info you have (the middle section of the screen in the default situation) gives you a reminder of all the keys you need to know.

This is your first (and only) actual reference to the UI. It is also very misguided...
Which is better:
1) Having all commands easily accessible in a way that you instantly know how to execute them without need for reference; or
2) Having a reference on how to execute commands instantly available so that you can easily find out how to do what you want
?
Yes, having the reference is better than not, but that is simply a bandaid for the poor accessibility to commands. Why not fix the command access and make the reference unnecessary? All too often I find users appreciating the crutches given to them rather than deploring the fact that they are hindered in the first place.

Personally, I am very happy with the current interface and would miss it dearly if it got removed.

You are happy with the key-driven experience. Not the interface. To the best of my knowledge no one is pushing for that to be changed. I know some people may desire the specific shortcuts to be changed to a more intuitive and up-to-date layout; or perhaps remove the specific key references on the actual interface to allow for less confusing customization- but no one wants them removed.

So, are there others who feel the same, or how do you see this?

Experienced users will benefit least from any changes made to the interface. Even those that do not like the existing interface will, temporarily, suffer from any changes. But, while you may be used to the interface as it is now, and you may even 'like it', I can guarantee you that with properly thought out design changes, you will benefit mightily in the long run from an interface update.
As a general rule, experienced users will subjectively rate software better on all counts than new users. I've also witnessed users struggle immensely with aspects of a UI only to immediately after declare "Oh yeah, I liked it a lot; I wouldn't change anything" when asked about it. The biggest point I ever try to push on our developers when they rely too much on subjective opinions is that users lie.(EDIT: let me clarify, they do not lie to be deceitful, or even on purpose, they are lying to themselves as well; they subconsciously do not realize the actual problems they encountered and effectively mentally block them out/edit) You can not only rely on perception or opinion as a designer, you must also incorporate how people actually use the software in your decisions. I have plenty of clips of real customers experiencing immense trouble completing a task only to claim it went well right afterwards.

I started up a game of 40d Dig Deeper.
Semi-randomly (didn't use finder) found myself a nice embark on a forked river which turned out to be really sweet.
Decided to build a half-above half-below fortress/castle against the river. Things went pretty well to start, well, that is except for my expedition leader/bookkeeper/miner falling into the river after a small cave in... and my axedwarf/wood cutter fell into the river while chasing geese... But, I mean, other than that things were going well and got better when I got a huge immigration wave taking me from 5 to 27 dwarves in one pop.

Everyone got integrated into my fort quickly and well. Things were really working out when my first orc siege showed up. I had a small military of four legendary wrestlers that only just got equipped with steel axes and steel chainmail moments before, but no trained archers other than a hunter and no siege engines or engineers up and running. So I shut myself in.
I don't like playing with traps or deathworks much, since it makes the game entirely too easy. So I initiated a plan to get a siege engine in place to fire on the orcs. I would open and close a bridge to lure the orcs closer, and ultimately into the line of fire of my newly built catapult range (minus the actual catapult, at that point... but it was coming). Making the range was a rush too, since I had to breach a sheer dirt wall and quickly build a stone wall in its place which could then be carved into fortifications.

But as things always seem to when I try to be smart, something went wrong. In order to lure the orcs into a safe position that I could fire on, I had to open/close my sally gate. The sally gate happened to be located right next to the lever room and was pretty much next to the heart of my fort. Naturally during one of my lever pull orders a dwarf on the other side of the known universe was selected for the job. So while he slowly meandered his way towards the lever to close the frighteningly wide open gate, the orcs happily rushed towards my fort. Realizing that they were close enough that even should the lever be pulled, they'd probably access my fort I went into panic mode and started ordering walls to block access to other parts of my fort... Unfortunately, as I pointed out before the sally gate was essentially connected to the heart of my fort, which made for sealing the area off near impossible.
In the orcs came, killing my feeble military with ease and slaughtering my civilians with joy. In the hectic commotion the lever DID get pulled, which ultimately cut off escape from the rampaging orcs, now sealed in my fort.
After much death and destruction I was able to get several (read: 4) dwarves to the surface where they walled off the two 'down' access points.

The surface had a small wood stockpile, two larger stone stockpiles, several workshops, but no other supplies. All the food, tools, weapons, armor, etc. were down below, being sampled by the orcs. The 4 dwarves had access to drinking water and fishable pools, though. After a while, the orcs decided my fort wasn't all that great and called off the siege... but were still sealed in. I came up with a plan to breach one of my down access points and quickly seal off the room it accessed. That room contained two dead bodies (an orc and one of my military) with metal on their corpses. I would then melt down the metal and make a pick. With the pick I'd dig a tunnel from the river and flood my fortress. Teach those fucking orcs whose boss. It was a great plan.

Except... as soon as I breached the down stair, my dwarves bum rushed the supply stockpile for food... despite the fact the orcs were standing on it. This led to a ridiculously long period of my four dwarves trying to get to the food or beds (despite it all being forbidden) but just getting interrupted and scared back by the orcs, only to repeat the process a moment later. The orcs, for some reason, were content watching my dwarves run back and forth like idiots and didn't engage them (I guess they were just trying to path out of the fortress, since the siege was over). Finally, after a heck of long time one of the dwarves managed to grab a bite to eat of some forbidden food, which gave him the will power to actually build the wall I wanted them to long before. At some point in the process two of the 4 dwarves got themselves killed and the other was ultimately walled in with the orcs.

So I was left with one 'safe' Dwarf. He then had access to the farm plot which awesomely had plants growing, which he was able to eat and the bodies with metal on them. He managed to melt down some steel and finally got a bar which he was able to make a pick out of.

Then I left to see the midnight showing of Iron Man 2.

So now, when I get home tonight, I will task my lone surviving dwarf (his buddy inside starved to death) with digging a water tunnel into my fort to drown the orcs. Then it will be a simple mater of building a pump or two to de-flood the fort (thank god I door off my rooms and stairwells... only a few are propped open) and start burials.
I hope this guy doesn't mind being alone for a bit...

I tried coke once, but the vermin kept getting stuck in my nose.

Har har har
I thank you for a humorous start to my day.