Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gtmattz]

About the only complaint I have is the lack of consistency on certain things and methods of doing stuff...  I would go into more detail but most of the things have already been mentioned.

[Retro]

About the only complaint I have is the lack of consistency on certain things and methods of doing stuff...  I would go into more detail but most of the things have already been mentioned.

Ditto. Sometimes I forget which key I need to hit to do the same thing in a different window, but aside from that I'm actually very fond of the interface

[Goron]

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.

[Sizik]

The main problem it has is being terribly inconsistent (at times requiring up/down to pick options, other times +/-, etc)

Actually, it's quite consistent. Whenever you're able to move the cursor, you use +/- to scroll.

The worst problem for me is how almost every single list in the game requires you to scroll through each entry individually. I loathe getting caravans after a few years because it can take ten minutes to scroll through all the junk. Give me a collapsible list, or at least a freaking page up/page down key so I can scroll quickly. This also applies to the stocks screen as well.

All of a sudden I get the funny feeling that there are page up and page down keys in the trade screen, but I've not found them after more than a year of playing....

Every time you can scroll through a list, you can use page up/down keys. (Page up/down for arrow keys/numpad, */ for +-)

[EvilCartyen]

I quite like the interface. It's functional. I also prefer all-keyboard commands - no need for a mouse for me, since the keyboard is much quicker anyway. If I wanted simplicity, I'd go play a console

I'm not saying it's perfect, but so far I think it's fine, and serves the purpose.

[lordnincompoop]

I used to dislike it, but now I can't do without it. barely even look at the menus now.

But man, the new Military menus are terrible!

[Goron]

I used to dislike it, but now I can't do without it. barely even look at the menus now.

But man, the new Military menus are terrible!

But in three months you will be saying "I used to dislike it, but now I can't do without it. barely even look at the menus now." about the military menus. It is not that the other displays magically got better over time, its just that you got used to them and learned the 'expert' shortcuts. The same will happen with the military interface over time.

[DalGren]

The main problem it has is being terribly inconsistent (at times requiring up/down to pick options, other times +/-, etc)

Actually, it's quite consistent. Whenever you're able to move the cursor, you use +/- to scroll.

That's not the point, this is not vim, it's a game, it should be either all +/- or all up/down.

[The_Fool76]

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.)

Semantics aside, I am a big fan of  being able to control the game entirely through the keyboard but I also agree that the inconsistencies are aggravating.  The main problem with the way the menu system is setup in that regard is that it is that the keys are menu-specific rather than object/task specific.   (Making the task of actually rebinding keys to be more consistent, more than a little daunting.)

The only other consistent complaint I have is that I'd like more ways to navigate long lists.  A search option would be quite appreciated on things like the trade screen.   Also the ability to select-all from the trade screen (all-except-containers would be ideal)

Visually, I prefer tile sets mostly for the greater speed at which I can identify elements on the screen.  That said, replacing all the menus with graphics would be a step back there, as the words are clearer than icons would be for the menus.  (What kind of icon would you use for 'designate?')   A combination of graphics and text would probably be ideal. (Show the icons for things that have visual elements on the map. A chair icon on the build menu next to the chair entry for example.) 

[Jiri Petru]

First, I wanted to say the interface is horrible, since there's clearly something wrong with Dwarf Fortress that makes it impossible for some people to play (and I don't think it's graphics). But thinking about it... no, the interface might actually be quite good for a text-only game. The thing that's horrible are some interface related design decisions that make the game needlessly complicated.

Like having three or how many modes to click on a thing (k-q-v). Or the difference between buildings, designations, rooms and zones - this one is pretty nonsensical, because eg. the hospital is a zone, barracks are designated from furniture, and workshops are a building. This is IMHO the biggest hurdle for novice players to grasp, they should all really be in the same menu. Furniture is in the same menu as buildings, which seems like a nonsense. And other things, like baroque stockpile settings - bags and boxes are the same thing? Dye is a food? Weeell... The "farming related" labour menu is a mess, too (wood burning? lye making?), but at least Toady made it a bit more useful than in 40d.

There's way too many things like these that make the game cluttered and complicated. I think Toady's problem is that he tries to represent things in the interface along the same logic they use internally - but doing this not only doesn't help, it confuses the hell out of me. I don't care if hospital works similarly like a fishing zone in the code, I want it in the same menu as barracks, bedrooms and dining rooms. And the fishing zone could easily fit in the same menu as tree cutting zones or farming zones, even if they work differently.

And that's the other thing? Why the hell do they work differently? Why does the hospital use different system than barracks or bedrooms, when they could very easily use the same? (Meaning the hospital one).

And why is the main menu so cluttered? Why aren't more important features (Build, Stocks) visually separated from the less often used ones (artifact screen)? Why is there no semblance of order in the stocks screen or building menu? (The things are clearly listed in the order they were added to the game) Why...

...oh, what the hell. The interface IS terrible.

[Deathworks]

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.

I have no valid reference for my habit of using this, so for quick reference, I am quoting the wikipedia (I know, it is not an academic source):

In computer science and human-computer interaction, the user interface (of a computer program) refers to the graphical, textual and auditory information the program presents to the user, and the control sequences (such as keystrokes with the computer keyboard, movements of the computer mouse, and selections with the touchscreen) the user employs to control the program.

At least whoever wrote that article seems to agree with me that the way the user influences the program is also part of the user interface - so I can at least claim that my usage is shared by others.

But as I said, I don't think we should get hung up on terminology as long as the communication works (that is, you understand what I am trying to say and I understand what you are trying to say).

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.

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.

And I think the impact is a bit smaller in this case as I think it is probable that players play and enjoy other games as well. So, they are not stranded with just one way of doing things and can compare two or more favorable experiences with each other and have wishful thinking about them.

General: I think I will be forgiven for not replying to everything that has been said (this thread has grown quite speedily). I just want to re-iterate that I find the comments quite interesting (and there are a few I need to read thoroughly as I felt the need to respond the comment on my opening post as quickly as possible).

I agree with those pointing out the inconsistency between some of the associated keys, although it is more with statues, chests, and coffins that I notice them (^_^;;

So, please do continue to share your thoughts in a friendly spirit.

Deathworks

[Jiri Petru]

Just read Goron, and he's right. Most of you guys seem to be mistaking the interface with the keyboard vs. mouse issue. Keyboard is a completely separate thing - nobody wants to take shortcuts away, you will always be able to control the game using keyboard only, even if it gets "better interface" or "mouse control".

The interface issue is mostly the presentation - what do you see on the screen? How are the information conveyed? Does the screen guide you, or confuse you? Etc. etc.

I feel most of you say "I like the interface" but actually want to say "I like controlling the game by keyboard". Separate issues.

---

EDIT: And "complete mouse control" means "I want to play the game without having to use keyboard, but I don't care if the keyboard controls stay". The game can easily be "completely mouse controlled" AND "completely keyboard controlled" at the same time.

[Goron]

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.

[Deathworks]

Hi!

Goron: I am relieved that there was actually a misunderstanding involved. Having different terms is still inconvenient, even if manageable.

Personally, I think that your willingness to inform us about the misunderstanding and correct that actually strengthens your credibility. Theoretically, you could have kept quiet about it, and no one could have really proven otherwise.

I have to admit that I am also talking more on impressions, so my seeing people actually wanting to remove the keyboard controls completely is probably a case of paranoid hallucination.

This brings me directly to the thing about the self-deception: As I said in the paragraph after the one you quoted, I think the self-deception is a bit less of a factor there, because people have comparable experiences. I have been playing most versions of SimCity, various Real Time Strategy games, strategy games, action games (to a lesser extent), so I have seen mouse control in action as well as combined controls (requiring usage of both mouse and keyboard), and for me personally, keyboard by itself works out best (if given the option, I prefer it, unless the game is designed in a fashion that makes it impossible to use it by itself).

I am kind of a slow and clumsy type, so I am prone to glitching when using the mouse (or a joystick), so for action games, I prefer to go with game pads or keyboard controls in general.

(There are also probably other factors that make me look quite favorably on the user interface...)

And I do believe that most people here are enough gamers to be able to imagine the alternative. As in "What if Dwarf Fortress had the same controls as game XXX?"

Well, but that is just my gut feeling about that.

Anyhow, I hope we can continue this thread and have people talk about any aspects of the user interface - those they like, and those they want to see improved/changed so that this thread can maybe have some kind of benefit for the reader besides satisfying my curiosity about the original question.

Deathworks

[Exponent]

A)  I throw my complete (and completely insignificant) support behind what Goron is saying.

B)  A very specific aspect of the interface that I just thought of was the fact that there is rarely, if ever, a situation where there are different components on the screen that are able to receive focus individually (like text boxes, scrollable lists, buttons, et cetera).  Which means that just about everywhere in the game, the entire screen itself is one giant indivisible receptacle of user input.  This is likely a major reason for all of the difficulties of updating the UI.  It is why there can't be one consistent means of scrolling a large area, viewing and selecting items from list, navigating in 2 (or 3) dimensions, easily having perfectly consistent shortcuts for tasks, and so on.  Various screens do have multiple visual components that are sometimes largely independent.  But despite the output being divisible, the input remains a tangled mess.  Every single screen has to be designed as a whole, and can't be broken down into easier to understand parts.

Full mouse support would somewhat alleviate this problem, since mouse location as a bit of an inherent separation effect.  (Clicking and dragging in the main view obviously only applies to the main view, but it isn't immediately clear what a pressed arrow key applies to.)  Even better, a move to a typical GUI library with controls and windows and whatnot would immediately reduce this problem significantly.  Along with providing numerous other avenues for improvement (separation of text and graphics, flexible resizing, et cetera).  I also firmly believe that it would ultimately make it easier to adjust the user interface when gameplay changes or features are added, in contrast to the common concern that it would make it more difficult (which I believe Tarn also holds).  As always, learning curve and a rewrite of all the interface would initially cost a lot of time and effort, so there are trade-off calculations to be made, but my calculations would unsurprisingly be strongly in favor of taking this step.