Server Based multiple mix/manu change needed

[Raz]

The only time I can think of where this would be inconvenient is in making very valuable items. But then, these are exceptional, and I'd be quite happy to bag some ingredients to prevent over production. The exception shouldn't dictate the design.

 

You may also wish to make only one when mixing on a spawn (eg mana pots/sr).

 

You have the ings for 30 on you but only need to make 1 or 2 at a time.

 

A make 1 / make all would avoid this - or even a checkbox of make all - which is selected by default.

[Placid]

I agree with Piper -- use the current client with default unlimited mixing.

 

The only time I can think of where this would be inconvenient is in making very valuable items. But then, these are exceptional, and I'd be quite happy to bag some ingredients to prevent over production. The exception shouldn't dictate the design.

 

When adding more widgets, keep an eye on the state model; we currently have a guarenteed N-clicks to mix N-items, and the goal is to reduce this. So far, apart from the (mix) (mix all) button pair, all others designs increase the number of interactions for small quantities.

Both you and Piper have made valid points. If we could just have a 'Mix All' check box and if unchecked it would mix singularly then I think the job could be regarded as done. The simpler the interface the easier it is to use.

[bluap]

When adding more widgets, keep an eye on the state model; we currently have a guarenteed N-clicks to mix N-items, and the goal is to reduce this. So far, apart from the (mix) (mix all) button pair, all others designs increase the number of interactions for small quantities.

The last version at least reached a consensus, everyone hated it

 

It was the best version though obviously too radical. It does as trollson and others want, one click for single or many mix. It does as others wanted, allow you so set your quantity then repeatedly multi mix with 1 click. It did as I wanted, allow a target quantity to be reached over many stop/starts. Ho hum.

 

So, I'm not doing to try again. If you want one of the versions I have tried, fine, let me know. Otherwise someone else can give it a go. IMHO, the inventory like quantity boxes would be useless and the code change significant. Leaving it all to the server would be annoying for single mixes. Other than that, I believe I have tried all the combinations people have so far suggested.

 

Some may think I'm sounding annoyed. I'm not, I've learnt lots about the client and had a bit of fun in the process. The last week has just confirmed to me that design by committee is impractical and that I know nothing about UI design.

[bluap]

Both you and Piper have made valid points. If we could just have a 'Mix All' check box and if unchecked it would mix singularly then I think the job could be regarded as done. The simpler the interface the easier it is to use.

That was one version.

Edited October 26, 2006 by bluap

[Raz]

Both you and Piper have made valid points. If we could just have a 'Mix All' check box and if unchecked it would mix singularly then I think the job could be regarded as done. The simpler the interface the easier it is to use.

That was one version.

Personaly, that looks ideal.

[Placid]

Both you and Piper have made valid points. If we could just have a 'Mix All' check box and if unchecked it would mix singularly then I think the job could be regarded as done. The simpler the interface the easier it is to use.

That was one version.

Indeed. My favourites are that and the spin-box only version.

 

I think Learner or Entropy need to clear this up as afterall, they placed original request for a client change. Having everyone else give input (whilst all with good intent) has caused the issue to become clouded.

[The_Piper]

Both you and Piper have made valid points. If we could just have a 'Mix All' check box and if unchecked it would mix singularly then I think the job could be regarded as done. The simpler the interface the easier it is to use.

That was one version.

 

Yes, thats my personal favorite.

 

But better change the text near the checkbox since this window is used too for potioning, alchemy, summoning etc.

 

Maybe "multi-Mix" or "Mix all" or such.

 

Piper

[trollson]

That was one version.

 

I really don't see how this preferable to seperate (Mix) (Mix All) buttons: Both use two widgets, but the check-box & button combo has a more complex state model and requires more interactions for the same results.

 

If the buttons are too large, remember that the text can be replaced by icons or symbols; which are at least I18N. For example, the "play" and "ffwd" symbols are pretty generic (►) (►►).

[bkc56]

That was one version.

 

That would be my second choice.

 

My first choice (of all the options presented) is the simple spin box that does not count down as it mixes. I think it's the most obvious, most flexible, and cleanest looking solution.

 

I would like to thank bluap for doing an excellent job of prototyping various proposed solutions so we could look at them. That makes it a lot easier to compare them.

[nicky]

I would like to thank bluap for doing an excellent job of prototyping various proposed solutions so we could look at them. That makes it a lot easier to compare them.

 

I second that!

 

I vote for (MIX) (MIX-ALL) buttons

[Mar(c)]

Just curious, and definately not meant to be offensive, but..:

 

 

 

@ all who're talking about some (simple) form of quantity selector:

I still haven't seen a good reason why this has an advantage over a simple single-mix/multi-mix system.

A not too complex quantity selector method always needs more clicking.

So please can someone give me an example of a case in which having a pre-selected quantity has a benefit in comparison with click-to-start ~ click-to-stop?

(Yes, afk mixing – but that's definately not the purpose of multi-mix...)

 

@ all who're talking about a check-box to switch between single-mix and multi-mix:

I still fail to see why that's easier, or less complex, than a two-button interface.

I'm glad I won't have to quote myself, I'll quote trollson:

That was one version.

I really don't see how this preferable to seperate (Mix) (Mix All) buttons: Both use two widgets, but the check-box & button combo has a more complex state model and requires more interactions for the same results.

 

If the buttons are too large, remember that the text can be replaced by icons or symbols; which are at least I18N. For example, the "play" and "ffwd" symbols are pretty generic (►) (►►).

So why-oh-why a check-box, instead of an extra button?

 

@ bluap:

I mentioned it before, I really appreciate your efforts to try to keep up with the suggestions, and I'm glad you had fun developing it although a much less complex interface appears to be preferable. As my first post 29336[/snapback] in this thread shows, I had fun thinking along with you.

Your last exemple(s) being too complex had mainly to do with the complexness of the wishes/suggestions in this thread, not so much with your UI design abilities.

Like bkc56 mentioned, thanks for giving us screenshots of the possible interfaces!

[Aislinn]

I still don't understand how a spin box is LESS clicking than our current method. The whole idea behind automix was to save clicking motions.

[Placid]

I still don't understand how a spin box is LESS clicking than our current method. The whole idea behind automix was to save clicking motions.

Mouse wheel

[bluap]

OK, I know I said that was it, but I realised that I'd never done the simple replacement of the mix button with two simple buttons: ">" mix one, ">>" mix all. So here it is. This I believe is what Mar© has been asking for all along. It is a simple subset of my last DVD interface. I like it, its easier than a check box but provides the same level of control. The icons are simple and can be explained by tool tips. Having a spin box or other quantity selection is rather pointless without the countdown/restart facilities IMHO so this will do just fine for me.

[Placid]

OK, I know I said that was it, but I realised that I'd never done the simple replacement of the mix button with two simple buttons: ">" mix one, ">>" mix all. So here it is. This I believe is what Mar© has been asking for all along. It is a simple subset of my last DVD interface. I like it, its easier than a check box but provides the same level of control. The icons are simple and can be explained by tool tips. Having a spin box or other quantity selection is rather pointless without the countdown/restart facilities IMHO so this will do just fine for me.

Good job bluap! Thanks for tolerating us

[Mar(c)]

OK, I know I said that was it, but I realised that I'd never done the simple replacement of the mix button with two simple buttons: ">" mix one, ">>" mix all. So here it is. This I believe is what Mar© has been asking for all along. It is a simple subset of my last DVD interface. I like it, its easier than a check box but provides the same level of control. The icons are simple and can be explained by tool tips. Having a spin box or other quantity selection is rather pointless without the countdown/restart facilities IMHO so this will do just fine for me.

Yup!

 

bluap = my hero

 

 

(It's not a huge downside that it's with symbols instead of text, right? )

[Derin]

OK, I know I said that was it, but I realised that I'd never done the simple replacement of the mix button with two simple buttons: ">" mix one, ">>" mix all. So here it is. This I believe is what Mar© has been asking for all along. It is a simple subset of my last DVD interface. I like it, its easier than a check box but provides the same level of control. The icons are simple and can be explained by tool tips. Having a spin box or other quantity selection is rather pointless without the countdown/restart facilities IMHO so this will do just fine for me.

Good job!

 

Perhaps we will reach the famous consensus now?

 

Can the ">" and ">>" have tool tips for newbies (Tool tip: "Mix" and "Mix All")?

[bkc56]

OK, I know I said that was it, but I realised that I'd never done the simple replacement of the mix button with two simple buttons: ">" mix one, ">>" mix all. So here it is.

Perhaps we will reach the famous consensus now?

 

Yes. This version is a good simple option. I'll vote

 

Can the ">" and ">>" have tool tips for newbies (Tool tip: "Mix" and "Mix All")?

 

I agree, good choices (basically, what would be on the buttons if there was room).

[The_Piper]

Yes, the solution with ">" and ">>" sounds perfect for me.

 

(Tooltips would be great too)

 

Thanks to bluap for having still the patience to do all those changes, good job

 

Piper

[bluap]

Yes, the solution with ">" and ">>" sounds perfect for me.

(Tooltips would be great too)

Wow that's a lot of support for this version.

If learner (as starter of this thread) is happy too, I'll prepare and submit a patch, tooltips and all. Thanks for humoring me folks.

[trollson]

That looks great bluap, absolutely spot on! Thanks for the great effort.

[bluap]

A few of notes on the server side of things:

 

1) Mentioned before the "you have manufactured 1 item" message needs adjusted for mix all.

 

2) One time while mixing all, my mortar and pestle broke but mixing continued until some other event stopped things.

 

3) I want to make the clear button stop the manufacturing process; seams more consistent that way and it also prevents mixing becoming unstoppable if the ingredients are cleared during mixing. So I though I'd send a mix zero request to the server. This works fine if we're already mixing, mixing stops. If we're not already mixing, one item gets manufactured. I can't find a way to determine if we're already mixing so may be the server code could be changed to interpret mix zero as either stop mixing or do nothing.

Edited October 27, 2006 by bluap

[Learner]

A few of notes on the server side of things:

 

1) Mentioned before the "you have manufactured 1 item" message needs adjusted for mix all.

 

2) One time while mixing all, my mortar and pestle broke but mixing continued until some other event stopped things.

 

3) I want to make the clear button stop the manufacturing process; seams more consistent that way and it also prevents mixing becoming unstoppable if the ingredients are cleared during mixing. So I though I'd send a mix zero request to the server. This works fine if we're already mixing, mixing stops. If we're not already mixing, one item gets manufactured. I can't find a way to determine if we're already mixing so may be the server code could be changed to interpret mix zero as either stop mixing or do nothing.

1) It is sending the you manufactured 1 item for each one back as you make it, but followed by the you started working message immediately afterwards. If you wathc carefully you can sometimes see it flicker. Known issue.

 

2) Already reported and being fixed.

 

3) For 0 it defaults to 5 to support the old client, or the old client could never make anything.

[bluap]

3) For 0 it defaults to 5 to support the old client, or the old client could never make anything.

OK, weird that on the test server, specifying zero just makes 1 item. I assumed the old client was not specifying a quantity at all, if nothing is specified the server defaulted to 5. It appears that specifying zero items, defaults to 1. My apologies if I've got this all wrong.

 

If you accept the patch, the server could be changed at the time the client is released so that specifying zero stopped any current manufacture. Alternatively, is there some other message that the client can send to stop manufacturing?

 

So is this patch OK with you learner?

[Learner]

3) For 0 it defaults to 5 to support the old client, or the old client could never make anything.

OK, weird that on the test server, specifying zero just makes 1 item. I assumed the old client was not specifying a quantity at all, if nothing is specified the server defaulted to 5. It appears that specifying zero items, defaults to 1. My apologies if I've got this all wrong.

 

If you accept the patch, the server could be changed at the time the client is released so that specifying zero stopped any current manufacture. Alternatively, is there some other message that the client can send to stop manufacturing?

 

So is this patch OK with you learner?

Several changes have taken place in the server and at this time we can't assume how the server will act with a qty of 0 (yes, at this instant it wact like 1 by accident). But, the clear button is intended for clear the formula you are entering. You dont want to be sending traffic to the server just to clear your icons. Using Clear as a stop is actually using one button for two very different functions.