> Quick thoughts/past notes: > > I expect that the preferences will be driven a lot by what actual > hardware folks are running on. > > If you only have a display that does 1024x768, then the Oroboros is the > likely winner. But if you have a higher res display, that probably isn't a > first choice, as you have a lot more display area than it uses.
I'm not bothered by that, and it actually is in the spirit of making the game more accessible anyway. I'd consider setting it as the default without even taking a vote. Why should not the majority get their choice anyway - even if it isn't your or my favorite? > Now it may be that the client should try and be smart and choose a best > default layout based on various factors, like screen resolution. Same > could be said for things like map size. > > A better approach may be to have a basic configuration program (or > window) that is used first time client is run by user (no .crossfire file). > A fair number of commercial games use that approach - configure the > display resolution/quality you want to use, configure sound, etc. > > That, however, is a fair amount of work, and ideally, the configuration > dialogs used within the client match those initial configuration ones > (don't duplicate code, but also easier for an end user perspective - if you > see one set of configuration dialog the first time you run it that doesn't > match the one you see later, may be harder to know what config options you > used before, etc) If a user supplies a layout, it could get really hard to have all the necessary information where it would all work just right. It does make sense to pick Oroboros automatically on desktops at 1024x768 or lower. 1280x1024 and higher have always been supported on this client, so auto-picking once in that range seems not to buy much advantage, and none of them default to sizes that won't fit at all on that resolution. On IRC, people seem to be saying that 800x600 is still alive and kicking too. I figured I'd hammer a bit on Oroboros to get one option at that size, so having one of those to pull out of the hat if someone launches it on a small desktop might be good. As for a configuration program, what I can see is showing thumbnails of clients and let people browse them, along with the text descriptions, possibly calling out the default size of the layout separately. Doing something like that, you could advise against certain layouts based on the desktop size, but could allow them to be selected anyway if they want to try to deal with the resizing. That said, I think it needs to stay simple, but even so, presently there are better ways to spend a lot of development time. People still complain too much about what isn't there, and a configuration program won't address what gets complained about the most. Then... there is the whole thing about making the map size coincide with a selected layout... Right now it is difficult to know what to set the map size too. A first effort to address that is probably due quite high priority. You can totally hose a layout by using 25x25, which is the current default. I think the default map size should be a low common denominator unless new features are added to hint map size settings. > Note that one reason I put the map window in the upper left corner is > that to some extent it made using different map sizes easier. But I do > have to say I don't find it ideal either (but I'm not sure what I find > ideal). There are two options in the screen shots. Some that put the map on one side, and others. > I'm also not wild about the way the stats are displayed in all the > layouts (which really isn't changed) - that is to say being in a single > row: Str 5 Dex 6 Con 10, etc > > as that never seems really easy to find for me, and I can't think of any > other game that displays them - doing them as a column, with column to the > right (or maybe several) may be more readable and more effective use of > space, eg: > > Str 6 Speed 0.50 > Dex 10 Weapon Speed 0.80 > Con 18 Damage 15 > Int 14 WC 6 Hmm. Three layouts already do something like this. The first layout on Leaf's listing is very different, and not unlike what you describe. http://krayvin.home.att.net/caelestis_790x600.png Further, all the layout screenshots do not expose the stats, so unless one opened them, it would be difficult to say they hadn't changed. Chthonic, Oroboros do use columns as well. The GTK V1 variants do not for more obvious reasons, but for the others, I'll be most happy to do something different as it would free up more screen area. Remember too, I copied the legacy GTK V2, and differentiation occurs somewhat over time as I play with ideas. Keep suggestions coming. Oddly, when I mentioned stats and the homogenous mode before, the gtk-v2 format was argued for, possibly giving some exception to allowing numbers to cuddle the label. I imagine that had an effect of me not "fixing" all of the new layouts. Frankly, I think the non-spaced-out in-line stats are far more readable that the original layout, and a number of the new layouts do that. I'll revive thinking on other options for stat displays. > and so on. As an aside, since exp now has its own statbar, there really > isn't much reason for there also to be a display in the stat area. I've noted that, and think removing it might require a code change to avoid error messages as missing widgets do generate them, though I have not checked to be sure. It's a good reminder though. I have thought it odd for some time. Kevin _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
