Hmm, that could be counterintuitive, because the main hand gets extra attacks from warrior levels and proficiencies while the off-hand does not, and I think humans tend to expect things in order to go from most important to least important.
Also, in terms of inventory slots, the main hand weapon slots are on the left side while the off-hand slot is on the right side of the inventory.
Agree... so the logical representation is the correct one even though it looks odd at first - once you think about it, it makes perfect sense and also matches the left / right coordination of the rest of the inventory screen.
I'm not a fan of either. Stats should not take up a full third of the inventory screen. That takes up too much real estate.
I agree. I just don’t know what else to do. I don’t want to get rid of all the iconic design elements. Others want all the new text stuff in the scroll bar area. So that leaves us with both.
I’d personally be fine with going back to the 1.3 inventory.
I agree with @Dee that the THAC0+Damage hands are confusing if unlabeled. But, the labels @Mr2150 added are small and don't leave much room for translations (which often need more room than English - see the Record screen discussion).
So, here's a new attempt at a mockup. We can't have our cake and eat it too, so I reduced the # of stats in icons. Only AC and HP get stat icons (which have been there since the original BG1). I increased the sizes of the icons and gave them labels. Other combat stats can be found in the text box.
Also, a mockup of the item comparison view (really lazy, I just scaled an image of the beta comparison view):
EDIT: Adding a mockup with an even larger font size.
I like @AstroBryGuy 's mockup here. Armor class and hitpoints are always available and have icons to easily mark them. More importantly, the info box doesn't seem as big here. It doesn't extend below the paperdoll, so it looks like it only takes up about a fourth of available screen space. I'm not super happy having all this data on the inventory screen to begin with, but I can live with it in the right corner.
I don't mind the two icons with labels on top of stats breakdown.
I checked the sizing @thedamages - the available space in BG2EE is ~ 350x466 pixels and the same space in SOD ~ 355 x 461 pixels.
Here's what @AstroBryGuy 's 'As much cake as we can eat' approach (2 icons on top of stats) might look like in BG2 EE... Note - I kept the ornamentation that is a key feature of that UI...
One other point of note - I saw that you merged the Armor and Armor Class lines from the original 2 line approach to 1 line....
The current approach has always been:
Ankheg Plate Mail Armor Class: 1
To make use of the extra width that the UI could provide, you've merged them into one line:
Ankheg Plate Mail Armor Class: 1
I don't object to that at all, In fact there is a logic to it, however I wonder if a format like this might work better:
That way it's still the familiar order and representation that everyone is used to, but a slight indent turns it from a list of text into Sub-headings/details under the Armor Class main heading. For me, I think it is easier to read.
@Mr2150 hahahha wow, how did I turn ~6 pixels into the difference between 1/3 and 1/4? I swear the second one bugs me less though. Maybe the SOD UI being more basic in design feels less cluttered?
Possibly @thedamages but that 'cluttered' feel is what others really like, they don't call it cluttered - for them it's flavour and ornamentation. It's worth noting that in the SOD UI, although it has a dark background, it is not black. It actually has the same level of ornamentation - it's just that the ornamentation is very dark/close to black in colour.
Here' I've blown up some of the artwork from SOD Inventory screen and you can see the very subtle ornamentation.
I think the styles of the UI are important to the discussion but if the UI skin approach discussed in another thread is also taken on board then all users can choose the skin that feels most comfortable for them.
For me, I prefer less ornamentation so I can focus on the important things - the stats. But that's just me.
To me it feels like we'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater reducing the number of icons to two. If we use the One Square layout without the APR icon, we'd have enough vertical space to label all four icons and still have plenty of space left over for ornamentation, larger icons, and/or larger fonts:
Agree with @Adul. The vertical column of icons solves the issue of the 'hand' icons looking back-to-front for me: Main (Right) hand above Off (Left) hand. Personally I don't like the heart, but I suppose the 'heal-spell-cross' would be a difficult shape to write in.
Ok, after getting lost in all these ideas for days, I went into ver. 1.3 this morning to try and remember just what it is that I actually use there, what’s important to me.
Using Armor Class as an example:
I like much better having the Armor Class icon beside the corresponding text, as it is in ver. 1.3.
-My eyes find the familiar, classic Armor Class icon, I see my current armor class there at a glance. -If I want to remember how much AC the worn piece of armor is giving me I grab it with my mouse and lift it up, watching what happens in the icon window. If I want more information, I can just slide my eyes farther right and the text is right next to it. This text changes at the same time that the numbers in the icon does. Slick.
-There is no lag, no drag, no extra windows popping up or yellow lights blinking over my parties portraits to distract me. Moving the pieces around in inventory feels smooth.
-There is no need for any additional text under or around the icons to identify what they are. The information is right there in the little scroll that pops up when you hover over the icon. (Amor Class) Iconic and convenient.
I see no need to get rid of the scroll, then try to shove in extra text around the icons instead. Nor to try and get rid of the icons and use only text instead. None of this is making any sense to me.
I am someone who needs to use a large font. Believe me, I am among the target audience of people who might have trouble seeing such things. I have no trouble seeing the numbers inside the icons.
The layout in ver. 1.3 is a good one. Why is it being changed?
If we use text labels for the icons, I don't think the right hand / left hand solution is feasible anymore, because there isn't enough space to convey the idea that the upper number in each fist icon is THAC0 and the lower number is damage. If we use text labels, I think we're better off returning to separate icons for THAC0 and damage, which more easily convey the idea of the upper number being for the main hand and the lower number being for the off-hand, without additional labels.
By the way, I too prefer the cross shape to the heart for HP, maybe we could use a bulkier cross like that of the Cure Critical Wounds icon:
I checked, and the above icon fits easily into the One Square layout, if we omit the APR icon from it.
I think this debate perfectly illustrates the challenge that comes from something like this.
Make one decision, whatever it may be, and it directly impacts something else. Try to change the approach to give an added benefit here and it is detrimental somewhere there. Everyone has their own view of what works / what doesn't and what is needed / not needed and all those opinions in one pot naturally conflict...
(That's why these sort of things are usually done by a smaller group with an agreed 'vision' in mind of what the end goal is - It makes it much easier to make the difficult design decisions when they come up, and deal with the consequences).
Perhaps we need to go back to basics and fully agree the fundamentals of what we want...
Here are some, but not all, of the discussion topics I've seen: - 6 boxes / 4 boxes / 2 boxes - Labels / No labels - THACO / Damage combined or separate - Simple boxes / Logos in boxes / Ornate icons / Representative icons - A logical database approach / an ornate and beautiful area - One text area with a scrollbar / several text areas with scrollbars - ...
Here are some of the consideration factors: - How do you view a tooltip on mobile/tablet? - How do we make sure the text is clear and easy to read? - What shape icon looks like the stat it is representing? - ...
Here are some of the limiting factors:
- How much space we have to work in > impacts things like how big the boxes and icons can be - The height of a line of text > impacts how much space there needs to be around that text and how big the icons/boxes need to be - ...
Once those pieces are fully agreed, and understood, then the pieces of the puzzle can be put together to see if it works...
Of course, this is just one way of doing it, but right now a lot of the discussions are going in circles as different people with different opinions come and go.
Here are some of the consideration factors: - How do you view a tooltip on mobile/tablet?
The four icons below the portraits disappear while in the inventory, why can't one of those button slots be used to toggle a tooltip-mode in the inventory?
I think it is much simpler, and familiar to people if you use ver. 1.3 as a base to compare against. It’s much easier for people to understand what you are talking about if you give them a familiar comparison. It just complicates the issue and makes it harder to understand what your saying if you’re always using new configurations that they have no proper context to compare with.
It certainly has gotten me all twisted up here and I don’t want to be agreeing with something that I misunderstood.
This is why I went back to basics this morning. After doing so, much of what we have been discussing as possibilities make no sense.
From what I have witnessed, the majority of people liked ver. 1.3, for the most part. I certainly saw no major outcry from people concerning it. Furthermore, much of the outcry over the changes brought with the new patches was calmed down by many people reverting back to ver.1.3, while they wait for things they didn’t like to be fixed.
My biggest question is still why were things so drastically changed to begin with? I never saw a major outcry to have ver.1.3 torn apart or replaced. I have seen this question in many posts on this forum. Who asked for all these changes?
That’s not to say that tweaks shouldn’t be done, if that’s what people want. But when you make major changes to your product and so many people complain, why wouldn’t you try to replicate the product that they liked?
To use the right wording, I’m not saying to revert back to 1.3, I’m saying to use it as a model for what people found comfortable before.
We could go on indefinitely with this neat new idea and then the next.
I feel like I keep being asked to accept this or that concept here when I see no reason for the change in the first place.
The other thing that keeps striking me during this discussion is that many of the people who most want the changes seem to be the ones most able to make their vision a reality by modding it themselves. People who are already enjoying being able to play with the different configurations.
What about all the people who just want to go back to something that feels like the 1.3ver. that they liked?
To be perfectly honest, I haven’t seen anything new here that would justify the changes. What am I missing?
My biggest question is still why were things so drastically changed to begin with? I never saw a major outcry to have ver.1.3 torn apart or replaced. I have seen this question in many posts on this forum. Who asked for all these changes?
These are the only changes I can find between 1.3 an 2.0 for BG:EE inventory: -Font/Capitalization of the text. (scales much better than old font, easier to read, IMO) -The number for Gold is white instead of well, gold. (a bug at worst) -Some Equipment slots are off-position by a couple of pixels. (a bug at worst) -Character Color buttons combined to present all color options instead of just the default 34. -Ground Slots no longer have scroll function. -Picking up an item replaces the display with a comparison chart.
Ground slots and the Equipment Comparison are the biggest changes to me, neither welcome.
I agree with @Ravenslight that the v1.3 inventory has a good layout to regard as a base, because it's what we have been used to for a long time and we've had relatively few complaints about it when it was in use.
Four Square (v2.x) is very similar to 1.3 but the few differences Beamdog made to it have stirred the pot. For now, let's discount the complaints about the item comparison lag, as that feature can more than likely be made optional.
My understanding is that Four Square has the following common complaints:
1. It's too bare-looking and needs more ornamentation. If I'm not mistaken, this complaint is levied against the SoD dragon UI more often than the others. I'm not a visual artist so I don't have much to offer here, but I think the mechanical look of the layout might be lessened if the stat table on the right had less of a table-like appearance and looked more organic.
2. The four text boxes containing the stat breakdowns complicate things visually and/or functionally. I can agree with this, having four separate text boxes on one screen, each with its own scroll bar gets prettty convoluted after a while. I think @Dee's One Square layout is a very good remedy to this, as you still have easy access to the same amount of information, but there's only one scroll bar. It's simple and elegant.
It, however, introduces a new issue: the stat icons and the stat breakdown will usually be at different levels of elevation. However, I think the dissonant effects of this could be minimized by labeling the icons themselves. Which leads me into my next point.
3. The stat icons are difficult to interpret correctly. This I think is another good reason to introduce labels for the icons. Also, we could have icons that are maybe a bit more intricate in design and/or more clear on what they mean.
My personal favorite symbols so far are: a shield for AC, an equal-armed cross for HP, a fist or sword for THAC0, and a spiky circle or many-pointed star for damage.
4. Some stats are hard to read. I generally don't have this problem (despite me not having perfect vision), but I think it's very relevant in the case of the HP icon, which displays the current and maximum HP numbers side-by-side, therefore running out of space when both numbers reach three digits. A simple solution to this would be to have the two numbers print out in two separate lines.
TL;DR The current Four Square layout is not bad, it just needs a few alterations.
My biggest question is still why were things so drastically changed to begin with? I never saw a major outcry to have ver.1.3 torn apart or replaced. I have seen this question in many posts on this forum. Who asked for all these changes?
These are the only changes I can find between 1.3 an 2.0 for BG:EE inventory: -Font/Capitalization of the text. (scales much better than old font, easier to read, IMO) -The number for Gold is white instead of well, gold. (a bug at worst) -Some Equipment slots are off-position by a couple of pixels. (a bug at worst) -Character Color buttons combined to present all color options instead of just the default 34. -Ground Slots no longer have scroll function. -Picking up an item replaces the display with a comparison chart.
Ground slots and the Equipment Comparison are the biggest changes to me, neither welcome.
edit: Checked BG2EE: same changes.
Off the top of my head, I would add to your list:
No tool tip when hovering over the Armor, Hit Points, etc. icons.
When the display pops in and out the party members portraits are covered in a foreign, ugly yellow overlay.
The iconic unfurling scroll animation for the tool tip is gone.
I personally don’t like the new font. I find the old one much easier to read. I suppose this is going to vary from person to person.
The Letter icon that has always been used to replace the first letter in the first word in letters and item descriptions when you right click on them, has been taken out. Now these windows look like something that I would type on my computer, not something that belongs in a Baldur’s Gate game.
@Ravenslight There's an article in the first issue of the Familiar, "UI Private Eye" where @PhillipDaigle and @ScottBrooks talk about the changes to the UI, including why some of those changes were made. Unfortunately, it looks like the web version of the magazine has been taken down, so if you want to read it, you'll need to use the mobile version.
@Dee is there any chance we could get a .pdf of that article linked here? It might prove a useful background.
I have difficulty seeing what the difference is between what @Ravenslight posted earlier:
and this:
except that one is brass coloured and the other pewter? As I understand it then, the issue is with this:
so I would suggest for item comparisons we need this:
I still like @Dee's 'one box' for the info breakdowns opposed to four separate ones. I think keeping THAC0 and damage together in their icons instead of splitting them as main/off hand is easier and I like @Adul's icon suggestions - they just need to be big enough for decent sized fonts to work. I don't think the icons need to be named when the information in the scroll box would have headers, as Dee described.
Fine. Stick with unlabeled, undifferentiated icons that are too small for the information they display, and four text boxes that are again too small to show all their information at once, giving you an overly cluttered interface.
I've wasted enough time on this. They could implement the Pools of Radiance interface for all I care. It's only a game.
Comments
Well, to me. I don't know if it looks weird to others.
Also, in terms of inventory slots, the main hand weapon slots are on the left side while the off-hand slot is on the right side of the inventory.
I’d personally be fine with going back to the 1.3 inventory.
So, here's a new attempt at a mockup. We can't have our cake and eat it too, so I reduced the # of stats in icons. Only AC and HP get stat icons (which have been there since the original BG1). I increased the sizes of the icons and gave them labels. Other combat stats can be found in the text box.
Also, a mockup of the item comparison view (really lazy, I just scaled an image of the beta comparison view):
EDIT: Adding a mockup with an even larger font size.
I don't mind the two icons with labels on top of stats breakdown.
I checked the sizing @thedamages - the available space in BG2EE is ~ 350x466 pixels and the same space in SOD ~ 355 x 461 pixels.
Here's what @AstroBryGuy 's 'As much cake as we can eat' approach (2 icons on top of stats) might look like in BG2 EE... Note - I kept the ornamentation that is a key feature of that UI...
The current approach has always been:
Ankheg Plate Mail
Armor Class: 1
To make use of the extra width that the UI could provide, you've merged them into one line:
Ankheg Plate Mail Armor Class: 1
I don't object to that at all, In fact there is a logic to it, however I wonder if a format like this might work better:
That way it's still the familiar order and representation that everyone is used to, but a slight indent turns it from a list of text into Sub-headings/details under the Armor Class main heading. For me, I think it is easier to read.
Here' I've blown up some of the artwork from SOD Inventory screen and you can see the very subtle ornamentation.
I think the styles of the UI are important to the discussion but if the UI skin approach discussed in another thread is also taken on board then all users can choose the skin that feels most comfortable for them.
For me, I prefer less ornamentation so I can focus on the important things - the stats. But that's just me.
Using Armor Class as an example:
I like much better having the Armor Class icon beside the corresponding text, as it is in ver. 1.3.
-My eyes find the familiar, classic Armor Class icon, I see my current armor class there at a glance.
-If I want to remember how much AC the worn piece of armor is giving me I grab it with my mouse and lift it up, watching what happens in the icon window. If I want more information, I can just slide my eyes farther right and the text is right next to it. This text changes at the same time that the numbers in the icon does. Slick.
-There is no lag, no drag, no extra windows popping up or yellow lights blinking over my parties portraits to distract me. Moving the pieces around in inventory feels smooth.
-There is no need for any additional text under or around the icons to identify what they are. The information is right there in the little scroll that pops up when you hover over the icon. (Amor Class) Iconic and convenient.
I see no need to get rid of the scroll, then try to shove in extra text around the icons instead. Nor to try and get rid of the icons and use only text instead. None of this is making any sense to me.
I am someone who needs to use a large font. Believe me, I am among the target audience of people who might have trouble seeing such things. I have no trouble seeing the numbers inside the icons.
The layout in ver. 1.3 is a good one. Why is it being changed?
By the way, I too prefer the cross shape to the heart for HP, maybe we could use a bulkier cross like that of the Cure Critical Wounds icon:
I checked, and the above icon fits easily into the One Square layout, if we omit the APR icon from it.
Make one decision, whatever it may be, and it directly impacts something else. Try to change the approach to give an added benefit here and it is detrimental somewhere there. Everyone has their own view of what works / what doesn't and what is needed / not needed and all those opinions in one pot naturally conflict...
(That's why these sort of things are usually done by a smaller group with an agreed 'vision' in mind of what the end goal is - It makes it much easier to make the difficult design decisions when they come up, and deal with the consequences).
Perhaps we need to go back to basics and fully agree the fundamentals of what we want...
Here are some, but not all, of the discussion topics I've seen:
- 6 boxes / 4 boxes / 2 boxes
- Labels / No labels
- THACO / Damage combined or separate
- Simple boxes / Logos in boxes / Ornate icons / Representative icons
- A logical database approach / an ornate and beautiful area
- One text area with a scrollbar / several text areas with scrollbars
- ...
Here are some of the consideration factors:
- How do you view a tooltip on mobile/tablet?
- How do we make sure the text is clear and easy to read?
- What shape icon looks like the stat it is representing?
- ...
Here are some of the limiting factors:
- How much space we have to work in > impacts things like how big the boxes and icons can be
- The height of a line of text > impacts how much space there needs to be around that text and how big the icons/boxes need to be
- ...
Once those pieces are fully agreed, and understood, then the pieces of the puzzle can be put together to see if it works...
Of course, this is just one way of doing it, but right now a lot of the discussions are going in circles as different people with different opinions come and go.
It certainly has gotten me all twisted up here and I don’t want to be agreeing with something that I misunderstood.
This is why I went back to basics this morning. After doing so, much of what we have been discussing as possibilities make no sense.
From what I have witnessed, the majority of people liked ver. 1.3, for the most part. I certainly saw no major outcry from people concerning it. Furthermore, much of the outcry over the changes brought with the new patches was calmed down by many people reverting back to ver.1.3, while they wait for things they didn’t like to be fixed.
My biggest question is still why were things so drastically changed to begin with? I never saw a major outcry to have ver.1.3 torn apart or replaced. I have seen this question in many posts on this forum. Who asked for all these changes?
That’s not to say that tweaks shouldn’t be done, if that’s what people want. But when you make major changes to your product and so many people complain, why wouldn’t you try to replicate the product that they liked?
To use the right wording, I’m not saying to revert back to 1.3, I’m saying to use it as a model for what people found comfortable before.
We could go on indefinitely with this neat new idea and then the next.
I feel like I keep being asked to accept this or that concept here when I see no reason for the change in the first place.
The other thing that keeps striking me during this discussion is that many of the people who most want the changes seem to be the ones most able to make their vision a reality by modding it themselves. People who are already enjoying being able to play with the different configurations.
What about all the people who just want to go back to something that feels like the 1.3ver. that they liked?
To be perfectly honest, I haven’t seen anything new here that would justify the changes. What am I missing?
-Font/Capitalization of the text. (scales much better than old font, easier to read, IMO)
-The number for Gold is white instead of well, gold. (a bug at worst)
-Some Equipment slots are off-position by a couple of pixels. (a bug at worst)
-Character Color buttons combined to present all color options instead of just the default 34.
-Ground Slots no longer have scroll function.
-Picking up an item replaces the display with a comparison chart.
Ground slots and the Equipment Comparison are the biggest changes to me, neither welcome.
edit: Checked BG2EE: same changes.
Four Square (v2.x) is very similar to 1.3 but the few differences Beamdog made to it have stirred the pot. For now, let's discount the complaints about the item comparison lag, as that feature can more than likely be made optional.
My understanding is that Four Square has the following common complaints:
1. It's too bare-looking and needs more ornamentation. If I'm not mistaken, this complaint is levied against the SoD dragon UI more often than the others. I'm not a visual artist so I don't have much to offer here, but I think the mechanical look of the layout might be lessened if the stat table on the right had less of a table-like appearance and looked more organic.
2. The four text boxes containing the stat breakdowns complicate things visually and/or functionally. I can agree with this, having four separate text boxes on one screen, each with its own scroll bar gets prettty convoluted after a while. I think @Dee's One Square layout is a very good remedy to this, as you still have easy access to the same amount of information, but there's only one scroll bar. It's simple and elegant.
It, however, introduces a new issue: the stat icons and the stat breakdown will usually be at different levels of elevation. However, I think the dissonant effects of this could be minimized by labeling the icons themselves. Which leads me into my next point.
3. The stat icons are difficult to interpret correctly. This I think is another good reason to introduce labels for the icons. Also, we could have icons that are maybe a bit more intricate in design and/or more clear on what they mean.
My personal favorite symbols so far are: a shield for AC, an equal-armed cross for HP, a fist or sword for THAC0, and a spiky circle or many-pointed star for damage.
4. Some stats are hard to read. I generally don't have this problem (despite me not having perfect vision), but I think it's very relevant in the case of the HP icon, which displays the current and maximum HP numbers side-by-side, therefore running out of space when both numbers reach three digits. A simple solution to this would be to have the two numbers print out in two separate lines.
TL;DR The current Four Square layout is not bad, it just needs a few alterations.
No tool tip when hovering over the Armor, Hit Points, etc. icons.
When the display pops in and out the party members portraits are covered in a foreign, ugly yellow overlay.
The iconic unfurling scroll animation for the tool tip is gone.
I personally don’t like the new font. I find the old one much easier to read. I suppose this is going to vary from person to person.
The Letter icon that has always been used to replace the first letter in the first word in letters and item descriptions when you right click on them, has been taken out. Now these windows look like something that I would type on my computer, not something that belongs in a Baldur’s Gate game.
@Dee is there any chance we could get a .pdf of that article linked here? It might prove a useful background.
and this:
except that one is brass coloured and the other pewter? As I understand it then, the issue is with this:
so I would suggest for item comparisons we need this:
I still like @Dee's 'one box' for the info breakdowns opposed to four separate ones. I think keeping THAC0 and damage together in their icons instead of splitting them as main/off hand is easier and I like @Adul's icon suggestions - they just need to be big enough for decent sized fonts to work. I don't think the icons need to be named when the information in the scroll box would have headers, as Dee described.
I've wasted enough time on this. They could implement the Pools of Radiance interface for all I care. It's only a game.