#36423: "The new distress signal UX needs improvement"
Sobre qué é este informe?
Qué aconteceu? Por favor selecciona debaixo
Qué aconteceu? Por favor selecciona debaixo
Por favor revisa se xa hai un informe sobre o mesmo tema
De ser afirmativo, por favor VOTA por este informe. Aos informes con máis votos se lles da PRIORIDADE!
# | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
---|
Descrición detallada
• Por favor, copia e pega a mensaxe de erro que ves na túa pantalla, se houbera algún.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Por favor, explica o que querÃas facer, o que fixeche e o que pasou
• Cal é o teu navegador?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor, copia/pega o texto amosado en inglés no canto do teu idioma. Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquÃ.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• É este o texto dispoñible no sistema de tradución? Se é asÃ, foi traducido fai máis de 24 horas?
• Cal é o teu navegador?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor explica a túa suxestión de maneira precisa e concisa para que sexa o máis sinxelo posible entender o que queres dicir.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Cal é o teu navegador?
Google Chrome v79
• Qué habÃa na pantalla cando se quedou bloqueado? (mensaxe de erro?, pantalla en blanco?, unha parte da interface do xogo?)
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Cal é o teu navegador?
Google Chrome v79
• Qué parte das regras non se cumpriron na adaptación da BGA?
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• é visible a violación das regras na repetición? Se o é, en que número de movemento?
• Cal é o teu navegador?
Google Chrome v79
• Qué acción de xogo querÃas realizar?
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Qué é o que tratache de facer para activar esta acción do xogo?
• Qué sucedeu cando o fixeche (a mensaxe de erro, mensaxe na barra de estado do xogo, ...)?
• Cal é o teu navegador?
Google Chrome v79
• En que paso do xogo ocorreu o problema (cal foi a instrucción actual do xogo)?
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Qué sucedeu cando tratache de facer unha acción de xogo (mensaxe de erro, mensaxe na barra de estado do xogo, ...)?
• Cal é o teu navegador?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor, describe o problema de visualización. Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquÃ.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Cal é o teu navegador?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor, copia/pega o texto amosado en inglés no canto do teu idioma. Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquÃ.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• É este o texto dispoñible no sistema de tradución? Se é asÃ, foi traducido fai máis de 24 horas?
• Cal é o teu navegador?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor explica a túa suxestión de maneira precisa e concisa para que sexa o máis sinxelo posible entender o que queres dicir.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Cal é o teu navegador?
Google Chrome v79
Historial de informes
The Crew is a cooperative game, that's precisely the point of the game to discuss and debate.
I wish that the help button on the title line leads to a description, how the implementation works.
I believe that option 'distress yes, either direction' is useful.
It is a rather rude and implies dismissiveness, as if you don't care: www.thefreedictionary.com/whatever. It's also quite hated: www.huffpost.com/entry/most-annoying-word-_n_4474607
Better alternatives would be "Abstain", "Neutral" or "No opinion".
I've submitted "No opinion".
Engade a este informe
- Outro DI de mesa / ID de movemento
- Premer F5 resolveu o problema?
- Apareceu o problema varias veces? Tódalas veces? Aleatoriamente?
- Se tes un pantallazo deste erro (boa práctica), podes usar Imgur.com para subilo e copiar/pegar a ligazón aquÃ.