#36423: "The new distress signal UX needs improvement"
Waarover gaat dit rapport?
Wat is er gebeurd? Selecteer uit het onderstaande
Wat is er gebeurd? Selecteer uit het onderstaande
Gelieve na te kijken of er reeds een rapport bestaat met hetzelfde onderwerp
Zo ja, gelieve dan voor dit rapport te STEMMEN. Rapporten met de meeste stemmen krijgen VOORRANG!
# | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
---|
Gedetailleerde beschrijving
• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de foutboodschap die je op je scherm ziet, indien van toepassing.
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.• Leg uit wat je wilde doen, wat je deed en wat er gebeurde
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Google Chrome v79
• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de tekst die in het Engels wordt getoond in plaats van in jouw taal. Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
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.• Is deze tekst beschikbaar in het vertaalsysteem? Zo ja, is deze meer dan 24 uur geleden vertaald?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Google Chrome v79
• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.
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.• Welke browser gebruik je?
Google Chrome v79
• Wat stond op het scherm toen je geblokkeerd was (Leeg scherm? Een deel van de spelinterface? Foutboodschap?)
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.• Welke browser gebruik je?
Google Chrome v79
• Met welk onderdeel van de regels is geen rekening gehouden bij de BGA-versie?
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.• Is de inbreuk op de spelregels zichtbaar in de spelherhaling? Indien ja, bij welk zetnummer?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Google Chrome v79
• Welke spelactie wilde je uitvoeren?
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.• Wat probeerde je te doen om deze spelactie te laten optreden?
• Wat gebeurde er toen je dit probeerde te doen (foutboodschap, melding op de statusbalk van het spel, ...)?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Google Chrome v79
• In welke fase van het spel deed het probleem zich voor (wat was de huidige spelinstructie)?
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.• Wat gebeurde toen je deze spelactie probeerde (foutboodschap, melding op de statusbalk van het spel, ...)?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Google Chrome v79
• Beschrijf alsjeblieft het probleem met de beeldweergave. Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
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.• Welke browser gebruik je?
Google Chrome v79
• Kopieer en plak alsjeblieft de tekst die in het Engels wordt getoond in plaats van in jouw taal. Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.
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.• Is deze tekst beschikbaar in het vertaalsysteem? Zo ja, is deze meer dan 24 uur geleden vertaald?
• Welke browser gebruik je?
Google Chrome v79
• Gelieve jouw suggestie precies en beknopt uit te leggen zodat het zo makkelijk mogelijk is om te begrijpen wat je bedoelt.
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.• Welke browser gebruik je?
Google Chrome v79
Rapportgeschiedenis
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".
Dit rapport aanvullen
- Andere tafel ID / zet ID
- Loste F5 het probleem op?
- Kwam het probleem meerdere keren voor? Altijd? Willekeurig?
- Als je een schermafbeelding van deze bug hebt (goede gewoonte), kun je Imgur.com gebruiken om deze te uploaden, de link kopiëren en hier plakken.