can't change anything for one dropdown selection without it affecting the rest of the dropdown selections.
I think you still missunderstand that option panel.
The "Unit group" dropdown doesn't let you choose one and then change the settings for the selected one. It really just the selected group for the "Current group" group.
All settings there are per "Current group" selection.
Just an FYI, Aura borders have been reworked and there's significantly more configuration possible. However, all colors for the Aura module have been reset to the default as well as the state of showing/hiding the borders themselves.
What's up as an alpha right now is very likely to become beta5. Probably will let it simmer over the weekend some but I wouldn't expect to see beta 5 much later than Sunday or Monday.
My list of major things needed before a normal release is getting pretty short. Here are the things on my mental list that I'm looking to get done before 4.0.0 is release quality.
* Smooth bar updating module.
* Some LuaTexts changes.
* Investigate faster health updates.
* Some improvements for precision placement of text/indicators (I haven't actually worked out precisely what the changes will be I have several different ideas).
I believe the above will bring us up to the point where everything that was possible in PitBull3 is possible in PB4 and then some. There are a lot of other enhancement requests. Some of which have merit, but I don't think they're really critical to release quality.
Noticed something last night (using PitBull4-v4.0.0-beta3-79-g0f135b9). When in a vehicle, the in-combat icon wasn't going away as soon as I left combat. It did a couple seconds later. Perhaps there is some throttling going on? As I said, this is in a vehicle, so that means the player frame becomes the pet/vehicle frame, and that's the one I'm talking about.
Not sure if it's a bug or if I did something wrong, which is why I'm posting here before reporting it as a bug via ticket.
Noticed something last night (using PitBull4-v4.0.0-beta3-79-g0f135b9). When in a vehicle, the in-combat icon wasn't going away as soon as I left combat. It did a couple seconds later. Perhaps there is some throttling going on? As I said, this is in a vehicle, so that means the player frame becomes the pet/vehicle frame, and that's the one I'm talking about.
Not sure if it's a bug or if I did something wrong, which is why I'm posting here before reporting it as a bug via ticket.
Were you (or your vehicle) engaged in PvP combat (Wintergrasp, SotA, IoC, etc.)? If so, you don't actually leave combat until several seconds after your last action. I've seen instances of my pet or vehicle leaving combat before or after I do in PvP.
No, it was the Frostborn daily quest. Additionally, I could see the "Leaving Combat" floating text before the indicator would go away.
This is a Blizzard bug. The game continue to say that vehicles are in combat for a while after they actually leave combat. The floating text was for the player. I'd noticed this a while back and investigated and there's really not much I can do about the game giving me bad info.
The "Unit group" dropdown doesn't let you choose one and then change the settings for the selected one. It really just the selected group for the "Current group" group.
All settings there are per "Current group" selection.
Groupgroup groupy group? :D
That's the problem. Its both pointless & confusing to initial users. There are duplicate sliders and duplicate checkboxes for each what-seems-like-different Unit group dropdowns. But they really aren't different; can't change one without changing them all.
Get rid of the duplicates on each dropdown. Put the duplicates in a "Global" (or similar) dropdown choice and leave ones that are actually different (if there are any) in their own dropdown choices.
Then you have the true weirdness of one or more options for each dropdown named differently, but are still linked. For example, the "Include Player" checkbox in the Party dropdown is linked with the differently named "Include target" checkbox in the Party targets dropdown.
Connected to that, despite having a dropdown choice there, you can't get party target frames to show up unless you go to the effort of creating a separate Current group for them. Get rid of the dropdowns that have no connection or bearing on the frames actually connected with a Current group choice. As in get rid of the Raid, Party targets, Party pets and so on Unit group dropdowns for the Party Current group, etc.. And make a default Current group for Party targets (as well as Raid, as posted previously).
Or something. How options are currently laid out is less than ideal.
Zidomo, I honestly don't follow you at all. It really seems like you just don't understand what's going on here. There aren't any duplicate options. You don't change all of them by changing one of them. You can't get rid of any drop downs.
I found the options to be intuitive. You just can't have an add-on as advanced as Pitbull without needing to understand a relatively advanced configuration system.
Connected to that, despite having a dropdown choice there, you can't get party target frames to show up unless you go to the effort of creating a separate Current group for them. Get rid of the dropdowns that have no connection or bearing on the frames actually connected with a Current group choice. As in get rid of the Raid, Party targets, Party pets and so on Unit group dropdowns for the Party Current group, etc.. And make a default Current group for Party targets (as well as Raid, as posted previously).
Or something. How options are currently laid out is less than ideal.
Like Allara said, tahts how PB4 works, it supposed to do that.
Whenever u want to show a frame/unit ui need to create a new group for it.
same way as u have to create a new layout for every frame u want to have looking different.
No, actually, I understand it just fine ;). It took a while though; can imagine what it might be like for average non-mod testers.
Actually it's pretty clear that you really don't understand it.
That's the problem. Its both pointless & confusing to initial users. There are duplicate sliders and duplicate checkboxes for each what-seems-like-different Unit group dropdowns. But they really aren't different; can't change one without changing them all.
Get rid of the duplicates on each dropdown. Put the duplicates in a "Global" (or similar) dropdown choice and leave ones that are actually different (if there are any) in their own dropdown choices.
There are no duplicates.
Then you have the true weirdness of one or more options for each dropdown named differently, but are still linked. For example, the "Include Player" checkbox in the Party dropdown is linked with the differently named "Include target" checkbox in the Party targets dropdown.
It's really the same option the name changes to match the name of the unit it effects. This is actually there to make things more clear not less.
Connected to that, despite having a dropdown choice there, you can't get party target frames to show up unless you go to the effort of creating a separate Current group for them. Get rid of the dropdowns that have no connection or bearing on the frames actually connected with a Current group choice. As in get rid of the Raid, Party targets, Party pets and so on Unit group dropdowns for the Party Current group, etc.. And make a default Current group for Party targets (as well as Raid, as posted previously).
Or something. How options are currently laid out is less than ideal.
Ok I think you're drastically misunderstanding the meaing of the Current group drop down. The user can create as many groups as they want and call them whatever he wants. I could name my Raid frames "Slarty Bartfast" if I wanted to. The names in the Current group dropdown are in essence user defined labels. They have no meaning to the addon itself.
In the default configuration there are two pre made groups for you. "Party" and "Party pets." These are for convenience only, the names don't particularly matter, in fact under the General tab there's a field labeled Name in which you can edit the name.
This is different from say the Units configuration for singletons where the list is predefined for you. You can't add more, you simply get one singleton per unit. When we grow the ability to have multiple frames for a singleton unit (which isn't that far off) it configuration there would be very similar. You'd have a Current frame dropdown, with user definable labels for the various frames and a Unit dropdown to select which unit that frame points at.
You can have as many raid groups as you see fit to have. I actually have 19 different raid groups configured. 8 are used for the individual groups in the raid, 8 are used for those groups pets, 3 are used for main tanks, their targets and target targets.
As a result of this flexibility, the addon doesn't know if a group is for a raid or a party until you tell it that. You do that with the Unit group dropdown.
Thus by changing the Unit group dropdown you change what the set of frames that Current group is configured to display. However, you're still changing the same group. The label of the Include ____ option changes to make sense in the context of what the group is set to display and other options show up or disappear as well. However, the underlying object that you're editing in the addon stays the same.
I'm really not sure what to say if you can't understand this concept. It probably doesn't help that Units and Groups differs here. But you really are missing something quit big.
Some of the confusion results from the fact that the word "group" can refer to many different aspects of the configuration. I honestly can't think of a word that better describes this aspect, however. "Which group do you want to appear in this group named Party?"
Would users understand it if they were called "grouping templates" or "collections" something silly like that instead? So that when they read the labels on the controls, in their heads it reads "Which group do you want to appear in this collection named Party?" "Which layout should apply to this collection named Party?"
Edit: I see someone in a ticket referred to them as "frame groups." That might be a good alternative, too. "Which unit group should appear in this frame group named Party?"
Actually, there was a lot of good language used in Shefki's last big post there. The problem is that we have so many synonyms in English, I wonder if the configuration is more difficult or less intuitive in the other localisations.
I agree that the word "group" is over-used, but it's difficult finding other ways to describe it. Shefki used the word "label" and I wonder if there might be some way to shoehorn that concept in somewhere.
Actually, something I was thinking was what if the configuration had a Basic and an Advanced mode. Call them different names if it's conceptually better. Anyhow, in Basic mode, the concepts of Layouts and Groups/Units are merged in some way. And there are no custom names for anything, all the lists contain the actual Unit/Group names and they are directly configured without the middle-men. Combined with meaningful default settings, people ought to be able to get going with PB4 faster and simpler. This would require quite an overhaul though, and since Advanced mode is significantly more advanced than Basic that might be a scary button for people to press. :)
For anyone who wanted "Layout inheritance" (including myself), this must be a stark reminder that the Ace3 options widgets limit us quite a bit. Indeed if the configuration is already this complicated, I shudder to think what this forum would look like if inheritance were in there too. :P
Actually it's pretty clear that you really don't understand it.
Orly? Or maybe--besides my first post, after which I fully understood the setup--you don't understand the perspective I'm trying to approach the mod from.
After the initial confusion of my first post on the subject, I got it. But I'm still I'm attempting to approach it as a typical user and forwarding items that may (or may not) make sense for such a user. If you don't wish to hear about such a perspective, I can stop, no problem. Just trying to help.
When one "size" slider in a Unit group dropdown also changes--identically--the same-named slider in every other dropdown choice, they certainly don't appear to be anything other than that. They may not be, but that's how they first appear.
I know that every Current Group needs a specifically selected Unit group to show. But it certainly isn't apparent at first glance that this is the case. It appears--from a typical perspective--that each Unit group selection is something different to be modified within each Current group. Its really not as you can only have one Unit group-per.
It's really the same option the name changes to match the name of the unit it effects. This is actually there to make things more clear not less.
I haven't seen elsewhere too often where changing the name of a repeated function to something completely different makes things more clear ;).
Perhaps give indications that when you change some options in each Unit group selection, it will effect all others? And what differently named options are actually the same/similar between each?
Since each Current group can have just a single Unit group, I come back again to the suggestion about having a separate "Global" area--that isn't something that can be actually selected as a group--where the identical options can be selected that apply to all Unit groups. A bit different than how it is now.
When a user currently switches between Unit groups and one or more things change around a bit--the names between the "same" functions change, the Layout dropdown switches position to the right of the frame--it really looks at first glance that each Unit group selection is something completely different from other ones. When its essentially not in terms of the options.
In the default configuration there are two pre made groups for you. "Party" and "Party pets." These are for convenience only, the names don't particularly matter, in fact under the General tab there's a field labeled Name in which you can edit the name.
What I have been trying to say is that for greater usability, why not--in addition to "Party" & "Party pet"--add more typically expected Current group defaults. Such as "Raid" (containing the appropriate Raid Unit group), "Party targets" (ditto) and so on. Detracting nothing from the present customizability, but making the plunge for new users less painful.
That's exactly how Pitbull is designed. You create a new Group every time you want to see different frames.
No kidding. My point has been that not having default Groups present other than the current Party & Party Pets--having to set all typical ones such as party targets & raid individually first--is quite atypical and detracts from usability.
You just can't have an add-on as advanced as Pitbull without needing to understand a relatively advanced configuration system.
Actually, often you can have both an advanced configuration system as well as "typical defaults" that will work fine for many people without having to delve into that system. Ahhh OS/2...
Orly? Or maybe--besides my first post, after which I fully understood the setup--you don't understand the perspective I'm trying to approach the mod from.
After the initial confusion of my first post on the subject, I got it. But I'm still I'm attempting to approach it as a typical user and forwarding items that may (or may not) make sense for such a user. If you don't wish to hear about such a perspective, I can stop, no problem. Just trying to help.
Up until this post your were posting as a confused user who didn't seem to understand how to use the configuration. Maybe this wasn't your intention but this is certainly how you were coming across. In particular you haven't been using language that conveys your understanding of the design paradigm used in the configuration while identifying the usability issues. I'm open to suggestions and ideas and even criticism. But I haven't been responding to criticism nor has anyone else. We've been trying to make you understand how the mod works.
I do think you need to look at this from our perspective. You've been playing the "typical user." In your view. However, the typical user comes along, gets confused about something, you explain how it works and they respond with "ohh I see now thanks." Your responses have reiterated your view point of how you think the addon works while asking for changes that are based around that view point. All while playing the part of the "typical user." This sort of discourse is extremely frustrating to the rest of us. We're trying to help you understand when you apparently do understand but are interesed in role playing out some sort of issue for the purposes of trying to improve usability.
If you want to demonstrate how you think something is confusing it'll be much more constructive to just come out and say "I found this confusing in this way." Then make suggestions on how to make the configuration convey the existing design more clearly. As opposed to making suggestions of how to make the configuration fit how you think the addon should work.
When one "size" slider in a Unit group dropdown also changes--identically--the same-named slider in every other dropdown choice, they certainly don't appear to be anything other than that. They may not be, but that's how they first appear.
I know that every Current Group needs a specifically selected Unit group to show. But it certainly isn't apparent at first glance that this is the case. It appears--from a typical perspective--that each Unit group selection is something different to be modified within each Current group. Its really not as you can only have one Unit group-per.
There are several things that have been done to try and convey this.
First and most importantly the drop down to change which the group of frames that you're editing is named Current Group. This follows the convention of the addon to always use Current ____ for something that changes what a number of the configuration options are editing.
In this particular case we've enclosed all of the settings in tabs that create a box around the settings that change based on the selection of the Current group dropdown. There is some variation within the addon how we do this. In some places we use a horizontal rule to show this, in others we don't have a clear delineation. Interestingly enough, this is one of the cases that I think we have a clear delineation and it's other places that I feel that we could do better.
The tooltips of both dropdowns contains terminology words that should signal that one is changing the set that you're editing and one is changing the units the set is displaying. Perhaps this wording can be improved.
If you have suggestions on how we can better convey this I'm listening.
I haven't seen elsewhere too often where changing the name of a repeated function to something completely different makes things more clear ;).
I really am not sure what you could do here otherwise. The meaning of the checkbox changes in subtle ways based on which Party based Unit group you have selected. I really feel that it's helpful to have the name change.
Perhaps give indications that when you change some options in each Unit group selection, it will effect all others? And what differently named options are actually the same/similar between each?
I don't really see how to do that. What indications do you suggest? I've already explained what I think the cues are in the design.
Since each Current group can have just a single Unit group, I come back again to the suggestion about having a separate "Global" area--that isn't something that can be actually selected as a group--where the identical options can be selected that apply to all Unit groups. A bit different than how it is now.
I really don't understand what you mean by this.
When a user currently switches between Unit groups and one or more things change around a bit--the names between the "same" functions change, the Layout dropdown switches position to the right of the frame--it really looks at first glance that each Unit group selection is something completely different from other ones. When its essentially not in terms of the options.
I'll move the Include player checkbox to the end of the configuration options which should keep all the other options (which don't change in a consistent position, only adding the one option). This should minimize the amount of noticeable change when changing that dropdown and make things clearer.
What I have been trying to say is that for greater usability, why not--in addition to "Party" & "Party pet"--add more typically expected Current group defaults. Such as "Raid" (containing the appropriate Raid Unit group), "Party targets" (ditto) and so on. Detracting nothing from the present customizability, but making the plunge for new users less painful.
No kidding. My point has been that not having default Groups present other than the current Party & Party Pets--having to set all typical ones such as party targets & raid individually first--is quite atypical and detracts from usability.
Except that there's a couple of other considerations about making groups prebuilt for users:
a) It implies, though inaccurately, that the premade groups are the limit of the possibilities. Having no raid group, communicates something. We advertise that we have raid frames. If there's no raid group, then there must be someway to make them.
b) A significant proportion of our user base doesn't use our raid frames. Probably the vast majority of the user base uses grid. They have no interest in raid frames. To those users no raid group is a perfectly reasonable default state.
c) There is overhead in having uneeded groups defined. It takes up memory, it takes up disk space, it adds clutter to the configuration.
The lack of a preset raid group was not happenstance. It wasn't an oversight. It was a deliberate design decision. Maybe we need to reevaluate it. But no matter what I don't believe I'm going to make defaults for everything. Certainly not group target frames. Probably not even Raid pets.
Actually, often you can have both an advanced configuration system as well as "typical defaults" that will work fine for many people without having to delve into that system. Ahhh OS/2...
I'll point out again that I think the vast majority of our users don't even use raid frames. That the lack of a raid group is a perfectly acceptable default for them.
Consider this fact: Since WoW 2.0 PitBull has had major taint and operation issues when groups change in combat. This only effects party and raid frames. Raid frames more so than Party frames since the Raid frames are used in battlegrounds where these sorts of things happen more often. There was not a huge outcry over this for the most part. Most users just didn't notice.
Since PitBull4 added raid groups there has only ever been one complaint about group frames not appearing properly when logging into the game while in combat.
However, up until the day that we converted the Set Focus menu into something that told you to use /focus, I'd least one post a day about the focus menu not working, there were at least 10 tickets opened on the issue.
What you consider a good default state may very well not be for the majority of our users.
This bug has been fixed shortly after the last beta available on curse.com was released. You can either try an alpha package from here or wait a little bit until the next beta package is released onto curse.
I downloaded the latest versions from wowace and at first it seemed to fix the problem. I still have it though.. and i dont know if it helps but when this happens ( lay a totem and the immage wont appear.. only the timer) and i do /console reloadui i get this error:
Interface\FrameXML\UIPparent.lua:232: attempt to concatenate local 'reason' (a nil value)
and as a side note.. it seems that now i have been getting more and more of this bug.. the other day i was in a strand of the ancients bg and the totem immage wouldnt show so i reloaded the ui.. but then i had to do it again every time a round finished or i got into a nre bg.
Hrm, I couldn't reproduce it ever since those last fixes on that bug I've done. I guess I'll have to do some pvp in hope to reproduce it.
Don't expect any fix from me over the next 7 days tho, will be out of town.
If you can provide any more details, really anything, that would help me find a sure-fire way to reproduce it, it would help a lot. Am I reading your comments correctly that the bug appears for you when entering/leaving bg's, but when you reload inside a bg it'll work all thruout that one bg?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI think you still missunderstand that option panel.
The "Unit group" dropdown doesn't let you choose one and then change the settings for the selected one. It really just the selected group for the "Current group" group.
All settings there are per "Current group" selection.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumMy list of major things needed before a normal release is getting pretty short. Here are the things on my mental list that I'm looking to get done before 4.0.0 is release quality.
* Smooth bar updating module.
* Some LuaTexts changes.
* Investigate faster health updates.
* Some improvements for precision placement of text/indicators (I haven't actually worked out precisely what the changes will be I have several different ideas).
I believe the above will bring us up to the point where everything that was possible in PitBull3 is possible in PB4 and then some. There are a lot of other enhancement requests. Some of which have merit, but I don't think they're really critical to release quality.
Not sure if it's a bug or if I did something wrong, which is why I'm posting here before reporting it as a bug via ticket.
Were you (or your vehicle) engaged in PvP combat (Wintergrasp, SotA, IoC, etc.)? If so, you don't actually leave combat until several seconds after your last action. I've seen instances of my pet or vehicle leaving combat before or after I do in PvP.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThis is a Blizzard bug. The game continue to say that vehicles are in combat for a while after they actually leave combat. The floating text was for the player. I'd noticed this a while back and investigated and there's really not much I can do about the game giving me bad info.
No, actually, I understand it just fine ;). It took a while though; can imagine what it might be like for average non-mod testers.
Groupgroup groupy group? :D
That's the problem. Its both pointless & confusing to initial users. There are duplicate sliders and duplicate checkboxes for each what-seems-like-different Unit group dropdowns. But they really aren't different; can't change one without changing them all.
Get rid of the duplicates on each dropdown. Put the duplicates in a "Global" (or similar) dropdown choice and leave ones that are actually different (if there are any) in their own dropdown choices.
Then you have the true weirdness of one or more options for each dropdown named differently, but are still linked. For example, the "Include Player" checkbox in the Party dropdown is linked with the differently named "Include target" checkbox in the Party targets dropdown.
Connected to that, despite having a dropdown choice there, you can't get party target frames to show up unless you go to the effort of creating a separate Current group for them. Get rid of the dropdowns that have no connection or bearing on the frames actually connected with a Current group choice. As in get rid of the Raid, Party targets, Party pets and so on Unit group dropdowns for the Party Current group, etc.. And make a default Current group for Party targets (as well as Raid, as posted previously).
Or something. How options are currently laid out is less than ideal.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI found the options to be intuitive. You just can't have an add-on as advanced as Pitbull without needing to understand a relatively advanced configuration system.
That's exactly how Pitbull is designed. You create a new Group every time you want to see different frames.
Like Allara said, tahts how PB4 works, it supposed to do that.
Whenever u want to show a frame/unit ui need to create a new group for it.
same way as u have to create a new layout for every frame u want to have looking different.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumActually it's pretty clear that you really don't understand it.
There are no duplicates.
It's really the same option the name changes to match the name of the unit it effects. This is actually there to make things more clear not less.
Ok I think you're drastically misunderstanding the meaing of the Current group drop down. The user can create as many groups as they want and call them whatever he wants. I could name my Raid frames "Slarty Bartfast" if I wanted to. The names in the Current group dropdown are in essence user defined labels. They have no meaning to the addon itself.
In the default configuration there are two pre made groups for you. "Party" and "Party pets." These are for convenience only, the names don't particularly matter, in fact under the General tab there's a field labeled Name in which you can edit the name.
This is different from say the Units configuration for singletons where the list is predefined for you. You can't add more, you simply get one singleton per unit. When we grow the ability to have multiple frames for a singleton unit (which isn't that far off) it configuration there would be very similar. You'd have a Current frame dropdown, with user definable labels for the various frames and a Unit dropdown to select which unit that frame points at.
You can have as many raid groups as you see fit to have. I actually have 19 different raid groups configured. 8 are used for the individual groups in the raid, 8 are used for those groups pets, 3 are used for main tanks, their targets and target targets.
As a result of this flexibility, the addon doesn't know if a group is for a raid or a party until you tell it that. You do that with the Unit group dropdown.
Thus by changing the Unit group dropdown you change what the set of frames that Current group is configured to display. However, you're still changing the same group. The label of the Include ____ option changes to make sense in the context of what the group is set to display and other options show up or disappear as well. However, the underlying object that you're editing in the addon stays the same.
I'm really not sure what to say if you can't understand this concept. It probably doesn't help that Units and Groups differs here. But you really are missing something quit big.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premiumhttp://www.contemptgaming.com/?q=node/537
part two linked at the bottom of that page is all about groups.
Would users understand it if they were called "grouping templates" or "collections" something silly like that instead? So that when they read the labels on the controls, in their heads it reads "Which group do you want to appear in this collection named Party?" "Which layout should apply to this collection named Party?"
Edit: I see someone in a ticket referred to them as "frame groups." That might be a good alternative, too. "Which unit group should appear in this frame group named Party?"
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI agree that the word "group" is over-used, but it's difficult finding other ways to describe it. Shefki used the word "label" and I wonder if there might be some way to shoehorn that concept in somewhere.
Actually, something I was thinking was what if the configuration had a Basic and an Advanced mode. Call them different names if it's conceptually better. Anyhow, in Basic mode, the concepts of Layouts and Groups/Units are merged in some way. And there are no custom names for anything, all the lists contain the actual Unit/Group names and they are directly configured without the middle-men. Combined with meaningful default settings, people ought to be able to get going with PB4 faster and simpler. This would require quite an overhaul though, and since Advanced mode is significantly more advanced than Basic that might be a scary button for people to press. :)
For anyone who wanted "Layout inheritance" (including myself), this must be a stark reminder that the Ace3 options widgets limit us quite a bit. Indeed if the configuration is already this complicated, I shudder to think what this forum would look like if inheritance were in there too. :P
Orly? Or maybe--besides my first post, after which I fully understood the setup--you don't understand the perspective I'm trying to approach the mod from.
After the initial confusion of my first post on the subject, I got it. But I'm still I'm attempting to approach it as a typical user and forwarding items that may (or may not) make sense for such a user. If you don't wish to hear about such a perspective, I can stop, no problem. Just trying to help.
When one "size" slider in a Unit group dropdown also changes--identically--the same-named slider in every other dropdown choice, they certainly don't appear to be anything other than that. They may not be, but that's how they first appear.
I know that every Current Group needs a specifically selected Unit group to show. But it certainly isn't apparent at first glance that this is the case. It appears--from a typical perspective--that each Unit group selection is something different to be modified within each Current group. Its really not as you can only have one Unit group-per.
I haven't seen elsewhere too often where changing the name of a repeated function to something completely different makes things more clear ;).
Perhaps give indications that when you change some options in each Unit group selection, it will effect all others? And what differently named options are actually the same/similar between each?
Since each Current group can have just a single Unit group, I come back again to the suggestion about having a separate "Global" area--that isn't something that can be actually selected as a group--where the identical options can be selected that apply to all Unit groups. A bit different than how it is now.
When a user currently switches between Unit groups and one or more things change around a bit--the names between the "same" functions change, the Layout dropdown switches position to the right of the frame--it really looks at first glance that each Unit group selection is something completely different from other ones. When its essentially not in terms of the options.
What I have been trying to say is that for greater usability, why not--in addition to "Party" & "Party pet"--add more typically expected Current group defaults. Such as "Raid" (containing the appropriate Raid Unit group), "Party targets" (ditto) and so on. Detracting nothing from the present customizability, but making the plunge for new users less painful.
No kidding. My point has been that not having default Groups present other than the current Party & Party Pets--having to set all typical ones such as party targets & raid individually first--is quite atypical and detracts from usability.
Actually, often you can have both an advanced configuration system as well as "typical defaults" that will work fine for many people without having to delve into that system. Ahhh OS/2...
Anyway, good luck.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumUp until this post your were posting as a confused user who didn't seem to understand how to use the configuration. Maybe this wasn't your intention but this is certainly how you were coming across. In particular you haven't been using language that conveys your understanding of the design paradigm used in the configuration while identifying the usability issues. I'm open to suggestions and ideas and even criticism. But I haven't been responding to criticism nor has anyone else. We've been trying to make you understand how the mod works.
I do think you need to look at this from our perspective. You've been playing the "typical user." In your view. However, the typical user comes along, gets confused about something, you explain how it works and they respond with "ohh I see now thanks." Your responses have reiterated your view point of how you think the addon works while asking for changes that are based around that view point. All while playing the part of the "typical user." This sort of discourse is extremely frustrating to the rest of us. We're trying to help you understand when you apparently do understand but are interesed in role playing out some sort of issue for the purposes of trying to improve usability.
If you want to demonstrate how you think something is confusing it'll be much more constructive to just come out and say "I found this confusing in this way." Then make suggestions on how to make the configuration convey the existing design more clearly. As opposed to making suggestions of how to make the configuration fit how you think the addon should work.
There are several things that have been done to try and convey this.
First and most importantly the drop down to change which the group of frames that you're editing is named Current Group. This follows the convention of the addon to always use Current ____ for something that changes what a number of the configuration options are editing.
In this particular case we've enclosed all of the settings in tabs that create a box around the settings that change based on the selection of the Current group dropdown. There is some variation within the addon how we do this. In some places we use a horizontal rule to show this, in others we don't have a clear delineation. Interestingly enough, this is one of the cases that I think we have a clear delineation and it's other places that I feel that we could do better.
The tooltips of both dropdowns contains terminology words that should signal that one is changing the set that you're editing and one is changing the units the set is displaying. Perhaps this wording can be improved.
If you have suggestions on how we can better convey this I'm listening.
I really am not sure what you could do here otherwise. The meaning of the checkbox changes in subtle ways based on which Party based Unit group you have selected. I really feel that it's helpful to have the name change.
I don't really see how to do that. What indications do you suggest? I've already explained what I think the cues are in the design.
I really don't understand what you mean by this.
I'll move the Include player checkbox to the end of the configuration options which should keep all the other options (which don't change in a consistent position, only adding the one option). This should minimize the amount of noticeable change when changing that dropdown and make things clearer.
Except that there's a couple of other considerations about making groups prebuilt for users:
a) It implies, though inaccurately, that the premade groups are the limit of the possibilities. Having no raid group, communicates something. We advertise that we have raid frames. If there's no raid group, then there must be someway to make them.
b) A significant proportion of our user base doesn't use our raid frames. Probably the vast majority of the user base uses grid. They have no interest in raid frames. To those users no raid group is a perfectly reasonable default state.
c) There is overhead in having uneeded groups defined. It takes up memory, it takes up disk space, it adds clutter to the configuration.
The lack of a preset raid group was not happenstance. It wasn't an oversight. It was a deliberate design decision. Maybe we need to reevaluate it. But no matter what I don't believe I'm going to make defaults for everything. Certainly not group target frames. Probably not even Raid pets.
I'll point out again that I think the vast majority of our users don't even use raid frames. That the lack of a raid group is a perfectly acceptable default for them.
Consider this fact: Since WoW 2.0 PitBull has had major taint and operation issues when groups change in combat. This only effects party and raid frames. Raid frames more so than Party frames since the Raid frames are used in battlegrounds where these sorts of things happen more often. There was not a huge outcry over this for the most part. Most users just didn't notice.
Since PitBull4 added raid groups there has only ever been one complaint about group frames not appearing properly when logging into the game while in combat.
However, up until the day that we converted the Set Focus menu into something that told you to use /focus, I'd least one post a day about the focus menu not working, there were at least 10 tickets opened on the issue.
What you consider a good default state may very well not be for the majority of our users.
I downloaded the latest versions from wowace and at first it seemed to fix the problem. I still have it though.. and i dont know if it helps but when this happens ( lay a totem and the immage wont appear.. only the timer) and i do /console reloadui i get this error:
Interface\FrameXML\UIPparent.lua:232: attempt to concatenate local 'reason' (a nil value)
and as a side note.. it seems that now i have been getting more and more of this bug.. the other day i was in a strand of the ancients bg and the totem immage wouldnt show so i reloaded the ui.. but then i had to do it again every time a round finished or i got into a nre bg.
any idea what is happening?
Hrm, I couldn't reproduce it ever since those last fixes on that bug I've done. I guess I'll have to do some pvp in hope to reproduce it.
Don't expect any fix from me over the next 7 days tho, will be out of town.
If you can provide any more details, really anything, that would help me find a sure-fire way to reproduce it, it would help a lot. Am I reading your comments correctly that the bug appears for you when entering/leaving bg's, but when you reload inside a bg it'll work all thruout that one bg?