Yes, I agree. A vote of zero doesn't really express apathy. It expresses a non-positive opinion of a ticket. It also represents a non-negative opinion. (I merely framed my original post that way since this question is so ripe for ironic interpretation.)
There are some cases where I feel a ticket creator has a valid concern, but wish to express that I do not share that concern, without having to say that I'm opposed to it. In these cases, my vote of zero would mean to me, "Neither supporting nor opposing."
I've often wished I could vote zero to accompany a comment I wrote that says, "I agree with your concept, but I do not agree with your suggested implementation." or "I think your point is valid, but any benefit a fix could provide would be trivial." In those cases, I usually vote +1 or -1, but sometimes, my net opinion really is closer to zero. In these cases, my vote of zero means something more like, "Equally supporting and opposing."
I understand if there are technical reasons why a vote of zero cannot be supported, but if it can't be done, I think it would be good just to take zero out of the scale, and place a link under the voting scale that says "Retract my vote."
The way it currently appears, that tantalizing zero just keeps taunting me. ;)
- Registered User
Member for 14 years, 1 month, and 26 days
Last active Fri, Oct, 4 2013 21:30:21
- 0 Followers
- 347 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
Sep 18, 2009_ForgeUser388539 posted a message on Battleground - a HUD around the Blizzard BG statusI agree that "timer spam" can be annoying, especially if multiple people are doing it. But if someone asks me in AV how much time is left on a tower, wanting to know if they'll have time to go recap the nearby graveyard, it would be irresponsible of me to ignore them and say, "Just go install Battleground or Capping."Posted in: General AddOns
It is responsible for me to respond with how much time is left. Perhaps you could simply insert the time remaining in the chat edit box, if it is open, and do nothing otherwise. That way, I can send a tell to the player, click on the objective, and you could even add a plug for your addon at the end. "... This message is brought to you by Battleground. Install it yourself so you don't have to ask next time."
Edit: Also, since tickets are not yet enabled for your project, would you prefer we give feedback in this thread, or in private messages?
Sep 17, 2009It is come to my attention that while it is possible to express either a positive or negative opinion by voting on a ticket, it's impossible to express a neutral opinion.Posted in: General Chat
When clicking on the "zero (neutral)" option to vote on a ticket in the WowAce or CurseForge system, it does nothing, except simply remove your vote altogether if you had already voted previously.
I feel that a neutral vote of zero should count! For example, a ticket with one vote of 0 and one vote of 3 should have a vote total (sum) of 3, and an average of 1.5. Currently, if you try to express your neutral opinion, the ticket will just show up with one vote of 3, giving an average of 3.
Demand that your indifference be heard! Vote for my ticket on CurseForge! You're not allowed to be neutral on this issue because the system won't allow you, so vote!
Sep 16, 2009With my degree of Lua proficiency, I'm afraid I'd be likely to introduce far worse side effects than I'd "fix" in the process. :)Posted in: Ace3
Edit: My Lua proficiency isn't really that bad. It's a straightforward and easy to learn scripting language. And there are plenty of great resources for me to go to for Lua help. It's just understanding exactly how (and why) WoW does things that gets me lost at times.
For example, I realize that enabling the mouse on control widget frames would cause textures and fontstrings in their "HIGHLIGHT" layer to be shown on mouseover. I'd wager that these regions don't get changed when the control is set to disabled, since disabling the mouse is a shortcut to ensure they don't get shown anyway. Simply enabling the mouse could cause the unwanted illusion that the control is interactible while it's disabled.
I'd guess that click events might go through, too, and the handlers for those might not check if the control was disabled before changing some state. (After all, why should the handler bother checking, since the control is assumed to be unclickable when disabled.)
I can imagine the efficiency gained by disabling the mouse on disabled controls. The complexity and potential for serious error in trying to make these things work according to my personal design whims is terrifying to me. :P
Sep 15, 2009That makes perfect sense! (I see this now when looking at the video options, sound options, interface options > game, etc.)Posted in: Ace3
I don't agree with Blizzard's design perspective on this, but I understand and appreciate the level of consistency you've added.
Sep 15, 2009I never noticed this before, but it was brought to my attention in the PitBull thread that widgets for disabled options don't display their descriptions in a tooltip. Is there a limitation or design consideration that resulted in this behavior?Posted in: Ace3
(I had made the suggestion that the author append the reason an option is disabled to its description, so that users would see it in the tooltip.)
Sep 15, 2009Small concern about the v4 client: It appears to have a "premium override" built in to each of the beta builds. (This was true when testing the v3 client, as well.)Posted in: Updaters
I'm not a premium subscriber, and I think it's important to test the "non-premium" experience with the client as well. I understand if you don't have ads ready to serve yet, but I would guess that a large number of users who end up using this application won't be premium subscribers either. Since it's important for them to have a good (yet presumably limited) experience with the v4 client, I'd be happy to test it this way. Is there a way I can force the client to see me as a non-premium user?
Sep 15, 2009Posted in: Unit Frames
The "irrelevant, but enabled" and the related "partially enabled" control paradigms can provide some very powerful results, but they tend to become confused with one another easily. They usually require a visual hierarchy or textual cue to pull off successfully.Quote from MuphridI was speaking more along the lines of how the addon select screen's checkmarks work, ...
Blizzard can get away with this in the AddOn List screen because they provide the extra visual cue next to the addon's name saying "Dependency disabled" in bright yellow text, AND it lists the dependencies in the tooltip for the addon's checkbox.
Sep 14, 2009_ForgeUser388539 posted a message on SexyMap - A tiny bundle of minimap awesomeificationChinchilla no longer uses Rock, it's Ace3 all the way. (And it's been that way for quite some time now. You must have switched a long time ago!)Posted in: Map/Minimap AddOns
Sep 14, 2009I agree about the disabled vs. hidden options aspect being difficult (and confusing). Since the dependencies involved are quite complex, and since there are no easy solutions to laying them out with appropriate visual hierarchical cues within the limitations of AceConfig, users will become confused one way or the other.Posted in: Unit Frames
However, which is potentially more disconcerting to a user: An option the user expects to be there and can't find at all, or an option the user expects to be there, but can't change?
My suggestion would be to disable the option, but leave it visible. In addition, when you disable the option, add an explanation to its description (shown by default in a mouseover tooltip) detailing why the option may not be available. (.. "Option Y requires Option X to be enabled/does not apply when Option X is disabled.")
This is a design principle that has worked well for me in applications with ridiculously complicated dependencies among their settings. After all, you can't tell the user that an option they expect to see doesn't apply if they can't see it! :)
Edit: A special concern about hiding options is that it can cause remaining options to reflow. This can result in the options that are actually there not being in the place users expect to find them.
Sep 14, 2009I have a question about forum etiquette. Is it appropriate to lobby in forum posts for up or down votes for bug reports in the ticketing system?Posted in: General Chat
I've seen a few posts lately asking for readers to vote up specific tickets. I can think of a few tickets (not my own) I have a strong opinion about, too, and I had considered asking for up or down votes on those tickets in the addon's forum thread.
I realize that awareness of the ticketing system is lower than ideal, and that usage of the system is even lower still (even by some authors). Lobbying in forum posts could increase both awareness of the system and its usage.
However, I'm having second thoughts. Now I'm concerned that readers, if exposed to this kind of lobbying frequently, will actually pay less attention to the ticketing system. They'll conclude that if something is important enough for them to look at and vote, someone will make a forum post about it.
I'm not looking to start an argument here; I'm only looking for advice. I'm interested in your opinion regarding my question directly, not your opinion on the opinion of the person who posted above you. (Unless you happen to be the person posting below me. :))
Sep 14, 2009After all my griping about the testing process, I'd just like to share my gratitude for being able to sort the entire "Get More Addons" list by popularity in the v4 client. It is endlessly amusing looking at the least popular addons. There are a few awesome gems at the very bottom!Posted in: Updaters
My favorite so far is Elkano's "FixGermanSpellCrits" from 2006, with 3 recent downloads. I'm not laughing at the addon, it served a useful purpose back in patch 1.7. It's just fun to take a trip down memory lane and guess at why some of these addons are at the bottom. Some of them are actually quite interesting, and there's not an easy way to see the whole list sorted this way on one page on curse.com.
Edit: More bizzare yet unpopular things that look fun: RomanRoller ("When RomanRoller is on, it will convert all loot rolls and "/roll" to Roman Numerals.") and HexMessage ("HexMessage encodes all messages you send using hexadecimal chars. Players able to read Hex or having the addon themselves will see the correct solution, everybody else will wonder what those numbers are.").
Edit again: The more I look at these, the more I think there needs to be some kind of weekly feature for obscure addons. Like Kerpele (Allows your guild leader to log you out remotely for being AFK during a raid.) What kind of sadistic guild leader would force his guild mates to install that? I love it!
Sep 13, 2009_ForgeUser388539 posted a message on An open letter to Netcurse regarding CurseForge/WowAce developmentI can appreciate that developer time needs to be devoted to "visible" revenue generating activites, like wooing new premium subscriptions with a flashy new client. It's my understanding that the client relies heavily on the repository and ticketing systems, and that trying to implement changes to the backend right now might be disruptive to developing the frontend.Posted in: General Chat
I like to harp on visual design and interaction issues as much as the next person, but I'm starting to get used to the quirks of CurseForge/WowAce, and making sweeping changes right now (even for the better) would probably be upsetting for me.
I also understand that on the curse.com side, more clicks = more ad impressions. So I'm somewhat forgiving if it takes 9 clicks to accomplish something I'd like to do in 2 clicks. It's just important that it remain obvious where I should click next. :)
P.S. -- I like these forums just as they are now. The forums are always going to have a separate community "feel" to them, just from a historical perspective. I think it's fine that they maintain a separate visual identity as well. But maybe I'm just nostalgic. :)
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.