#36423: "The new distress signal UX needs improvement"
Sobre o que é este relatório?
O que aconteceu ? Por favor escolha abaixo
O que aconteceu ? Por favor escolha abaixo
Por favor, cheque se já há um report com o mesmo assunto
Se sim, por favor, VOTE para este report. Reports com mais votos recebem PRIORIDADE!
# | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
---|
Descrição detalhada
• Por favor copie e cole a mensagem de erro que aparece na tela, se possível.
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 explique o que queria fazer, o que fez e o que aconteceu
• Qual navegador você está usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor copie/cole o texto em inglês em vez de sua língua. Se tiver uma captura de ecrã/tela deste problema (boa prática), pode usar Imgur.com para carregá-la e copiar/colar o endereço aqui.
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.• Este texto está disponível no sistema de traduções? Se sim, foi traduzido há mais de 24 horas?
• Qual navegador você está usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor, explique sua sugestão precisamente e de forma concisa, de forma que fique o mais fácil possível, entender o que você quer dizer.
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.• Qual navegador você está usando?
Google Chrome v79
• O que estava presente na tela quando você estava bloqueado (tela em branco? Parte da imagem do jogo? Mensagem de erro?)
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.• Qual navegador você está usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Que parte das regras não foi respeitada pela adaptação do 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.• A violação de regras está visível na revisão do jogo? Se sim, em que número de jogada?
• Qual navegador você está usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Qual era a acção de jogo que queria fazer?
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.• O que tenta fazer para provocar esta acção de jogo?
• O que aconteceu quando tentou fazer isto(mensagem de erro, mensagem na barra de estado do jogo)?
• Qual navegador você está usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Em que passo do jogo ocorre o problema(qual era a instrução corrente do jogo)?
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.• O que aconteceu quando tentou fazer uma acção de jogo(mensagem de erro, mensagem na barra de estado do jogo)?
• Qual navegador você está usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor descreva o problema de visualização. Se tiver uma captura de ecrã/tela deste problema (boa prática), pode usar Imgur.com para carregá-la e copiar/colar o endereço aqui.
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.• Qual navegador você está usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor copie/cole o texto em inglês em vez de sua língua. Se tiver uma captura de ecrã/tela deste problema (boa prática), pode usar Imgur.com para carregá-la e copiar/colar o endereço aqui.
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.• Este texto está disponível no sistema de traduções? Se sim, foi traduzido há mais de 24 horas?
• Qual navegador você está usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor, explique sua sugestão precisamente e de forma concisa, de forma que fique o mais fácil possível, entender o que você quer dizer.
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.• Qual navegador você está usando?
Google Chrome v79
Histórico do relatório
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".
Adicione alguma coisa para este relatório
- Outro ID de mesa / ID de jogada
- Carregar em F5 resolveu o problema?
- O problema aparece várias vezes? Sempre? Imprevisivelmente?
- Se tiver uma captura de ecrã/tela deste problema (boa prática), pode usar Imgur.com para carregá-la e copiar/colar o endereço aqui.