[Freeciv-Dev] Re: RFC: an interface question

[Ross Wetmore <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Given the interesting distribution of answers after the first round, do
considerations of any of the following change anyone's view.

1)  What do you think Freeciv users would prefer?
    a)  the typical user (who do think this is)
    b)  a 10 year old
    c)  a high school graduate
    d)  a college graduate in maths, science or engineering
    e)  a college graduate in business or arts
    Would they refer to map topologies by name, or by components?

2)  The current options focus somewhat on
    a)  building a topology from a set of low-level operations
    b)  presenting a selection of supported topology types

    If in the future the options are not independent, but form subsets
    within which any selection is possible, but others are constrained,
    would you rather select from a predigested supported set, or from a
    set of operations and constraints? How would you present constraints?

    Would you place a restriction on topologies, that all combinations
    must be supported, aka there are no constraints?

    Would you place a limit on the number of supported elements that
    were listed in the help? How would you handle a *really* long list?

Note, these are really pure UI questions.

Cheers,
RossW
=====

Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> For gen-topologies, Ross and I agree on 3 standard choices for topology: 
> isometric or not, north-south wrapping or not, and east-west wrapping or 
> not.
> This leads to a question of server interfaces.  One choice is:
>
>   > help isometricmap
>   Option: isometricmap  -  set to have an isometric map
>   instead of the standard flat-earth one
>   Status: changeable
>   Value: 0, Minimum: 0, Default: 0, Maximum: 1
>   > help xwrap
>   Option: xwrap  -  Set to wrap in east-west direction
>   Status: changeable
>   Value: 1, Minimum: 0, Default: 1, Maximum: 1
>   > help ywrap
>   Option: ywrap  -  Set to wrap in north-south direction
>   Status: changeable
>   Value: 0, Minimum: 0, Default: 0, Maximum: 1
>
> while the other is:
>
>   > help maptype
>   Option: maptype  -  Map type or topology
>   Description:
>     0 = Flat_Earth              4 = iso Flat_Earth
>     1 = Standard (Wrap E-W)     5 = iso Standard (Wrap E-W)
>     2 = Neptune  (Wrap N-S)     6 = iso Neptune  (Wrap N-S)
>     3 = Torus World             7 = iso Torus World
>
>   Status: changeable
>   Value: 1, Minimum: 0, Default: 1, Maximum: 7
>
> ultimately it shouldn't matter much which interface is used, but the 
> fact is that this generally ties in closely with which backend is being 
> used.
> My question, therefore, is: which interface is better/more 
> intuitive/easier to use?
> jason