[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface and who the hell is suppo

[Matt Chatterley]

On Fri, 19 Sep 1997 clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:

> In <01BCC450.6D97E470.caliban at darklock.com>, on 09/18/97 
>    at 07:10 PM, Caliban Tiresias Darklock <caliban at darklock.com> said:
> 
> >On Wednesday, September 17, 1997 7:33 PM, Jon A. Lambert 
> >[SMTP:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com] wrote:
> 
> ...deletia...
> 
> >> Different DOES entail turning off hundreds of Diku-expectant players.
> 
> >So your goal, if I hear this properly, is to make a game that a
> >certain  type of people will DISlike? Does this strike anyone else as
> >a perverse,  cynical, and ludicrous goal?
> 
> No, you are reading sloppily.  Another possible reading:  The goal
> will by implication "turn off" a certain set of people.  This is
> acknowledged and accepted as a side-effect of the goal definition.  It
> is not defined as part of the goal.

Absolutely spot on. I would personally generalise this to: Any specific
goal or aim towards one or more type(s) of player will by its very nature
remove others from the field of consideration. Bear in mind the huge
assumptions made herein (largely that all Xmud players are the same, and
so forth).
 
> >I have a vast number of things to add to this, but they are almost
> >all  off-topic. Suffice to say that in many places graphic interfaces
> >are not  actually appropriate, and MUDs are one of those places.
> >Graphic interfaces  are inherently limiting in expression, which I
> >think we all agree is Bad on  MUDs.
> 
> Disagreed.  I would assert that the austerity of the current MUD
> interface is one of its huge strengths.  
> 
> You may also want to distinguish between a GUI interface, and a GUI
> representation of the game-world.  They are two different things.

Definitely. I am using a sort of textGUI at the moment - X11, which four
xterms on my screen (running TF, pine, pico, and one spare for misc use).
This allows me to use all sorts of neat features such as easy cut'n'paste
between them, and of course using graphics based software without having
to specifically boot X11. I would never go back to just using the console.

To put this into mud terms, some sort of enhanced client to play from is
nice - perhaps one with clickable worlds for login purposes (instead of
having to type /world fred and /fg fred, etc), insert/overwrite toggle, a
meter showing ping rate to the mud even! This would not mean I would be
playing graphical muds.

*waffle*
 
[Snip]

> >> I see no need for player
> >> documentation to be printable or downloadable.
> 
> >If I can't download the documentation and look at it while I'm not on
> >your  game, it's harder for me to learn my way around. If I can't
> >print it, it's  harder for me to find information on commands.
> >Hardcopy and local copies  are important. But as the game's designer,
> >or as one of its primary  founding players, you won't understand
> >it... it's easy, see, not that much  at all.
> 
> No.  While I'll acknowledge that some players like this sort of thing
> and find them useful (which set appears to closely map to certain game
> types), many (more?) don't.  This suggests that the question is one of
> target market rather than generic usefulness.

Yup. Particular cases when players wish to download documentation
especially are those when there is a volume of theme information which is
more or less required reading for playing, rather than short(ish) command
information texts.
 
> Consider:
> 
>   How many DIKU/LP/etc players have you seen complaining about lacking
> documentation for players?

This is the main thing that turns me off muds I try to play. I start, get
stuck, type help, and nothing happens. I try a few imagineable variants,
and often, cannot even get into the help system without hassle, at which
point I think something along the lines of "Bugger this for a game of
soldiers", and disconnect.

Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html
"Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics." -?