[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface

[Adam Wiggins]

> Adam Wiggins <nightfall at user2.inficad.com> wrote:
> >*shrug*
> >Let's say that, on Day 1, there exists a rope.  The user can pick it up
> >and drop it, nothing else.
> >On Day 2, they can still do both these things, but they can also chop it
> >into little bits with a knife, roll it up, and smoke it.  Does the user
> >need to know this?  Do they care?  Does this impair their ability to pick
> >up, or drop the rope?
> >
> >I for one would rather have a system where I'm always discovering new things,
> >rather than one I can learn every aspect of in my first visit there.
> 
> Discovering new "things" sure, but discovering new "imperatives" ?
> I believe it is a good idea to think of the command set as something
> belonging to the user, while "things" belong to the world.  Certain
> things are likely candidates for certain actions, you want those
> actions to be readily visible to the user.  If the user has the desire
> to cut the rope (maybe the computer complained about the rope being
> too long) then it's wrong to have the user "discover" the
> cut-functionality.  However, it is ok to have the user "discover" a
> knife.

Agreed.  I'm interested in keeping the command set small, while the number
of actual things you can achieve with these commands nearly infinite.  This
is why I have a strong dislike for LP/diku-style 'verb binding' - where
one rope responds to the 'cut' verb but not another, or one button uses
the 'push' command and another uses 'press'.
However, the bit I was responding to was (as I recall) more about the
actual world than about the interface.  Interface should be more or less
independant of the world, although likely it will be designed to work with
a certain theme.

> I believe anyone involved in design should read the book:
> 
> "The design of everyday things" by Donald A. Norman (also published as
> "the psychology of everyday things")

Will do.

> >A mud which is based around the same premises as a good PnP game or, better
> >yet, a good book, relies on the kind of expression one can only get from
> >language (or, at least without complete VR, and I'm not sure even then).
> 
> I believe you are assuming more than you can justify here...
> 
> A language consists of a set of symbols and some rules for combining them.
> Nothing magic...  

Okay, I'll bite.  Is there a similarly low-bandwith, cross-platform,
easy for anyone (with computer knowledge or not) to use right away, method
of input and output which allows an equal amount of flexibility and
creativity?  In particular, this creativity needs to be useable 'on the
fly' - how does one emote 'gestures towards the man' in a graphical interface?
What about 'dances around the room doing a little jig'?  Can practically any
person, with computer knowledge or not, create a stunningly beautiful, moody,
and enthralling area over a modem from an unknown terminal?
I like the idea of extending muds to a graphical world, and have plans of
my own on just how I want to do them.  However, I can't see *anything* which
could come even close to being as flexible and straightforward while still
quite powerful and accessable by just about anyone as plain text.
Not to mention that it has the support of several thousand years of
people perfecting the art itself.  While this is not magic, I somehow doubt
there is another method availible which can match up.

Plus, I write graphics-ladden games at work.  For the same amount of
work you get about one tenth the functionality.  Doing even the simplest
thing requires complex animations which have to interact with the rest of
the graphics in a semi-consitent manner (lighting, shadows, scale, angles
of viewing...).  Compare this to "There is a blinding flash of light as %s
polymorphs into a shimmering dragon".