PDA

View Full Version : Journal Prototype



Moon Wizard
June 2nd, 2014, 22:02
Last Update: June 3, 2014

As part of another thread discussion, several members of the forums talked about how records are organized (tabs vs. buttons for Encounters/Parcels, jumping between windows, ability to add new record types easily, etc.).

One of the concepts that came up was the concept of a master journal that could be used to view/access multiple record types quickly. Sort of a one stop shop for campaign data. I have been seriously considering adding something like this to the next version of FG (after v3.0.4). However, one of the challenges I'm seeing is that everyone has a different idea of what the interface should look like.

I've found the best way to find out is to build a prototype, and gather feedback. So, here's a prototype that should work with any CoreRPG-derived ruleset.

Please note, I'm not trying to re-invent everything to do with campaign data management, just accessibility.

Future considerations/discussion topics:

Thinking about adding ability to toggle journal entries on/off in Journal screen for quicker access on sidebar. Journal button would always be available.
Not sure if PC data should be in Journal. It's sort of a special case. It always is a primary data type, and has a unique list interface for imports which would be hard to integrate.
Given this interface, do you think it still makes sense to double up buttons on sidebar?
Thinking this could be used to define new record types for any given ruleset (such as Locations database extension, Spells for PFRPG, Powers for 4E, etc.) that could be managed within a campaign and exported. There will need to be more iteration of this code to make it simpler, but it would be pretty straightforward to add with what I have.
Thinking about moving library into Journal as well. It's a special case also, but I think it might be worth it. Books on lower left, Topics on lower right. Then, we don't need both buttons on bar, and I think there are synergies long term we can take advantage of.


Let me know what you think.

Cheers,
JPG

Ikael
June 2nd, 2014, 22:44
So, here's a prototype that should work with any CoreRPG-derived ruleset.

Slightly off topic, but I cannot make this work with 4E, nor with SW4 which is CoreRPG-derived ruleset. I can only use this with CoreRPG ruleset itself. Is this expected feature?
I like this idea very much, but would not replace current campaign data management with it, but it's good addon, especially if it could be extended easily to support different types.

Moon Wizard
June 2nd, 2014, 23:11
I wouldn't be implementing and maintaining as a separate add-on. This is meant to be new functionality to integrate with the sidebar and library.

Updated attachment with version that does not limit which ruleset it loads with. It still may not work with rulesets not derived from CoreRPG.

Given that I don't see how we'd lose any functionality, why would you say that it shouldn't replace current campaign management windows?

Regards,
JPG

damned
June 3rd, 2014, 01:10
I dont mind it at all...

some feedback -
1. If possible when resizing the top section should not also get larger and add whitespace if all objects are already showing?
2. losing groupings of story/npcs/images etc would be a blow...
3. It needs to look as good as Zeus's version! although you have used different top levels - that book just rocks :)

Moon Wizard
June 3rd, 2014, 01:44
1. I'll see what I can do, though it will probably be based on a maximum height rather than number of records.
2. Are you talking about the category tabs? I just haven't implemented yet.
3. I will be hitting up Zeus for graphics.

Cheers,
JPG

damned
June 3rd, 2014, 01:55
1. I understand - I thought that might be the case.
2. It would be a big back step if it didnt have category tabs...
3. Of course!

biomage
June 3rd, 2014, 02:14
I was a fan of the older tab layout rather than the buttons. But, I don't mind this setup. It is very usable, but I don't think it is necessarily an improvement.
I love the continuing evolution of FG!

Dakadin
June 3rd, 2014, 03:07
It's looking good for a prototype. I can definitely see some use for this especially during prep. Just open the current story item I am working on and have the journal open along side for dragging in links. I would send less time trying to track down the appropriate window for the link I need at the time.

I do agree with damned about not needing the top section to increase when increasing the window.

dulux-oz
June 3rd, 2014, 04:47
Could someone please PM me this extension - IE won't parse the php file and using another browser is not an option - thanks.

If anyone know why IE won't parse the php file then please, let me know so I can get the damn thing fixed - again, thanks.

damned
June 3rd, 2014, 04:52
temp DL link just for you... https://www.fg-con.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Journal.zip

Ikael
June 3rd, 2014, 08:00
Given that I don't see how we'd lose any functionality, why would you say that it shouldn't replace current campaign management

I misread some info. This is great tool alongside current sidebar functionality

Moon Wizard
June 3rd, 2014, 09:02
Looks like the journal categories will have to wait for v3.0.5 anyways, since I need to enhance the categoryselectioncontrol to be targeted on the fly. Let me wander down that path a bit.

I've updated the extension to have a fixed height for the record types box, and refactored internally for easier ability to add new record types.

Cheers,
JPG

jshauber
June 3rd, 2014, 14:37
Looking good so far. Anything to make a GMs life easier is appreciated!!!

dulux-oz
June 3rd, 2014, 15:51
temp DL link just for you... https://www.fg-con.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Journal.zip

Thanks mate :)

Griogre
June 4th, 2014, 00:43
My thoughts after playing around with it a bit are:

1) I don't like the two extra clicks for the top pane and journal buttons. Personally, I think you should strive to make it only take 3 clicks from the desktop to the final record.

2) If the sideboard buttons all disappear and only the journal button was on the sideboard then the tri-pane it would be ok as it shows good data flow and the lay out all the data at the expense of a click.

3) If you keep the sideboard buttons I don't like the redundant top pane. a) It's an extra click. b) It takes up desktop space for no real gain.

4) If you don't populate every pane you are wasting scarce desktop space. Specifically on the Map & Images I would open the token box in the second now empty pane. I'd rename Tables to Tools and repopulate the left pane with all the tools and populated the right pane with whatever is first in your tool list.

My two cents. :p

Moon Wizard
June 4th, 2014, 08:19
1) I'm striving for 2 for common records. The idea is to remove all the current sidebar buttons, and replace with quick links into the journal. The same default sidebar buttons will appear by default, but they will be able to be toggled in the journal to add/remove top level sidebar buttons. If a sidebar button its pressed, it will instead open the journal to the correct entry type.

2-3) See 1 above.

4A) That's the biggest challenge so far, so I left it out for now. The dual pane is so useful in most cases (except for images and tables). Not sure if I can get the token box to work in that space without rebuilding the tokenbox control or dropping bag shortcuts, losing zoom, etc.

4B) Not sure what would go under Tools. Examples?

Cheers,
JPG

Blacky
June 4th, 2014, 10:14
I kinda like it.

I'm not sure about it replacing the sidebar. It would help clean up the sidebar, is such a work for a full sidebar redesign (no more scarcely used big button, and over used small buttons) is done at the same time. But I'm not yet fully comfortable about limiting all entries to a single window.

The advantage of the old model is that you open what you need only, and these windows can be made small. This master journal window takes up space. Sometimes it's an advantage, sometimes not.

Some things aren't in the journal window however. Calendar entries for example, that can be heavily used for some time sensitive campaigns. Effects aren't here too, not sure if they should be. Characters should be in there, yes it's a unique and special set of data, but from a GM/player point of view that's just another campaign data.

As for design, it shouldn't have any blank space in the top subwindow. Whatever the size of the Journal window, the top subwindow should always have just enough space for the registered “topics” (items, personalities, stories, etc.) and nothing more.

And of course it would need new graphics, scaling down sidebar button doesn't work.

PS: just a detail, but everything is plural in there, Story is not.

One thing I do very much like is that this Journal has an easy natural way for future separation of Maps & Images, thus helping keeping it organized.

Zeus
June 4th, 2014, 15:49
I like it.

In terms of graphics, given the current layout of the journal window class I think a large scroll graphic might work better as opposed to a book. This unless we change the layout slightly with the current top window list moved to the left page and the current bottom left and right window lists moved so that they are vertically stacked on the right page - then the book graphic can be made to work. Also, how would you all want category tabs to appear?

Moon Wizard
June 4th, 2014, 18:48
Currently categories would have to be associated separately for each list, since each list can have its own unique categories, and category controls can only be tied to one list.

I have a demo of the Journal with categories, but it requires some client changes to allow dynamic setting of category control targeting.

Cheers,
JPG

Moon Wizard
June 5th, 2014, 00:05
Also, just thinking about left side vs. right instead of top vs. bottom. It makes it harder to fit in categories, filters and edit buttons for the lists.

Here are a couple images of the current prototype I'm working on. I will release it once I have the sidebar management working.

Cheers,
JPG

Blackfoot
June 5th, 2014, 02:40
This works just fine in my CoreRPG based Champions Ruleset... the only thing I'd need to do would be to swap out the Sidebar Graphic with one that matched my stuff.
The only issues I've seen so far are:
The icons for 'shared' items/stories/images/personalities... appear UNDER the slider bar.
The lack of Tabs (which is already being addressed)
Also the sort seems a bit off to me for 'what goes on top' .. I would think the priority would be on Story and Personalities... then Maps and whatever else...

Initially I was thinking you dragged the desired item to the window.. so that essentially you could have any 2 elements open side by side... but obviously that's now how the implementation is working. I almost never use 'Notes' so putting that next to 'Story' seems like a waste... I'd rather see Personalities.. or more Stories... if I could open Stories up twice.. and then scroll to different sections.. that could be useful... or have 2 different tabs open for Maps/Images...
The Workup for Items/Parcels and Personalities/Encounters is great.. so.. probably no solution is going to be perfect.

I have to agree with Damned that there is too much space at the top. It would be good to get rid of Tables or maybe bring in Calendars... just to balance it out... probably get rid of Tables and make the whole window shorter on top and longer on the bottom.

OK.. didn't get as far as the last post.. adding the Library is a win.

Griogre
June 5th, 2014, 03:14
... snip
4A) That's the biggest challenge so far, so I left it out for now. The dual pane is so useful in most cases (except for images and tables). Not sure if I can get the token box to work in that space without rebuilding the tokenbox control or dropping bag shortcuts, losing zoom, etc.

4B) Not sure what would go under Tools. Examples?

4a) The natural token display would be that token subsystem you queried about in that poll, ie basically a detail list view instead of the current Icon view. :( You could also go with just links to the top level token bags/folders and a click would open the standard token box in the appropriate place. This would be a lot less work and the only real issue would be how to deal with tokens in the top level of the box - probably just make them a link.

4b) Loosely in the Table context a "tool" would be anything that is a small button in the top right of the FG desktop. A better description would be Settings or Preferences and put the Color Wheel and Lighting Options (ie stuff that remains constant regardless of ruleset) under that and a (ruleset) Tools section that had things like the combat tracker, party sheet, calendar, effects, modifiers, ect (ie stuff you expect a ruleset to change, add on or modify).

damned
June 5th, 2014, 03:58
in this last screen shot - where does the content open?
eg: library -> Galileo -> Introduction - does it open inside pane 3 or does it open as a new window?

also - to me its starting to look like this is just "undocking" that right hand icon bar?

Moon Wizard
June 5th, 2014, 06:54
Thoughts on all the responses today.

Blackfoot,

Working on re-ordering the records, though I think this is just access preference.
Not sure what you mean about icons under sliders.


Griogre,

Their is no such thing as a token list in FG, so that would be a completely new control type to build. And, I bet, people would still ask to see the tokens. Maybe just a button to the Token box for the short term, especially during alpha testing and prototyping.
Regarding tables, tables are essentially a weird kind of record that can be campaign or system based. However, it shares more characteristics with the other campaign records than the remaining "tools". Thinking it will get demoted to lose it's sidebar (by default), and promoted to a full-fledged campaign record type.
The remaining tools are specialty windows for handling specific tasks. I was planning to leave those as small buttons on sidebar. Planning to save the "Journal" for "campaign records" specifically.


damned,

The library links open in a separate window, just like they do in the library.
I'm thinking of adding a Reference record type, where a GM can create and share reference text windows. Are these too similar to stories/notes, or a good classification on their own? The other benefit is that modules could just place reference records directly there instead of building indexes to navigate reference records. Not sure on this one yet.
In a way, this is undocking the sidebar, but it is actually creating a superset of the sidebar where the user can choose which buttons are displayed on the sidebar, but always have access to all the record types.


Thoughts?

Regards,
JPG

Blackfoot
June 5th, 2014, 07:13
When you share something you get a little white circle with a P in it.. this appears under the scrollbar on the right hand side of the window.

Trenloe
June 5th, 2014, 14:04
I'm thinking of adding a Reference record type, where a GM can create and share reference text windows. Are these too similar to stories/notes, or a good classification on their own? The other benefit is that modules could just place reference records directly there instead of building indexes to navigate reference records. Not sure on this one yet.


I think this would be useful so that GMs can have data in a library module and then show players where it is (share it). I know it's similar to stories, but is a little different with it being in the library. It would help to educate players where info is in a specific library module and get them looking there for specific reference data.

HoloGnome
June 6th, 2014, 04:10
I just downloaded and will take a look. Does it have hierarchical content support?

Moon Wizard
June 6th, 2014, 04:32
No. It is purely a UI construct, and does not change the back-end data structures.

JPG

HoloGnome
June 6th, 2014, 15:59
Well...IMO, hierarchical support is the first place to start. More flat file windows with document spew don't really help too much.

Moon Wizard
June 6th, 2014, 16:55
I already had a whole thread discussion about adding hierarchical support vs. other features. Based on that discussion, I will be treating hierarchical support (a large dev project) just like any other feature request. Please vote and comment on the wish list.

Regards ,
JPG

HoloGnome
June 7th, 2014, 13:47
Respectfully, I would tend not to agree.

If you are looking at the concept of "journaling" as a new feature that is worthy of advanced prototyping that will replace functionality at the right side of the screen, then everything it takes to make journaling successful should be on the table for discussion. It should include more fundamental quality improvements that will solve the underlying problem of FG having no hierarchical support to organize content, resources, adventures, etc. in a paradigm where there is already too much content chaos.

Starting with or cherry-picking a journaling concept and skipping over HFS is leaping over the product requirements phase. Also, there is a question of basic prioritization. I think if you ask people who use FG (an application they love that is currently trapped in a 1980s flat file content management paradigm), having folder support to organize content is a basic user expectation/need and would seem to far outweigh button reorganization to try and address the core problems that GMs/players face when using FG. When it comes to time, I also think if you were to ask people if they wanted to wait 3 months for hierarchical support or 1 month for button reorganization (these times are just hypothetical straw men in line with your statement that it constitutes major development - no comment on how long it would take), they would choose the former.

I suggest posting a poll including Journaling and HFS alone and see what people think. Also, I would advise starting a product spec for a formal revision to the software so that the task - whatever it turns out to be - can be appropriately scoped to meet user requirements and feedback.

damned
June 7th, 2014, 13:55
Hey Holo - the biggest issue with adding hierarchical support is it breaks all backwards compatibility on all previously created module - both commercial and home brew.
Thats not a decision to take lightly.
Also you are talking about replacing 80's architecture with 90's architecture. current architecture tends towards completely unstructured data with advanced search capabilities being used to locate what you want....

My vote - no.

HoloGnome
June 7th, 2014, 18:39
damned - it doesn't break anything if it is implemented correctly. There's absolutely no reason it couldn't be architected to be backwards compatible. Either the new code integrates the intelligence for how to access older modules and structures, or maybe it retains a compatibility loader on the side to handle legacy items. It doesn't really matter - either will work - it's just a software engineering task. And, if anything, it's astonishing (at least to me) that it's not already there, given the amount of time FG has been in existence.

Hierarchical data storage/access should be considered a user requirement for Fantasy Grounds and there should be a poll, if it's even really necessary. I loaded one of the effects modules that dumped hundreds of effects into a tiny window with flat-file scrolling - ridiculous! Quick and dirty hacks, prototypes or window-dressing won't change the fundamental omission of hierarchical support, where some kind of hierarchical solution would go a long way towards improving FG in a significant way.

Also, regarding your comments about a preference for unstructured data storage...sounds like you wouldn't mind if someone came over and took all the many gigabytes of data on your computer, including all the operating system files, and just dumped it into one big folder, right? ;) Not sure anyone else on the planet (or contemporary operating system) would agree with you. :D I know it wouldn't work for me.

No matter how good current search metaphors may be, they don't trump basic HFS implementations, access and/or mind-map setup based on user preference or basic functional groupings. If you prefer to call a folder a set of search filter preferences that display limited content when accessed (where you could say that file/folder directory nodes fall into that category, along with Windows Libraries, for example), that's fine, but at some point, the data has to have organization. If the way to implement it is to create a folder icon that is a search filter for the FG datastore, great! Whatever works. Just get rid of the flat-file metaphor - it's broken.

Trenloe
June 7th, 2014, 19:48
blah
Blah
Blah...
Just get rid of the flat-file metaphor - it's broken.
No it isn't broken. It seems to be only in your mind that it is broken. It works for 99.9% of the users, which does not equate to my definition of broken.

The community has voted and over 70% voted to not divert valuable development resource to change the current structure.

It has been been said to you more than once that FG development resource is very finite and the majority of the community it aware of this and are realistic in their requests to the FG devs. Your many posts are coming across as demands to the FG devs, and when people take the time to explain things things to you it ends up being ignored and the demands continue. You've paid your money so you have a right to your opinion but your increasingly demanding, know it all posts are doing my head in.

This is all my own opinion, I am a simple member of the FG community, nothing more.

Moon Wizard
June 7th, 2014, 20:54
Repeated requests for a feature by the same user in a short period of time will not change our minds. A single well worded request is sufficient to make us aware of your thoughts.

Ultimately, it falls to us to balance all the competing priorities of the entire business. While user requests do inform our planning, they are just one piece of the puzzle.

I have already stated that foldering will not be in the next version, and will be considered like any other user request as VOTED by the whole community. Given our priorities and user voting, foldering is not on the roadmap right now

Regards,
JPG

HoloGnome
June 7th, 2014, 21:41
OK - profound apologies - not trying to offend anyone. My posts are not intended as aggressive or hostile. Some, like the one above or the previous one about versioning are just engineering discussions or even debate - if anything - maybe joking around in spots, so I'm not sure about the basis of the miscommunication other than issues relating to faceless media or personal style. I like the application and wish it would do more and do it differently. There's a lot of room for usability improvements, as I'm sure you realize. Also, I have put forward various suggestions and a number of bug reports (when I encounter issues) and generally try to be helpful, and I appreciate that time is limited. My time is also limited, and I have spent some of it trying to help out FG.

Anyway - yes I do have opinions, not a know-it-all, certainly not always right, I make dumb mistakes where I don't understand certain things (like how the grid works) and as a user (and an engineer in the case of the current topic), it's hard for me to accept that superficial changes (which are trying to address a content organization issue) deserve more focus than other more fundamental ones that would solve the same problem. And that is not hostility - just a plea to think about what will have the biggest impact and product boost before anyone spends their very limited and precious time as developers. Happy to let it go. I hope the Journaling is well-received.

Again - sorry to all. I posted my opinions, not because of a sense of entitlement after paying money (undeserved criticism), but because I like the product and think it can be better. In my professional experience, those are the best kind of users to have. Also, it's apparent that I am philosophically aligned in a different direction when it comes to what I consider to be constructive/normal feedback, reasonable discussion, software architecture, user experience issues and perhaps even product development focus/prioritization. So, my feedback is likely to embody a different perspective - my personal experience is different from yours.

Trenloe - not sure what poll you're talking about, but no worries. Sorry to stress you out. I hope you have a nice weekend. Also, please note that I provided my feedback on the Enhanced Images thread and wrote up the vanishing icon bug before seeing this discussion. It's just intended as constructive feedback and a quality report, nothing more.

Good luck with the ongoing product efforts.

Blackfoot
June 7th, 2014, 22:22
So.. about that Journal Prototype...

I saw a few uses for it when I was working on the game I was prepping for Tuesday. I play on a laptop with only 1 screen so organizing the windows is good. I'm not sure that I wouldn't prefer some sort of 'docking' arrangement though.. where things have a place to go when you minimize them... this does make it a bit easier to find some of the major stuff though... I'm still on the fence. (assuming you are looking for opinions)

Moon Wizard
June 7th, 2014, 23:06
The next prototype has a checkbox that specifies whether a given record type is in the sidebar, allowing quicker access.

When you mention docking, can you give me more detail? What window(s) are being docked, and where?

Thanks,
JPG

Blacky
June 7th, 2014, 23:06
4b) Loosely in the Table context a "tool" would be anything that is a small button in the top right of the FG desktop. A better description would be Settings or Preferences and put the Color Wheel and Lighting Options (ie stuff that remains constant regardless of ruleset) under that and a (ruleset) Tools section that had things like the combat tracker, party sheet, calendar, effects, modifiers, ect (ie stuff you expect a ruleset to change, add on or modify).
That's quite a lot of things.

Maybe, if it's possible, the right way to reorganize everything would be to have a (almost?) single icon Journal, and let each player drag&drop icons to the right in the old sidebar for quick access. Because no two campaigns nor two GM are alike. Some will make heavy use of the CT, some of the Calendar, and some won't use at all one or the other.

Blacky
June 7th, 2014, 23:08
The community has voted and over 70% voted to not divert valuable development resource to change the current structure.
What vote?

Moon Wizard
June 7th, 2014, 23:10
Maybe a separate set of tool availability options in the options window? You can turn off the other buttons?

Not sure it makes sense to have the tools in the journal. They aren't technically campaign objects, and would increase clutter. Thinking that they should just remain as is for now.

Another tool option is to make them a row of buttons across top like a toolbar. Not sure that really saves any space though.

JPG

Blackfoot
June 8th, 2014, 00:06
When you mention docking, can you give me more detail? What window(s) are being docked, and where?
Well.. the idea would be to put them somewhere that they could easily be found, in this journal seems like one possibility... What if... the two sides were part of the same thing instead of separate things... like the left was all the 'Story' items in the campaign but the right was 'minimized' open Story items?
Or maybe.. there were a place on the desktop.. the bottom middle/top middle (below the characters) where certain things went when minimized... story to the top... images to the bottom.. or something like that.

Blacky
June 8th, 2014, 00:32
Not sure it makes sense to have the tools in the journal. They aren't technically campaign objects, and would increase clutter. Thinking that they should just remain as is for now.
Agreed, with one caveat. What's the future of Tools and Tool organization?

Because even if this new Journal idea can be nice, it might require modification for existing ruleset. Which is always a burden, most ruleset being un-maintained and abandoned. So if the future of Tools imply any kind of ruleset modifications, maybe it's better to do it now, even if take a little while longer?

Moon Wizard
June 8th, 2014, 00:35
That's called Window Manager in the wish list, I think. Slightly different idea than Journal, which is focused on sidebar customization and custom record additions right now.

Not to say that it wouldn't be a great idea. If added in the journal, it would make the journal top list much longer, and you would lose group records next to individual records. (Like items and parcels or NPCs and encounters) Having the related individual and group record types next to each other was the origin of this concept, so I hesitate to lose that.

Also, not sure that open records vs all records lists in the Journal will make sense to the average person. Thinking the top/bottom window manager as a separate feature is way to go.

Hmm, more discussion and refinement needed I think.

JPG

damned
June 8th, 2014, 01:12
OK - profound apologies - not trying to offend anyone. My posts are not intended as aggressive or hostile.... ....Good luck with the ongoing product efforts.

Aaaaahh the internet is a wonderful place full of misunderstandings, over reactions and misinterpretations.
Dont sweat the response you got. Sometimes your posts do sound demanding and sometimes they will engender a response that also sounds.... blunt?
We are one big happy family here - even when we dont all agree... which is often.

Me? Im not a fan of unstructured data. I like structured data - it makes me feel safe and somewhat in control... but intelligent and advanced search leaves me for dead. Not saying FG has advanced and intelligent search but most new data repositories out there do... :)

Trenloe
June 8th, 2014, 01:41
What vote?

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?21145-Content-Categories

Moon Wizard
June 8th, 2014, 02:30
Blacky,

The Journal concept as it stands will be part of the CoreRPG framework only, and so it should not affect rulesets that do not build off of the CoreRPG ruleset. Also, I am looking at making it backward compatible for rulesets already built off of CoreRPG.

At this point, I'm thinking of leaving the tools as is.

The targeted features for journal as I currently envision it are easier individual/group record management, sidebar customization and easier addition of ruleset-specific record types.

Cheers,
JPG

Bidmaron
June 10th, 2014, 21:41
On the upper part - it seems to me that the way to avoid wasting that space is to have it either auto collapse unless the user moves the mouse to near the title bar or it has a collapse triangle (or whatever UI device) so it can hide and you get the two bigger panes. Then, the controls don't take up precious space unless you are using them.

Moon Wizard
June 11th, 2014, 03:04
I have another prototype that requires v3.0.5, so I need to address a couple items before it's ready for testing.

The newest prototype uses a smaller top box (3.5 vertical entries), and collapses smaller if less than 7 entries.

I'm going to wait and see before tweaking more. Need to iron out a couple more things in CoreRPG to provide backward support for rulesets layered on top without knowledge of journal.

Cheers,
JPG

Moon Wizard
June 12th, 2014, 21:47
Latest Journal prototype embedded in the CoreRPG ruleset in v3.0.5 alpha.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?21346

Changes

Top groupings window dynamically sizes to fit available groupings.
Grouping windows made smaller to fit 3 per line.
Added checkbox to determine whether this record type appears on sidebar.



To Do

Create sidebar button for Tables.
Show example of new grouping / record type registration
Change client to only show images and journal by default


Thoughts

Torn between usefulness of individual records and groups being available for each selection (i.e. items/parcels, NPCs/encounters) vs. the oddness of having some pages with a single entry, having what are essentially duplicate sidebar options, and having the campaign record listings be wider (since two lists instead of one).
I really like the sidebar customization.
I really like having all the data in one place.
I'm excited to be able to add ruleset specific records. (i.e. spells, feats, etc.)


JPG

Moon Wizard
June 16th, 2014, 09:08
Anybody given a look to the latest prototype in the CoreRPG ruleset in the Dev mode slot? Thoughts?

I was thinking of writing an extension to make a 2 wide list of record types in the top window and a single list at the bottom as an alternative view. Any interest in seeing that option? It's a similar concept to the tabbed interface from v2.9.x, but for every record.

Thanks,
JPG

viresanimi
June 16th, 2014, 16:54
I just had a look at it and these are just first impressions. Note, that I am looking a using this journal from the perspective of using the CoreRPG alone. (I don't have active D&D campaigns running).

What is good:
I like the fact that it is possible to remove buttons on the right that you don't use. For example, I run games that are diceless story telling. In those I don't need an items button and such. This is neat, but I feel that this could just as easily be put into the options menu.

What is bad:
Pretty much everything else. I don't like it, to be honest. It doesn't provide anything new at all. It is just the same options arranged differently. If the journal is an "on/off" option you can toggle, then I see no problem with it. Some will no doubt like it, but it is not for me. Different strokes for different folks and all that.


Suggestion:
So... no criticism without some contructive thoughts. Why not have a single "folder" that contains everything that a gm puts in there? The ability to create subfolders and arrange things as wanted could be an option to the taps. One could replace the taps with buttons for the various types of elements that a gm can make (ie, story, tables, items, parcels, encounters and so on). Alternatively the radial menu be expanded to contain these buttons, when right clicking in the folder space.

just a few thoughts.



Vires Animi

Trenloe
June 16th, 2014, 17:09
Suggestion:
So... no criticism without some contructive thoughts. Why not have a single "folder" that contains everything that a gm puts in there? The ability to create subfolders and arrange things as wanted could be an option to the taps. One could replace the taps with buttons for the various types of elements that a gm can make (ie, story, tables, items, parcels, encounters and so on). Alternatively the radial menu be expanded to contain these buttons, when right clicking in the folder space.
The folder approach has been discussed and voted on recently: https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?21145-Content-Categories It's a nice idea but would take a *lot* of development time, so over 70% of the community who responded in the poll decided that it was not worth sapping development effort to do. From that discussion came the idea of the journal which is, as you say, not providing "anything new" as the data structure underneath does not change but the different interface was seen as something beneficial to the community members who took part in the discussion.

viresanimi
June 16th, 2014, 17:36
I know... It was just a few thoughts. If you don't like something and don't provide ideas for improvement I feel like I would just come through as a jerk for not liking it. Which I just ... don't. I don't have a problem with the journal being made as such.. .as long at it is an option you can turn off. I just feel that, unless the UI is drastically changed, there is no reason to mess with it. Cause it is pretty good as it is.

Vires Animi


EDIT: Just throwing out another crazy thought here, so bear with me.

I assume that the whole idea of redoing the UI as something to do with saving screen space and perhaps even arranging data in another way. I figure that a lot of people probably don't like the radial menu. Personally I love, so here is my idea.

Expand upon the radial menu and just remove all the buttons on the right side. Sure, it would needs some serious rearranging of the radial menu, but I can't see why it couldn't work.

Don't hate me *grins*

Moon Wizard
June 16th, 2014, 18:36
Thanks, viresanimi.

The concept of having everything in one big data space organized by folders (or other groupings) is new to this particular discussion. It's interesting to think about how that interface might work, especially with button filters for record types. It essentially is similar conceptually to Journal, except default view is all records instead of empty. (ie press link to view records of a specific type in one place) Not sure that would be good in practice due to info overload when all records shown at once.

When you say that you don't like it? Can you be more specific? You stated that it doesn't add anything, just rearrange. What do you feel the benefits of leaving as is, given that work is already done?

The targeted improvements are easier individual/group record management (ie NPCs/encounters in same view), sidebar customization (which you mentioned as positive) and easier addition of ruleset-specific record types. (Which comes for specific rulesets like Spells for PFRPG, Vehicles for any system, Locations for any system, etc)

Regards,
JPG

viresanimi
June 16th, 2014, 19:52
@Moon Wizard

I can imagine that the journal would be nice for rulesets that use a lot of different elements, like Pathfinder for instance. I.e having npc's and encounters open at the same time and such. But for me, I just don't see the attraction of having a big floating window - as opposed to having the same windows open, except there are more of them. I dunno. Hard to say / being specific. I just don't feel it adds anything of particular value to my needs in FG.

And to elaborate on my initial folder idea, I think I wasn't clear:
Say you have one initial folder for all campaign data. A gm could then plan a dungeon crawl adventure and make a sub-folder for that. In this folder he could then have the images, stories, npcs, encounters etc... for that dungeon in one place. So everything the GM needs for that adventure is located in one place / folder / tap. Call it what you will.

I would argue that, that would make it easier to keep track of things, not harder. BUT, it does put the job of keeping order in the campaign squarely on the shoulders of the GM. One thing that could make it easier to distinguish the various things, could be different icons for each story, npc, etc-type.


Vires Animi

dulux-oz
June 17th, 2014, 04:08
@viresanimi: Can't the end result (ie organisation) of your folder idea already be replicated by using the Campaign Tabs (with or without an Module)?

viresanimi
June 17th, 2014, 05:02
@dulux:
No it can't. All npc's are in the npc's tap and so on. What I mentioned above would enable you to keep different types of data (story, npc, items...), in a single folder. It would allow for a complete personalized way to keep your files like you want. It will also leave the job of organizing totally on the GM. Currently things are - at the very least - separated by data type.

At this point I don't know what is right or wrong. I stand by my initial reaction, that the Journal just doesn't do it for me. I can see why some might like it, but would personally not be overly thrilled if it becomes the standard UI. I like options. Perhaps the best way to go about this whole discussion is to provide options for UI setup, like:
1) Toggle journal on / off
2) Toggle the sidebar buttons on/off (perhaps on individual basis on GM need)
3) Expand the use of the radial menu to handle some of the above. Again, something a GM could turn on / off. (Perhaps some of those small/grey buttons whom are used rarely could be put here to save space?)

I guess what I am saying is, that people are different and have different notions on what works for them. Providing option for people to choose which way to get to their data is probably more important than how it is stored / presented. I don't mind the taps as such. I do find them a bit limiting, as I have a tendency to put a lot of data into my campaigns and over-categorize my stuff. But that is just me.


Vires Animi


P.s.: If I am incoherent, please forgive me. Too little sleep and pain condition is acting up.

Blackfoot
June 17th, 2014, 13:57
Hrm. The Journal extension was working in my Champions, CoreRPG based, ruleset.. but the integrated Journal in 3.0.5 is not.. I'm guessing I would need to add something to my desktop config in order to make this work?

Blackfoot
June 17th, 2014, 14:28
Testing under CoreRPG I'm finding a few odd behaviors.
New items don't show up until you switch to a different Group.
The Journal is 'replacing' the old windows so I have to look at Notes when I want Story. Still not sure I like that.
The old desktop/sidebar buttons become pretty superfluous at this point... since they really do very little more than the Journal button... I guess they are sorta like an alias to the specific Group you want.

Things I do kinda like... this thing is 'big'.. it's hard to lose track of when I have a map, 3 stories, 2 npcs, 2 images and a couple of PCs open in the heat of combat. It is of course going to bury all that stuff but I only need to dig for the one place in order to open it up again if I close it.

This sorta points toward the function I think this thing might need... and I think someone else suggested it somewhere in this thread...
When I am running a PFS game... I go through an entire scenario in a 5 hour sitting. I open a lot of stuff, some of it I need to come back to.. some of it I do not. It would be kinda nice if I had a place in this thing that I could 'bookmark' things that I am 'using' so that they are easy to find. Maybe when I minimize something it goes to a space at the bottom of the Journal or something?

I hear a lot of folks talking about running on multiple monitors, I GM from my laptop with a single monitor, I am constantly shuffling through windows and digging out this or that.. often the combat tracker... often various story items (which are my primary organization tool currently)... often the current map... all of this 'stuff' buries the desktop.. making the sidebar somewhat difficult to use. What if the sidebar were 'always on top' and maybe a bit slimmer? I mean.. if this Journal is essentially replacing the Sidebar.. the Journal button could/should always be on top so it is easy to find.

Hrm.. lots of thoughts in there.

You are looking at a potentially radical change to how sessions are run... I'm not sure if this is going to get in my way or not. I find it a little frustrating when I am playing with it right now.. but I have not used it to run anything yet.

damned
June 17th, 2014, 14:44
@viresanimi
I dont *mind* the radial menu - the biggest problem with it is - until you *know* to look there it is so counter intuitive.
For newcomers to Fantasy Grounds - they so often dont even know it is there until they ask a question here...

viresanimi
June 17th, 2014, 18:31
I dont *mind* the radial menu - the biggest problem with it is - until you *know* to look there it is so counter intuitive.
For newcomers to Fantasy Grounds - they so often dont even know it is there until they ask a question here...

Dear me. That sounds like "learning". What a travesty. To ask people to invest time and a little brainpower to discover what happens when press the right mouse button.

Sorry. Sometimes my sarcasm genes are acting up. In all seriousness though. What you're describing, is a documentation problem - not an inherit problem with FG. And yes, I've seen a lot of people on these fora ask the simplest of questions, that some simple experimentation would reveal in 2 mins. But I just can't blame the programme for that.

And I don't find the radial menu counter intuitive at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I would argue that the radial menu in FG is better than the menu you get in Windows if you rightclick on a file. In windows you get a long list of things with names that may or may not be informative. In FG you get big icons, most of which use iconography that is clearly visible and understandable. It is in fact visually very good at representing what people are looking for.

I would like to point out, that FG is a fascilitator of a hobby. Namely roleplaying. When I say hobby, I assume that this means that people are interested in investing time in it. FG is not for the "I want instant gratification, so I will downvote it on Steam, because it requires works out of ME"-crowd. FG must be for serious hobbyists, that are willing to throw money at a quality product. Which brings me to my point: "I am pretty sure most that will invest in this will take the time to find out what happen you press one and not the other mousebutton".

Anyways... what I've suggested earlier, I did to try to provide some ideas, instead of just saying "hey I don't like it". I've invested a lot of time into FG. Mostly because my pain condition allows me to, so I want to see FG get better. Are my ideas the way to go? Hell if I know. I am not programming genious. I am just a guy that once spent 2 years on graphical design and willing to throw ideas out there.

I just want to see FG improve. Peace, love, and magical potions for everyone.


Vires Animi

Bidmaron
June 18th, 2014, 02:09
I agree that we should be able to select either sidebar, journal, or both. I like the journal, but as I've mentioned before, I think the top selector should go away to make room for the other two panels until you cursor up to the window and then the top navigation bar comes into view. I see no reason to pursue the journal unless it saves screen real estate, but I roger that could be personal preference. Personally, I think the thing to do would be to make the sidebar disappear to be useful screen real estate and then when you mouse to the border, it comes into view.

dulux-oz
June 18th, 2014, 04:46
Dear me. That sounds like "learning". What a travesty. To ask people to invest time and a little brainpower to discover what happens when press the right mouse button.

Oh come on - you know as well as I do that sheeple - sorry, people - don't want to learn something, they just want it handed to them on a platter. After all, why would:

The saying "RTFM" exist - (for those of you who don't know, RTFM = Read The Farking Manual!)
A completely excellent set of Tutorial Videos be available --FREE OF CHARGE-- from the Wiki and yet the same Videos only have watch counts in the low 100s, when there are something like 30K Licenses of FG that have been sold (from what I remember Doug or Moon saying in another thread) - [sniff].

(This Shameless Plug(TM) brought to you by Dulux-Oz's Shameless Plugs(TM), a division of Dulux-Oz's)

:p

Cheers

viresanimi
June 18th, 2014, 08:27
@ Dulux: "Sheeple"??? Mwaahahaha... You just made my day sir!

@ Bidmaron: The vanishing sidebar must be fairly easily doable. I am pretty sure one of old nWoD rulesets had its buttons become very opaque until you moused over it. I think this is a good observation / idea. More options to the people!

Vires Animi

Blackfoot
June 18th, 2014, 08:34
I can't say I'm a huge fan of vanishing bars.. they are never where you want them to be... I always turn that feature off when it is present.
Obviously my opinions are just my opinions. (as are these other guys.. well ok no.. their opinions aren't my opinion.. but you get the idea...) It would be good to hear from more of the community.

viresanimi
June 18th, 2014, 08:56
@ Blackfoot: I think you comment only adds to what I've said. I don't think that any new revolutionary way of handling the UI is necessarily the way to go. But providing more options to people on how they want to get to their data, is probably an interesting idea to look at.

Some like the journal. Some don't. Some like vanishing bars. Other's don't.

As I've mentioned, I am not a programmer, so I don't know how difficult things are to do, but the way I see it, the way to go is to make the use of FG a more personalized / customizable experience - tailored to people's own preferences.

Vires Animi

Moon Wizard
June 18th, 2014, 21:08
Thanks for the discussion. It's all very good, and mirrors some of my thoughts.

I have an another idea that changes current interface less, but adds a couple of the interesting features. It's going to take me at least a week to revamp.

Regards,
JPG