Double vs. single click

[Weissrolf]

Pretty please with kisses and flowers make the Action tab either single-click or double-click. The mix is inconsistent, always gets my players confused and we get at least a couple of accidental double-rolls every session.

Thanks in advance.

[Moon Wizard]

Buttons are single click; text fields are double-click. That should be consistent.

Redesigning the UI in that area is on our list, but not currently scheduled.

Regards,
JPG

[Weissrolf]

So these all are text fields (*not* editable)?!
https://i.imgur.com/uYwqhVc.png

And these are buttons (*not* editable)?!
https://i.imgur.com/LOJkM1g.png

Blue Prof and Stat are buttons (change content by clicking on them), but blue Misc (editable) and white Total (*not* editable) are a text field?!
https://i.imgur.com/oqIkbAB.png

Everything in white is a text field (*not* editable). Everything in blue is a button (change by clicking), except for the visually equal Hero Points, Item, Misc, Base, Armor and Shield, the latter of which are text fields (editable)?!
https://i.imgur.com/BcypYVh.png

I will relay this information to my players, hoping for less confusion in future sessions.

[Weissrolf]

PS: Looking at this again, the most common denominator for double-click "text fields" seems to be that they usually do *not* contain text, but numbers. The double-click weapon damage text fields seem to be the main exception to this as they contain numbers + text.

[Weissrolf]

My suggestion for not so future improvement: Since *none* of the text fields that allow rolling seem to allow editing, just make them single-click to begin with. Saves a lot of clicking and confusion.

[Moon Wizard]

Except for when you are trying to scroll; or look through stuff and accidentally making all sorts of rolls. Believe me, that was what happened initially after the spell pages were built.

It's actually up to each ruleset how they want to implement; but here's how 5E decides. (see picture) The controls are clearly buttons (single click) or text fields (double click).

Regards,
JPG

[Weissrolf]

PFRPG2 has these in its spell section, too.

https://i.imgur.com/fR36Xc8.png

How does the text button needing a double-click prevent any accidental clicking while scrolling? All buttons right beside the scroll-bar are currently single-click anyway (and we have scroll-wheels now):
https://i.imgur.com/TVv5zuP.png

And how does mixing single and double clicking on the same page prevent accidental clicking while "looking through stuff" other than by pure chance? This is very inconsistent and the most flow-breaking thing regularly happening other than performance issues.

[Jiminimonka]

PFRPG2 has these in its spell section, too.

https://i.imgur.com/fR36Xc8.png

How does the text button needing a double-click prevent any accidental clicking while scrolling? All buttons right beside the scroll-bar are currently single-click anyway (and we have scroll-wheels now):
https://i.imgur.com/TVv5zuP.png

And how does mixing single and double clicking on the same page prevent accidental clicking while "looking through stuff" other than by pure chance? This is very inconsistent and the most flow-breaking thing regularly happening other than performance issues.

I think Moon Wizard explained it pretty clearly.

[Weissrolf]

What was clear about "except when you are trying to scroll"? I have no knowledge how single-clicking caused issues with scrolling in the past and how double-clicking solved these. But I demonstrated how all buttons right beside the scroll-bar are still single-click now.

So please share your knowledge, Jiminimonka. I will then tell my players that they are imagining things, as I personally (as GM) don't mix these up, just my dumb players do. Doh.

[bmos]

I assume the comment about single clicks making it difficult to scroll may be in relation to touch screens where you initiate a scroll by touching the screen, but I could be wrong.

My players are always getting double/single clicks wrong, even after more than a year playing PFRPG in Fantasy Grounds.
While I think there is room for both inputs, I agree with Weissrolf that it's more of a memorization exercise if you want to consistently get it right.
I also think from Moon Wizard's comment that this is best taken up with Ruleset devs (although IMO some rulesets like PFRPG are very unlikely to see these sort of changes at this stage in development without SmiteWorks providing direction).

[damned]

I prefer to make things double click but buttons are single click so where I can I use tokens and do function.onDoubleClick() but many things are still buttons.

[HywelPhillips]

I’d just like to second the call that UI overhaul for single and double click consistency should get bumped up the queue if possible. I have two weekly groups and despite all playing on FG for 18 months we still get single and double click confusion most sessions. Have a week or two’s break and it’s guaranteed that they will have to relearn it. There are probably subtleties but I think it should be possible to improve on what we have now in this respect. Personally I would probably go for “if you want FG to roll it, you double click it” as the starting point, leaving single click as the way to edit the things that are editable, but I could be persuaded of the merits of another system so long as it was consistent across the UI and strongly recommended to be consistent across rulesets too.

Cheers, Hywel

[Weissrolf]

Consistency is the key-word here. Double-clicking those small spell action buttons is going to be difficult, though. It's worth mentioning that all games out there use single-clicks for about everything, mobile and tablet UIs also use single-clicking. Even Windows and MacOS only use double-clicking for desktop and Explorer/Finder icons (by default), most other stuff is single-click these days.

[bmos]

Consistency is the key-word here
...
Even Windows and MacOS only use double-clicking for desktop and Explorer/Finder icons (by default), most other stuff is single-click these days.As someone who works in IT for seniors, I'll never understand how Microsoft thinks double-clicking to open a program shortcut on the desktop but single clicking to open it from the taskbar is good UI design.

[cevikd]

Making the "buttons" behave the same for both single and double click could be a simple stopgap change that would probably fix a lot of concerns. I think the biggest problem I see is that people get confused then double click on something like the attack roll (a button in 5e) performing two attacks.

[bmos]

Making the "buttons" behave the same for both single and double click could be a simple stopgap change that would probably fix a lot of concerns. I think the biggest problem I see is that people get confused then double click on something like the attack roll (a button in 5e) performing two attacks.That's an interesting thought. It's really only an issue when people roll twice accidentally and the second roll is better.

[Moon Wizard]

My original goal with the buttons were to help indicate that there was a clear "action" at that point, with the plan to move away from having any text field interactions at all (i.e. remove double-clicks; and force all actions through buttons only). I agree that double-clicking on text fields is not necessarily an expected use case.

However, the character sheets were not originally developed by me; so a lot of this was adopted from other developers over time, and forcing change causes people to have "issues" with the changes. (i.e. "well, it worked that way before; and I want it back.") Also, adding single click obvious button/action behaviors also increases the number of controls/objects needed in sheets, causing both visual overload as well as increasing performance considerations.

So, there's not simple blanket answer that works for everyone, while I can appreciate the call for consistency. Like I said, it's a slow process, and it's not the highest priority.

Regards,
JPG

[cevikd]

Makes complete sense, thanks for explanation!

[Weissrolf]

Thanks for the explanation, albeit we are still not sure what you meant earlier with "scrolling" and "looking things up".

There is no need to have double-clicking on any field that does not allow manual (keyboard) editing, as now single-clicking does nothing on these fields. And as far as I can tell there are no editable fields that can be double-clicked anyway, so there is no conflict with changing to single-click. Furthermore, as "the original goal" was not implemented it makes no sense to always stay in this in-between limbo just for the sake of "no change".

But let's try this the other way around:

Why are these not buttons? It would take no extra space to convert them.
https://i.imgur.com/J6dcSI6.png

Why is the left field a button, but the right field is not and why are they not optically distinguishable?
https://i.imgur.com/tjU4vmb.png

Why do the button to the left and the text field to the right do *exactly* the same thing, but one with single-click and arrow pointer and one with double-click and hand-pointer (both can be dragged)?
https://i.imgur.com/0T7utIm.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/fEqllzw.png

[Weissrolf]

As someone who works in IT for seniors, I'll never understand how Microsoft thinks double-clicking to open a program shortcut on the desktop but single clicking to open it from the taskbar is good UI design.
It's the same for MacOS, no idea about the various Linux UIs. And it can be changed in Windows.

[superteddy57]

Thanks for the explanation, albeit we are still not sure what you meant earlier with "scrolling" and "looking things up".

There is no need to have double-clicking on any field that does not allow manual (keyboard) editing, as now single-clicking does nothing on these fields. And as far as I can tell there are no editable fields that can be double-clicked anyway, so there is no conflict with changing to single-click. Furthermore, as "the original goal" was not implemented it makes no sense to always stay in this in-between limbo just for the sake of "no change".

But let's try this the other way around:

Why are these not buttons? It would take no extra space to convert them.
https://i.imgur.com/J6dcSI6.png

Why is the left field a button, but the right field is not and why are they not optically distinguishable?
https://i.imgur.com/tjU4vmb.png

Why do the button to the left and the text field to the right do *exactly* the same thing, but one with single-click and arrow pointer and one with double-click and hand-pointer (both can be dragged)?
https://i.imgur.com/0T7utIm.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/fEqllzw.png

As Moon eluded to earlier, it's up to the ruleset developer to institute the functionality on those controls. So if it's not an internal product you may want to reach out and post in those dedicated forums to request a change. As for the internal rulesets, Moon also mentions that it's currently not the highest priority to change that functionality as other features require attention to complete and release.

[superteddy57]

I apologize for the suggestion if Moon decided to keep it here then I was not aware of the response. As for your comment on defaults, what you are referring to are mere templates. Those templates can be re-made or used as is. So saying that rulesets 'follow suit' is up to the developer to use the template's base functionality. A developer can make new templates and make the control operate on a single click or double click by changing script code. So I have to disagree with your assessment.

[Weissrolf]

But nobody does. You are either ignoring the reality of how this works in practice - especially from customers/users' point of view - or deliberately try to distract from your responsibilities as main developers.

Even more so when your official stance on this, of course, directs the decisions of any ruleset developer having to change such a fundamental basic UX element of FGU.

Anyway, I made my points clear, I provided screenshots, I asked (unanswered) questions, I was openly and privately accused of "only stirring up trouble". My job as dissatisfied customer/user is done on this topic.

[LordEntrails]

Look all, nobody disagrees that a change is desired in UI behavior. So let's stop trying to argue that point. How important the change is to the community is something that should still be discussed.

If a change is important to you and you have not expressed that opinion in this thread yet, then please do so. Changes for specific rulesets can be requested and discussed in sub-forums appropriate to those rulesets. Also, as always, the best way for the devs to learn how important an issue is to the community is to put it on the wish list and see how many votes it gets. Long threads with many posts by the same few people is not an effective way to get ideas escalated that you feel are important. It comes across as disrespectful to all the other users who chose not to participate in this manner and as if one is trying to bully the developers into changing their priorities.

Environments where developers feel bullied is not conducive to them working at their most efficient. Nor does it help encourage them to put in extra effort when they can chose to spend a couple of extra hours working, or spending that time with their family or doing their favorite hobby. Nobody wants to work in a toxic environment, nor should anyone have to. It does not mean that we (the FG community) can not and should not be critical of the decisions and efforts SmiteWorks does (in fact, we should and it is key to FG remaining a premier VTT). But it is vital that we do so in a meaningful, healthy and respectful way.

Thank you everyone for carefully considering this.

[damned]

As someone who has tried to make a ruleset require all double clicks I never even thought of modifying the button templates (doh!) instead replaced most buttons with Icons. Anyway on looking at the templates it is far from trivial because while I do like the double click behaviour on character sheets I doubt i would like it on places like Reference Manuals and maybe in Options...

It isnt very obvious to me how to solve single vs double click.

[Weissrolf]

Changes for specific rulesets can be requested and discussed in sub-forums appropriate to those rulesets.
I started corresponding threads for the rulesets most relevant to our gaming groups: Pathfinder 1, Pathfinder 2, DnD 5E and Starfinder. The only thread still present is the PF2 one, which was posted first. All others are gone without further notice.

[bmos]

I started corresponding threads for the rulesets most relevant to our gaming groups: Pathfinder 1, Pathfinder 2, DnD 5E and Starfinder. The only thread still present is the PF2 one, which was posted first. All others are gone without further notice.I'm pretty sure those are supposed to be on the wishlist rather than the forum, but not entirely sure when it comes to ruleset changes.

[Weissrolf]

I'm pretty sure those are supposed to be on the wishlist, but not entirely sure when it comes to ruleset changes.

As Moon eluded to earlier, it's up to the ruleset developer to institute the functionality on those controls. So if it's not an internal product you may want to reach out and post in those dedicated forums to request a change.

... where I reference Moon Wizard asking me to keep the discussion in this one thread.

Also, you referenced a post I made in error (didn't notice forum change) and had already deleted well before your response; which is just you looking to stir up trouble.

Please make everything single-click

All deleted without further notice:

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?70288-Please-make-everything-single-click&p=617719#post617719
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?70287-Please-make-everything-single-click&p=617717#post617717
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?70286-Please-make-everything-single-click&p=617716#post617716
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?70285-Please-make-everything-single-click&p=617715#post617715

Result: Everyone confused and speculating, everything mixed up, nothing clarified other than "it is not our responsibility, go elsewhere, keep quiet". Thanks.

[Moon Wizard]

As noted in my email to you, I will not allow bullying and nagging via posts. Posting the same message across 5 different forums just to prove a point of how you perceived our answers is just blatant.

You have made your points here; and I have talked to @superteddy57 about letting me answer you since his post is "not" relevant to this particular scenario (though ruleset devs can override, there are common templates). There is no need to generate half a dozen additional posts to make a point.

I am closing this thread, as the positions have been made clear and it's not getting any more useful information.

Regards,
JPG