Message #820

From: Roice Nelson <roice3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] feedback
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:36:44 -0600

Hi Kyle,

I updated the issue for you, to mark it as an enhancement request.

Usefulness and fun are both high priorities for the design, in addition to
elegance (in my experience, all these design metrics tend to be
correlated). I’m a little surprised that you find the current designs
deficient in these respects (especially the 4D design), but of course each
user will have a different experience. So I’m glad you recorded your
thoughts in the new issue.

To weigh in on your question about macros, I personally don’t find them
necessary in 4D and tend to not use them (though I did use them on my last
solve, mainly for testing, and found it quite convenient). In 5D, I can’t
imagine attempting a solution without them. In any case, even when using
macros for standard sequences, my solution approach still involves lots of
non-macro twisting for setup moves…

Roice

On 1/13/10, kygron <kygron@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I was able to add a suggestion to the issue tracker, though clumsily (it
> ended up as a defect?).
>
> My main goal was to increase the usability of your program. If elegance is
> your main concern then I’m sure you’re doing just fine without my input.
> However, as a solver, I can tell you that my main difficulty was trying to
> figure out what button to click to achieve the twist that I could visualize.
> This reaches crippling levels in 5D.
>
> I believe that to expand your audience, and their enjoyment of the puzzle,
> it needs to be FUN. For experienced puzzlers, your current system is
> sufficient, but for people who just want to "see what happens when I do some
> stuff" it is not. These are the people you want to attract, because the more
> they play, the more they learn, and the more interested in furthering their
> development they become.
>
> The goal of my interface was to consolidate observation, interface, and
> feedback onto a limited section of n-d space, allowing the user to focus
> attention at that point. Unfocused attention leads to distraction, loss of
> attention, and frustration. With focused attention, multi-click interfaces
> are more feasible. I understand that this is an entry-level interface, but I
> believe that the advanced interface should be composed of your macro
> systems, and not minimal-click systems, elegant as they may be.
>
> I’ll let you consider that, but I do have one question: in the average
> solve, how often do people use click interfaces vs. macro interfaces (4d and
> 5d)? Personally I avoided macros for the learning experience, but I doubt
> this is the norm.
>
> Kyle
>
> — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Roice Nelson <roice3@…> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kyle,
> >
> > The group always welcomes suggestions for enhancements to the program,
> and
> > hence your interface doesn’t fail to meet any standards. I for one was
> > interested to read and try to understand your ideas, even though I didn’t
> > feel I had anything to add to them. I can comment that there may not be
> > much motivation to change the current behavior because we already have a
> > very nice twisting interface. If something like you’ve described were
> added
> > (and of course someone has to be motivated enough to do the work to code
> > it!), it would certainly be in addition to the current behavior, with an
> > option to choose the mode (as you considered). I find the elegance of
> the
> > current behavior unassailable, and don’t imagine I’d prefer something
> > different. But I can understand that different solution methods than I
> use,
> > like the one you described after joining the group, might lend themselves
> to
> > an alternative design.
> >
> > Might I suggest adding your feature request to our issue
> > tracker<http://code.google.com/p/magiccube4d/issues/list>,
> > so that the idea does not get lost?
> >
> > Take Care,
> > Roice
> >
> > P.S. David’s comments about the possibility of a 1-click interface in 5D
> > were simply earlier in the original thread,
> > here<http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/4D_Cubing/message/811>
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/12/10, kygron <kygron@…> wrote:
> > >
> > > ok, thank you for letting me know why my description failed to meet
> your
> > > needs, now I can adjust it accordingly. As you can see, I don’t know
> what
> > > your needs are, which is why I was unable to put the work into
> describing,
> > > in your language, the solution I had come up with.
> > >
> > > What I gave you was not a complete N-D 1 click interface, just as you
> say.
> > > However, it WAS a complete 4-D 1 click interface that would be better
> (for
> > > people like me, perhaps have options in the menu?), and I have included
> it
> > > below for reference. If able, please let me know if/how this particular
> > > interface fails to meet your standards.
> > >
> > > I would like to see David’s work on this. If you have a link, or even a
> > > suitable search term, please let me know. My feeling on this matter is
> that,
> > > while he may be correct, a N-D solution is currently unnecessary. If we
> > > could get even a 2-click 6-D solution that would be all we ever need,
> and
> > > more than we have.
> > >
> > > My full solution involves a multi-click "conversation" with the
> interface,
> > > but the interface is able to make enough (predictable) assumptions that
> one
> > > or two clicks is all that will be necessary for common twists. I
> believe the
> > > macro system is already set up this way (though I haven’t used it
> much).
> > > Select a macro, set reference positions, execute macro, etc.
> > >
> > > Kyle
> > >
> > >
> > > Complete 3^4 1-click instant gratification interface:
> > >
> > > 3 mouse buttons
> > > left-click
> > > right-click
> > > translate-click
> > >
> > > 3 slices, as standard
> > >
> > > the interface is a 3x3 "face" of a 4-face viewed as a 3^3. Call it the
> > > board for
> > > now. this is slice 1, any work with alternate slices requires a slice
> > > button.
> > >
> > > translate-click board center: entire 4face translates toward board
> > > (adjacent
> > > 4face rotates all slices from perpendicular)
> > >
> > > left/right-click board center: board rotates (opposite 4face rotates
> > > opposite
> > > direction)
> > >
> > > translate-click board edge: board translates in direction of
> > > edge-from-center
> > > (opposite 4face rotates from perpendicular)
> > >
> > > left/right-click a board edge: nothing
> > > any-click a board corner: nothing
> > >
> > > that’s everything you need! you can even avoid the slice masks
> altogether
> > > if you
> > > allow edge-of-sticky clicking. each board boundary defines one
> board-slice
> > > and
> > > direction for translating. rotate-click a board edge for a board-slice
> > > rotation.
> > >
> > >
> > > — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green <melinda@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kyle,
> > > >
> > > > I don’t think that you gave us a solution. Maybe I didn’t understand
> > > > enough of what you were saying, but it seems as if you have come up
> with
> > > > exactly as much of a inkling as several of us have, and then got
> stumped
> > > > at the same point that we do. IOW, we all smell a N-D 1-click UI but
> > > > can’t quite see how to nail it down. So it’s not a lack of interest,
> > > > just a lack of inspiration for taking the idea any further than this.
> > > > David, who is one of our more mathematically inclined members did
> > > > comment in detail, suggesting that we’re on the wrong track in the
> first
> > > > place, which seems like a perfectly good explanation for why we all
> get
> > > > stuck at the same point: It’s a perfectly natural idea that simply
> > > > doesn’t work. So you were not ignored, but I’m not surprised that
> nobody
> > > > has much more to add to the subject.
> > > >
> > > > -Melinda
> > > >
> > > > kygron wrote:
> > > > > so when you guys say that you’ve been looking for a solution to a
> > > problem for years and you can’t come up with one and you’d love to have
> some
> > > method and then someone GIVES you one, not necessarily the perfect
> final
> > > solutions, but at least it’s a step in the direction you said you want
> to go
> > > in…. that’s not interesting?
> > > > >
> > > > > ok, guess you guys weren’t ready for solutions that don’t involve
> twist
> > > counts. I’ll stop before I sound rude, feel free to ignore the question
> mark
> > > above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Kyle
> > > > >
> > > > > — In 4D_Cubing@yahoogroups.com, Melinda Green <melinda@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> No Kyle, you didn’t commit any faux pas but then your last message
> > > > >> didn’t contain any questions, and I guess nobody felt like
> replying.
> > > > >> Most of the time this list is very quiet until something
> interesting
> > > > >> comes up and causes a flurry of activity before going back to
> sleep
> > > > >> again. Don’t be shy about asking questions or initiating
> discussion on
> > > > >> any topic even tangentially related to 4D cubing, but it’s up to
> you
> > > to
> > > > >> make it interesting enough to elicit replies if that’s what you
> > > want. ;-)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Happy New Year!
> > > > >> -Melinda
> > > > >>
> > > > >> kygron wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> really sorry to do this, but I’m confused. I posted a message
> that
> > > was responded to within a few hours, so I followed up with one I
> thought
> > > would be even better, and there’s silence for days. Have I committed
> some
> > > kind of internet faux pas? Or was I just really lucky to catch you guys
> at a
> > > good time the first time? confused,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Kyle
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ————————————
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ————————————
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ————————————
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>