Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="justanobody" data-source="post: 4599464" data-attributes="member: 70778">No, I just can't stand stupid software designs for the looks of it rather than the function.A computer isn't a toy made by Fisher Price, it is a tool, and all tools should be made for their function first. If CB was made to look pretty, then they did a good job, but for any other purpose it fails as software because it is unintuitive and has a pitiful user interface. It, like Vista, is made for stupid people that don't know how to use computers and need it to remind you of everything and in the process removes your options to "tweak" things to work for you as an individual because all the defaults are set for people that barely know how to turn on a computer this day and age.I get so sick and tired of software for dummies.They completely threw out the rules for good software design to make it look fancy and work poorly.Its job is not to be hung on a wall like a piece of artwork, but is productivity software, and needed to be made for its purpose. Maybe the reason it is designed so poorly is because it relies so heavily on Windows and Microcrap Framework. So the same design stupidity was built into it.It isn't that hard to set out and write software for the right purpose. Figure out what it needs to do and the proper way and order to do that.This is why there hasn't been a decent chargen since they became official and taken out of fan abilities to create and share en-mass.This problem is found most often in places where the software writers don't know the subject material they are writing software for like tax software where the users are accountants, but the coders are not. I find it funny that a closed system done in house the people don't know D&D well enough to know what order to do things in.Break out the old wingdings and start using flowcharts for software design again. Outline the steps needed first to allow the user to make their selection. That would include first allowing the decision to enable or disable any features found in the software, THEN they start using the software.It is very stupid to have people have to sort through all the added crap on first use because they hid the options on the last tab.Hey I got an idea for a beta test. Include TFM so people can RTFM. But in designing something like this if you need a manual because all the hidden option selections then you have designed a poor piece of software and placed the options in the wrong place.The make use of the menu bar for a few things, why not follow the standard and place other options right there!Options -> Edit Preferences -> Hide MotPRepopulating the menu at runtime isn't that hard, and doing so during a patch is even less bothersome as you just overwrite the program anyway with the patch and include the new menu options for the newly added data.Always there and always waiting, not having to jump around tabs to figure out where someone hid some option to enable or disable something.But the beta doesn't allow for UI bug reports as that is finished, it is only for other bugs where the devs didn't test for various platforms properly and can't figure out why things aren't working on anything but the machine it was written on. Just like the problems with Compendium and DDI website in general because they are writing for Microsoft proprietary software.If you like bad software, then so be it. I have a copy of Atari 2600 ET game if you are interested.</blockquote>

Verification