Feedback from completely new user

[Acenoid]

Compared to the beginning several things improved already a lot.

I'm sure you only find a few of your commonly used categories overloaded correct? Maybe spend 20 minutes to clean them out from the sections / snippets you do not want to see. Then the items are maybe more appealing to you.

Regarding the lag between the switching - after a certain update a while ago performance increased quite a bit. But I also try to make my topics not too long.
Maybe a few more topics but a little smaller will speed things up for you and provide you with more overview.

I'm sure there will be more UI updates & improvemnts coming.

Best regards

 

[ShadowChemosh]

I'm sure you only find a few of your commonly used categories overloaded correct? Maybe spend 20 minutes to clean them out from the sections / snippets you do not want to see. Then the items are maybe more appealing to you.

I prefer to just enter the Snippets of info I need and then press "CTRL-SHIFT-`" and that does an auto-remove all sections/snippets without data entered. Really great feature that was added recently.

Just another way to accomplish the same thing. But I see it as a strength of RW...

 

[MNBlockHead]

One design option that might be nice is an option to hide all empty fields in view mode. I know that you can remove empty snippets from a topic simple enough, and I can create my own topic template if I find that I'm always removing or adding a snippet type to a topic type, but often I don't have anything to enter now but may go and add something later. Having an option to only show empty snippets in edit mode and hide them in view mode might be a nice way to make things feel less cluttered.

That said, I feel that while interface improvements are always welcome, delivering on promised functionality has got to be first priority. The content market, journals, calendars, and ability to print are all far more critical to the RW's current and potential customers.

 

[adzling]

It's confusing, inobvious, dense and ugly.

Entering content is relatively straightforward if tedious and too fragmented.

Using it during play to reveal things to players in a controlled and predictable way is very difficult when it shouldn't be. It should be dead easy and seamless.

The product has some great functionality and it's the best thing I've seen to date but the interface is gravely holding it back.

This is borne out by others I have talked to who have tried to use and given up.
Hardcore gaming geeks who live for PnP.

The interface is "bad" and you think they should make it "better." Do you have any specifics? What's not working? What's frustrating? LWD is not going to retain someone just to work on the interface, but the existing design team could certainly work on specific issues if they knew about them.

 

[Dervish]

How is it confusing?

What makes it inobvious?

In what manner is it dense?

Ugly thats debatable as beauty is in the eye and all that... but i do know that making something look good and functional eats up a great deal of system resources so given the choice i will take functional but ugly every time.

I know you said in an earlier post you have used realmworks for about a month ballpark how much actual time have you spent working in realmworks as opposed to the period of time you have owned it ? Have you looked at any of the tutorial videos or pdf resources.....

 

[ArgoForg]

I can see it being tedious for people who may only want to put a few bits and pieces in, or for whom backstory is not nearly as important as raw info for game-- stat blocks and such. I can also say that yes, I can see some-- not a lot, but noticeable-- lag when opening a new subject.

That tedium doesn't apply to me, personally, however. Using it for world detailing and creation, I actually appreciate all those blank spots-- they help me to think of areas I may not have already thought about for topics, or help me dredge up new ideas I hadn't considered. I am by no means a slave to the "fill every blank" mindset, but I do think having more of those filled than not actually helps enrich my campaign world. The players may not need to know NPC X's brother was killed and the murderer was never caught and that drives him. But I do.

I wouldn't call the GUI kludgy, myself, but I'm mostly comparing it to Access or Base (which is in effect what the software is), and some of the notetaking/wiki software I've tried to detail my campaign world. I haven't mucked around enough with Roll20 to know its capabilities (I don't really do a lot of VTT gaming), and RW is more specific to what I want, and light years better than everything I've tried short of maybe OneNote.

 

[adzling]

The icons are mostly indecipherable, functionality is not consistently deployed and seems randomly located (I know it's not, it just seems that way to a beginner).

Have a look at any modern piece of software, this looks a piece of software from 1998.

I have used it to host two game sessions and spent about 15 hours on prep.
I have watched many of the videos on youtube except the insane 1 hour + convention videos.

The interface needs more work and by someone/ somepeople who know about this kind of stuff.

I think if you did a poll of new users you would find a lot of people saying the same thing, at least judging by what I have heard and the posters in this thread (ignoring the apologists).

How is it confusing?

What makes it inobvious?

In what manner is it dense?

Ugly thats debatable as beauty is in the eye and all that... but i do know that making something look good and functional eats up a great deal of system resources so given the choice i will take functional but ugly every time.

I know you said in an earlier post you have used realmworks for about a month ballpark how much actual time have you spent working in realmworks as opposed to the period of time you have owned it ? Have you looked at any of the tutorial videos or pdf resources.....

 

[MaxSupernova]

The icons are mostly indecipherable, functionality is not consistently deployed and seems randomly located (I know it's not, it just seems that way to a beginner).

Have a look at any modern piece of software, this looks a piece of software from 1998.

I'd definitely support these statements.

After a while you just get used to it. Which really isn't high praise for an interface. "It sucks, but after a while you just get used to it! -- PC Magazine".

 

[MNBlockHead]

I'm hoping that the Web version will eventually help with interface. Still, the current interface doesn't bother me. That said, I'm using it for world building and and an at-table reference. I've not used it to display anything at-game for my players.

As for the specific complaints:

"The icons are mostly indecipherable"
This one I really don't get. The icons in the ribbon interface are for the most part pretty self explanatory. If I was a new user and didn't have the icon labels, "Reveal History" may be confusing until I understood that the green ball is the reveal indicator. Also the lego brick doesn't make me think of "categories". But any piece of software I've used could be picked apart in this way, especially if used internationally—something in/obvious to you may be the opposite to someone else, especially if from another part of the world.

I think where most people would argue is the icons used for the topics and articles. For example, I don't like the monster or race/species icons because I'm only using RW for a DD5e medieval fantasy campaign and those icons make me think of science fiction. But I can change those icons. I don't know that RW could find an icon set that would make everyone happy. I could think of some cool improvements, like having a small icon for EACH monster to left of each monster article, but that would eat up screen real estate.

It might be nice if RW could support people offering "skins" or if content in the CM could also come with custom articles, topics, tags, and icons. But I'm not sure that is going to very important to most customers.

Functionality Not Consistently Deployed

I'm not sure what this refers to. Without specific examples, I don't know if I agree or not and am unsure what RW developers would do with this feedback. If you mean that the GM's and player versions have different functionality, that is by design.

Functionality Seems Randomly Located

Hmm. I have to put myself into the shoes of myself when I first used the program. Now that I'm so familiar with it, I don't find it hard to find what I want. But when I began to use it, yes, it took me a while to find what I needed. I didn't quite understand breaking up the world vs. story almanac vs. the mechanics reference and or how a topic was different than an article. Once I started using it, I appreciated keeping story topics and mechanics articles separate. After they updated the software to support custom views, I no longer has an issue with World vs. Story.

My only current complaint about where functionality is located is that I can't back up or sync while working in a realm. Having to back out of my realm to the realm list is inconvenient.

Where I DO agree that the interface needs improvement

I don't think that this has been mentioned in this thread yet, but there are a couple areas where I think the interface could really use improvement.

1. Remember last expanded/collapsed state of menu items

2. Easier to apply filters. Perhaps some kind of quick filter" functionality.
RW offers very powerful filters but it can feel cumbersome to quickly apply them. For example filtering on suffix or tag. If there were someway to show a pick list of all tags in a realm, all categories, or all suffixes, without overly cluttering the interface, that would be helpful. There are data-analysis and litigation-support products that do this nicely.

3. Allow for creation of more story almanacs.

All of the above, however, are "nice to haves someday."

I would much rather have the calendar functionality implemented.

 

[Parody]

The icons are mostly indecipherable,

If you're talking about the ones used for Topics/Articles then I agree that they're pretty arbitrary. I'd like to be able to add icons, but it's a very low priority thing and likely to still be indecipherable to others.

functionality is not consistently deployed and seems randomly located (I know it's not, it just seems that way to a beginner).

Yeah, there's things I don't like here either; they're a big post waiting to happen.

3. Allow for creation of more story almanacs.

Well, I've got an "I'm watching a Christmas episode of a comedy show in the background while writing this post." miracle for you!



(Unless you meant making more than they allow already.)

 

[MNBlockHead]

(Unless you meant making more than they allow already.)

I meant more than they allow already. I love being able to create multiple story almanacs, I just wish I could have a much larger number than currently allowed.

 

[adzling]

This is a common fallacy from super-users and programmers.

Bottom line if the program's interface is not designed well enough to get a large enough beginner pool to buy the program and continue to use it the software sales will not perform as well as they should.

I suspect if Lone Wolf looked at the user logs they would find a large %age of users abandon the app or never use it enough to be called regular users.

If you're not a regular user of the app you won't buy more services, subscriptions or add on products.

Extra functionality won't do diddly for your sales at that point except to the tiny base of hardcore users.

In fact layering on extra functionality without first fixing the interface will only exacerbate their problems.

IMHO that's where Realmworks stands now, it's a detailed and overly complicated tool only useable by dedicated hardcore users.

I could be wrong about this, perhaps Realmworks is blowing the doors off sales and Lone Wolf is raking in the $$. I strongly suspect this is not the case however.

Just listening to others it's apparent they have an interface design problem.

That said, I feel that while interface improvements are always welcome, delivering on promised functionality has got to be first priority. The content market, journals, calendars, and ability to print are all far more critical to the RW's current and potential customers.

 

[Dark Lord Galen]

This is a common fallacy from super-users and programmers.
Bottom line if the program's interface is not designed well enough to get a large enough beginner pool to buy the program and continue to use it the software sales will not perform as well as they should.

1st and Others will convey, I am not generous in defending LWD, BUT this sounds starkly as a statement made by the millennium generation who complains when anything is "too hard" "too tough" "too complicated" yet want all the bells and whistles without the work.

Now perhaps you are not apart of the "instant gratification generation", but your statements certainly fit the MOS. What other generation has created a whole sub-industry for cheat-books & shortcuts for a game they have already spent $50 plus dollars for??? That alone has me SMH.

So, lets just look at the segment of statement above. This also, while correct in SOME situations, is not nearly the defacto rule you would imply. For years Wordperfect was the defacto choice for word-processing, not because it was easy but because it was versatile. IT was later sub-planted by MS Office products which are not overtly easier, but made themselves the default because of, again, versatility from word to Access to Excel. Even today, AutoCAD, Primavera Scheduling Software ARE the defacto choices in their genre as well. Why? Again because of versatility. Ah but your retort might be, but those aren't gaming type software, ok.. how about Campaign cartographer?

Granted could the RW software use improvements WITHOUT A DOUBT, but easy comes at a price. And the price is usually paid by versatility. I prefer versatility over easy EVERY TIME.

The true "fallacy" is your assumption that LWD will fail by only appealing to "super-users" when in fact there are several softwares that have stood the test of time because there is simply nothing else that is currently available providing versatility to do what the software does.

So your "bottom line" is not always the case, as there are examples that clearly require work that have indeed been successful.
Respectfully,
DLG

 

[Joe]

I appreciate everyone rallying behind Realm Works in this thread, and I want to make it clear that we know the user experience needs work. As the resident "person who knows about interface stuff", this is evident to me perhaps more than anyone else. I'll do my best to address what I've seen in this thread, but what I'm offering here is intended to be helpful and informative rather than excuses for the current state of things.

Our Situation
Everything has an opportunity cost, and we are a small team. I think a lot of people think we are bigger than we are because they are used to dealing with larger software companies (Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc.), and larger companies in general. Everybody has to wear multiple hats, and no one really gets to focus on just one thing (even if it would be great if they could!) So while it would be nice to have one person focus only on UX (user experience) concerns, a lot of other stuff would not get done to make room.

Content Market
It’s true that users who have been turned off by the interface won't buy additional services, subscriptions, and add-on products. As it stands right now however, we have very little for them to buy in the first place. This is where the Content Market comes in. In order for Realm Works to succeed commercially (and provide me and the team with the food, electricity, and internet connectivity needed for continued development and interface improvements!) we are focusing on being able to provide these exact services, subscriptions, and add-ons.

Look and Feel
As observed in this thread, Realm Works as it stands heavily favors functionality and versatility over look and feel (visual appearance and aesthetic rather than. Whether this is your preference or not is a matter for debate, as people have taken both sides just within this thread alone.

One of the goals for the upcoming Realm Work web application is to have a slicker, more visually appealing interface. It's far from a finished product, but you can check out a video sneak peak we did to get an idea of the direction the visual design is heading. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmfq8UR4WCI

This isn't to say that the desktop product will never get a new coat of paint, but that needs to be prioritized against everything else.

Inherent Complexity
Realm Works has a lot of features, and is intended to be used by GMs with a wide variety of approaches and styles. This results in a significant amount of inherent complexity, the kind which can only be reduced by cutting features and scope. If a theoretical product supports EXACTLY your approach and no one else's, it will be less complex by definition.

My father greatly prefers to use a classic corded telephone because it’s simple and does only the things he wants out of a phone. No smartphone (not even one lovingly crafted by top notch designers at Apple) will appeal to him, because it does far, far too much that he doesn't want.

We have lots of ideas (both our own and from the community) on how to mitigate some of this complexity, but they are seldom easy to implement and require a lot of thought and effort. One of the major design goals of the web application is to smooth over some of the complexity and learning curve for newer users, and in general make the overall experience more palatable to a wider audience.

General Usability and Performance
Of course there's plenty of other stuff for us to work on to improve the UX of Realm Works in general. Some people have noted performance concerns, and we've already release a few fixes that make that situation better (but not perfect), and will be continuing to look at that.

There's also some glaring usability issues that we are looking to correct, both short term and long term. We all know that the topic hierarchy is very useful but also cumbersome, primarily because of the fiddlyness with expanding and collapsing it. This of course is just one example.

The long term solution is to remember the expanded and collapsed state, which we hope to be doing at some point but will require a big chunk of work. Short term however, we have some tweaks coming in the next update which should somewhat alleviate the problem. We're adding an option to expand the entire hierarchy, as well as collapse the entire hierarchy (including "inner" parts).

Hopefully this helps at least a little.

 

[MNBlockHead]

@adzling. Fair enough. I agree that if the program is too hard to use, increasing its complexity won't drive sales. I don't see, however, how the interface is any worse than any Microsoft Office program. Perhaps this is the ultimate issue. This is a program for hobbyists and maybe many people find it feels too much like work to use it. But even more than the interface, I think that entering content yourself is what turns many people off and, therefore, getting the Content Market live is probably the most important thing to focus on.

I find this an interesting conversation because I've been in both seats. I almost didn't use RW after I first bought it, but ended up spending a lot of time going through the materials and discussing the program in these forums. Now I'm a convert (can't call myself a super user, but I certainly rely on the program heavily to plan for and run my games). I can see where you are coming from, but I don't really know how RW should address it. One could offer a simple and and advanced view, I suppose, to keep both new and super users happy.

Beyond the recognition that the program is intimidating to new users, what specific changes would improve usability? I don't mean this as a challenge. I am just interested in the topic.

Making the program skinable, where folks can create their own icon sets, topic templates, and color schemes would be nice and folks could sell them in the CM. You could have skins for specific game systems and even campaigns or adventures. All of this, however, seems like a huge development effort. I just don't know how feasible it would be to revamp the design of the program. I image that this has to be a very difficult market to develop software for. There is a lot a program needs to do to make RPG GMs and players happy, but there is not a huge customer base.

 

[ThatOneMike]

Frankly, preferences for aesthetic and user experience are almost irrelevant in my opinion, given that Realm Works is the only tool I know of that offers the feature set it does. Storyboards, notes, a wiki, interactive maps, timeline, topic hierarchy, tags, etc all integrated in a single package. It's sort of incredible to me, even if the user experience leaves something to be desired at times.

 

[MNBlockHead]

I missed DLG's and Joe's post while editing mine. Joe thank you for chiming in. I envy the fact that you have a career working in this industry, but I don't envy your having to keep us RPG enthusiasts happy. We are a crazy group that plays a game that is almost entirely rule books. We are a demanding and somewhat OCD lot. I think RW is heading the right direction. I think you are correct the Content Market is critical.

Even if the user interface could use some improvement, being able to buy a large, detailed adventure, or even an entire campaign world will be incredibly useful for many DMs who want to run a game but have limited time for preparation. One can complain about elements of the interface but RW is a huge leap ahead of print and PDF.

DLG, if reactions to the interface have anything to do with generation, I think it is only that those of us who began using computers in the 80s and even the early 90s were used to spending time learning software, but MOST people did not use computers to the extent that people do today. I think most folks in their 40s have LESS patience for learning technology than those in their teens and 20s who grew up with it. But the interfaces for both devices and software are just so much better now that it makes those who grew up with modern, graphical, and web-based interfaces less patient with complex and cumbersome interfaces.

But I do agree with you that this is much about versality vs. ease of use. Your examples are spot on. People will put up with complexity and invest the time to learn a complicated application if it best meets their needs. LWD has to balance the needs of the hard-core users with those that want a convenient and easy way to run precreated adventures. Ideally, I think I would like to see RW have a Pro version which is pretty much what we have with some improvements to the interface and features and a limited version that is for those who want to just run an adventure. Imagine if the Content Market was like Drivethrough RPG but instead of buying a PDF you get that adventure with a limited version of RW. Basically, the interface is free but limited to that adventure. This will likely only work with the Web version, which would be an issue for those that wanted to play without Internet access, but then that is what the Pro version would be for.

 

[adzling]

Thanks for chiming in Joe, the developer's perspective is certainly always a good thing to hear.

I totally get that you're a small team and that the content market is a big thing for Realmworks and it's users, it will be fun to purchase content that does not need to be entered manually.

It won't help me personally as a I don't play Pathfinder or a D20 system but that's not particularly relevant.

A bit of background on me as it would appear that the Dark Lord Galen is busy jamming his foot in his mouth in an attempt to deride my call for a clear and usable interface.

I am a 45 year old product designer who runs his own tech company that involves developing hardware and software in concert.

So I know a thing or two about complicated, dense interfaces (3d software anyone?) and delivering simplified and streamlined choices to users so they can operate my companies products without having to spend months learning how.

Frankly this should be a given.

The example the Dark Lord holds out for Wordperfect may have some merit as the "industry" for VTT software is nascent and not fully formed. Wordperfect did not thrive because it was a great product, it was the ONLY product that had the feature set pro's needed. Once competition entered the market in earnest wordperfect mostly disappeared, relegated to the few niche professions that needed the unique features it offered.

This IMHO is pretty close to where Realmworks is at, it even looks like it came out of the 90's.

To prosper Realmworks will need to find a way to sell more stuff, and that means more copies of the software and that means a more USEABLE and EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE interface.

This may mean chunking the user experience into easily segmented areas (content entry/ game day/ after action player wiki for example) that have simplified interfaces that get to the core of what each modality is. Right now its just a nasty front end for a nice database.

This may not be the right approach, it may not be the best approach, but is an approach that could solve some of the problems with Realmworks.

Other solutions may substitute just as well.

My point is that from where I'm sitting Realmworks is running a dangerous risk of continuing to add complexity by layering in features that the developers think the community wants and in the process building an unusable mess of buttons and widgets that completely turn off new users and makes it impossible for folks to actually use the software without spending countless hours learning it.

The core concept of any product design is MVP.
Minimum Viable Product.
Get this to market quickly and well executed and add to it as you go.
Roll20 started this way and mostly has VTT down fairly well (still some huge areas they can improve on).

I see great potential in Realmworks, I'm sticking with it and using it.
However if it is going to thrive something has to be done about the interface and ease of use.

And I do want to see it thrive and not be relegated to just hardcore types who spend all their time by themselves putting in the hours to learn the program.

Hardcore nerds yes! But the whole point of tabletop is to get together with friends and use the fruit of your collective imagination.

Sitting alone in your dungeon scripting the most amazing and complicated worlds that no one sees will not sell many pieces of software and in the end is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Vargr]

Interesting discussion.

I have not until now considered if the GUI was good or bad.

Looking at the GUI now, I have to say - well, it works very well and I can't see, that it resembles something from the 1998 - more like something from, say, 2015.

All that is of course in the eye of the beholder.

This does not mean, that there are no room for improvement here and there, but overall I am most satisfied.

The idea of having it divided into preparation, playing, after session clean-up or whatever sound very strange to me and counter-intuitive.

RW is a complex piece of software, that allows you to do many things and presents it in a good way. And yes, it does take some time to fully understand and utilize, but I find that most good things do.

PS:
I use RW for entering my own world and design my own scenarios, if that makes a difference as to how RW and its GUI is viewed.

 

[AEIOU]

I have to say that I complete disagree with nearly everything adzling has proposed and thinks RealmWorks is or should be. I want functionality, not glitz. RPGs are complex, dense, convoluted, contradictory, refreshing, involving, thinking games that cannot be distilled into a one-size fits all interface.

I'm at a loss as to how sources that lead to details that lead to linkages/relationships is not intuitive or how this interferes with work flow. Left to right. Fill in the necessary details and hit Ctrl-Shift-` or ignore the empty sections and press on. It's fast, simple and editable before/during/after sessions.

I'm at a loss as to how multiple storyboards where you can separate out different areas or adventures or groups is not conducive to faster game prep while also providing in-game information at your fingertips.

I'd love to actually see what others consider a "better" icon set or a more modern interface. The ribbon works well and is consistent with Microsoft apps. The consistency of naming is rock solid and the icons while not works of art are a quick reference to exactly what the source is without distracting. Let's get some serious examples on the table to compare against.

Simplifying the program won't drive sales; and likewise, making it more complex won't kill sales. Adding pre-made content, partnering closely with VTT's and publishers, and implementing printing/exporting are the areas that will draw more people in IMNSHO. Give them easy to use content and allow them to use it to tell stories wherever they may be. It's easy to backseat drive and make statements in a vacuum with an entitled attitude. But keep in mind that Rob and team have created something that people have sought for over 30 years. That says an awful lot about LWD and about the complexity of the project they've undertaken.

If anyone has some solid suggestions, put them out and lets discuss the merits.