Related
I am working on designing a user interface and want to convey my design to my peers. Typically, I'd use a mock-up of the UI and UML, but given the complexity, size, and multiple asynchronous interactions I'm not sure that this makes the most sense. It doesn't seem to allow to efficiently describe the process.
Does anyone have experience in designing large User Interface's? How would a company that designs UI's go about modeling their process/ design? This seems to be a question for the 'front-end' engineers.
well let's go for an answer even if your question is very large. I'll give you my experience and hope it will help you to decide.
To my mind, using UML in a project is very useful if you use it right, it's often clear, quite easy to understand. On the other side, when working on huge project, it's sometimes costly because it takes time to create your diagrams and nowadays, you have to be as fast as possible !
These last months I have worked on a project with a GUI and to well define it, I have first draw some screen on paper and quickly ask for some drawbacks near the coffee machine.
I have created some activity diagrams and then, created a mock-up.
How to choose now ?
First of all, if your GUI should have a beautiful design, I don't think you can avoid a mock-up, but I'm don't know if it's your goal.
My main tip would be, try to simplify your complexity in your program. If you have multiple asynchronous that could arise everytime/everywhere, you'll encounter a lot a problem.
In my project, let's say my tablet could be preempted by an external computer whenever/wherever. I just have created a class beforehand to manage this asynchronous call but my sub-activity-diagrams stayed intact.
Draw specific diagram for specific functionalities and leave useless diagrams which are not relevant/too simple.
Hard to explain you more than this without giving you any example. Hope it will help a bit.
I am a hobbyist console C++ developer. I have worked with pointers, arrays, std::vectors, std::strings, classes, and several data structures, including stacks and binary trees. I have some experience in linear algebra and geometry, and know the basics of physics. I do NOT have experience with win32, QT, openGL, DX9, OGRE, etc. I am still learning about the more valuable parts of OOP, like polymorphism.
I started C++ as a first language, and do not have experience with other languages. I could probably work with C, but I'd need to get used to manipulating char*'s and regular arrays (and not initing variables).
My question is, with my experience, when should I break into the development of GUI applications/game applications? Do I need to ground myself more firmly in certain areas of math, become comfortable with win32, get used to SDK?
If this question is too subjective for you to comfortably give advice, then when did you break into GUI/game development, and what steps did you take to make yourself comfortable with it?
Editing this so it will get bumped. Does anyone else have any opinions?
Caveat: I am a very "learn-by-doing" type of person, so take this with a grain of salt.
Sounds like you know enough programming basics to jump into something more realistic, and have enough background to justify that realistic project being a game.
I'd recommend downloading Visual C# Express and Microsoft's XNA Game Studio 3.0.
XNA is a game framework that has a lot of stuff done for you (sound, sprites, 3D support, etc.) built on a professional-quality C# platform and it would be a good starting point. Create a new XNA project and play around. Get some stuff to appear on the screen, then learn to manipulate it with user input. If you are interested in 3D, make a 3D shape such as a triangle. Then, make it spin. Then, make it spin based on user input. Then, add other objects and collisions.
Surely, there will be things in the framework that you don't understand. Tackle them as they come - use Google and ask questions here until you do understand them. Take it one step at a time and you should be just fine.
I'd personally recommend you to start out with Win32; try creating a basic window & move on from that point. Try making a simple 2D game engine in which you are able to make a game like chess or so. This could also serve as project for which you could write an AI; which is another part of Game Development!
After you finish that, the next step should be 3D. You could use the engine you wrote before and modify it from 2D to 3D. Pick a 3D API; OpenGL or DirectX. Once you have a basic engine, start writing a game. Need extra functionality? Then add it to the engine!
Math-wise you should know what matrices are. Trigonometry can come in handy as well.
I wouldn't waste my time with Xna, it's just a hype. :P
It seems you already have gained the basic knowledge of a programming language to start game programming. I'm with you in building on what you have already gained, such as learning OOP, and practicing more with pointers. I recommend you move on and don't turn to learning another tool "programming language" to achieve your goals.
So if you are interested in game programming, I recommend you pick a C++ framework and work on it, you'll definitely learn more advanced programming by just using it.
I recommend Gosu. It's not full of advanced features, which can be an advantage, but it has a very clean design and uses C++ in an elegant and modern way. Which makes it very friendly especially for beginners.
Also HGE is another good 2D engine.
To sum up, dive into programming more by actually "doing it" with what you have now. That's how you'll progress, and you'll be amazed with the results. And when "doing it" don't get disturbed with other languages and tools you already know something similar to it, and at the same time when learning a tool that helps you to build on your current knowledge, in your case I mean the C++ engine, don't choose very complicated ones (IMO, like OpenGL, DirectX, Win32...etc) because you'll end up spending time on learning the tool not using it and there is a great chance you'll get frustrated. You can always learn the low level things later, and it will make a lot more sense then.
as this question is kind of subjective, because every programmer has a favourite library to start with, I will recommend SDL as it is simple, well structured, and very complete, there are a lot of tutorials out there to guide you step-by-step from making a simple window to complex 3D manipulation. Everything can be implemented with ease.
As a side note, if you want to start programming games, I would recommend, also, that you read some tuts or books about a Game basics (initialization, game loop, update cycles), so that you know how to put your knowledge to the good work.
I'm trying to build a very light re-usable framework for my games, rather than starting from scratch each time I start a game. I have a component driven architecture - e.g. Entity composes a Position component and a Health component and Ai component etc.
My big question is whether my model composes view components to allow for more than one view of the model, or whether to use a truer MVC where the model does not know about its views, and they are managed externally.
I have tried both methods but if anyone knows the pros and cons of each approach and which is the industry standard, it would be great to know.
depends on your audience, game devs, myself included aren't very used to the MVC model, although most know it, it's not as easy to keep it clean cut, because of development casualties (not any serious technical reasons). So from experience, I've seen dozens of game frameworks start as MVC, but only a pair were able to maintain it until the end. My theory is MVC adds too much complexity and little benefits for small throwaway games (with normally a few devs), and it's to hard to keep really cleanly separate most game objects into these layers for large/complex games. And since games have a release date, they many times sacrifice code clarity and reusability for performance and quick adhoc solutions (that will get rewritten if necessarry in the sequel (if there is one)).
However, with the caveat above, it's better to aim high, because if you succeed it's better :) and if you fail, well to bad. So you should probably try the MVC, but don't worry if it fails, profesional game devs have all failed at the task many times :)
I’d certainly vote for the model to know nothing about its views. Loose coupling is good: Simpler model code, easier testing, more choices.
I know this question might be outdated, but I need to reply on it.
Actually, I started programming a game in Lua (with LÖVE) and I started programming a MVC - Framework for it.
At first, to use MVC really depends on what you want.
I know my problems with game programming, when the program becomes bigger, and mostly the structure becoms too complex to maintain.
Next thing is, I know that I will change all the graphics when I find an artist who is willing to work for it. But until then, I'm gonna use my own dummy graphics.
I want the artist to feel free to do what ever he wants, without beeing dependend on any resolution or color restriction.
That means, I might have to change the whole (!) presentation code. Maybe even the way objects interact (collision detection, f.e.).
The game logic is captured in the models, so I can concentrate on that. And I think game logic is the most important part of making a game. Isn't it?
Hope you see my point.
But, if you have everything together: all the graphics, sounds, the whole thing; then you can code straight forward.
My MVC is a configuration-over-convention-ass, that slows down prototyping a bit.
BUT(!) iterations of development can be made much more easily. Testing, especially Unit-Tests are done much more faster.
I would say MVC turns you development-speed-curve (which is normally an anti-exponential curve) into an exponential curve. Slow at the beginning, but more and more fast at the end.
MVC works really well for games, at least for my games which are designed for cross-platform.
It really depends on how you implement it in order to get the benefit.
I have been asked to investigate porting Wii games and some (Sony) PSOne games to OpenGL ES (can you guess what platform?).
I have never undertaken a game port like this before (and will be hiring someone to do it) but I'd like to understand the process.
Does the Wii use OpenGL? If not what does it use and how easy is it to port to OpenGL / OpenGL ES?
Are there any resources/books/blogs that will help me in understanding the process?
Will my company have to become an official Wii developer? If so where do I start that process?
Porting from the Wii or the PSOne is a complex and involved task that can be broken down into multiple separate engineering efforts working in parallel to produce a working end product. The best possible thing you can do before moving to the target hardware is to compartmentalize all of the non-portable code while ensuring that the game continues to run as expected. When you commit to moving to the new platform, your effort switches to reimplementing the non-portable compartmentalized parts.
So, to answer your question, yes, you will need to become or work with a Sony and Nintendo licensed developer in order to take this approach. In the case of Sony, I don't even know if they offer a PSOne development program anymore which presents issues. Your Sony account rep can help clarify.
The major subsystems that are likely to be the focus of your porting effort are:
Rendering Graphics code contains fundamental assumptions about the hardware it is being run on in order to perform optimally. API-level compatibility is superficial compatibility and does not get you as much as you may hope it does. Plan on finding the entry point to the renderer and determining what data you need to render a scene and rewriting all the render code from there for your target hardware.
Game Saving Game state serialization and archival will need to be separated out. Older games often fwrite() structs with #pragma packed fields. Is that still going to work for you?
Networking Wii games write to high level services that are unavailable on your target hardware. At the low level, sockets are still sockets. What network services do your Wii games rely on?
Controls From where you are coming from to where you are going, anything short of a full redesign or reimagining of input will result in poor reviews of the software.
Memory Management Console games often make fundamental assumptions about the rate the system software returns memory from the heap, how much fragmentation it will cause and the duration the game needs to operate under these conditions. These memory management assumptions are obsolete on the new platform. It is wise to write your own memory manager that provides a cushion from the operating system. Also, console games compiled for release are stripped of most error handling and don't gracefully handle running out of memory-- just a heads up.
Content Your bottleneck will be system memory. Can you fit the necessary assets into memory? With textures, you can reduce mip where necessary and with graphics hardware timing, you can pull in the far clipping plane. With assets resident in memory, you may need a technical artist to go through and reduce the face density of your models or an animation programmer to implement a more size-friendly animation codec. This is very game specific.
You also run into the standard set of problems with things like bit compatibility (though the Wii and PSOne are both 32-bit), compiler idiosyncrasies, build script incompatibilities and proprietary compiler extensions.
Games are relatively challenging to test. A good rule of thumb is you want to have enough testers on your team to run through the game in a maximum of two days, covering all major aspects of play. In games that take a long time to beat (RPGs with 30+ hours of gameplay), your testing team needs to be quite large to offer full coverage. Because you are just doing a port, you can come up with a testing plan that maximizes coverage of your new code without having a testing team punch every wall in your game to make sure it (still) has clipping. The game shipped once.
Becoming a licensed developer requires you to apply. The turnaround time, from experience, is not good. Generally speaking, priority is given to studios with shipped titles and organized offices with reasonably good security and the ability to buy the (relatively) expensive development kits. You may be better off working with a licensed developer if you do not meet these criteria.
Console and game development is challenging for people already experienced in it. There is no book that covers it all. My recommendation is to attempt to recruit an expert who has experience shipping titles in a position of systems or engine programmer. What types of programmers and skillsets exist in games is a whole different question for Stack, though.
Games consoles don't use OpenGL but their own, custom libraries. The main reason is that they are pretty slow and have little RAM. So you need to squeeze out every drop of performance you can get. And that means: Custom code. Usually, you get a framework with the developer kit which gets you started and then, you build your code from that. Eventually, you'll start replacing parts from the developer kit with your own special code to get all the speed and special effects you need.
There is a reason why PSOne games are so ugly on the PS3 despite the fact that the developers have access to the sources: Revenue just doesn't justify to touch the code.
Which is one reason why game development is so expensive: Every game is (more or less) a completely new product. Sometimes, game companies can reuse a bit of code from the last version but more often than not, they have to develop everything again. They also don't talk much with each other.
In recent years, kits have become more complex and powerful and you can get complete game engines (with all kinds of effects and 3D support) but each engine is a completely different kind of beast, so you can't even copy code from engine A to B.
Today, media content (video, audio and render sequences) are so expensive that the actual game engine is often a minor detail, so this isn't going to change any time soon.
Net result: If you want to port a game, write an emulator for the hardware (which is usually pretty simple and allows you to run all kinds of games).
[EDIT] To develop software for the Wii, see here: http://www.warioworld.com/
For a Wii emulator, see http://wiiemulator.net/
I ported a couple of games, when I was a new game programmer, from working with one version of our engine to a newer version (where backwards compatibility was neither ignored nor pursued). Even copying (and possibly renaming) the files and placing them in a home in the new project was a bit of work. Following that, the procedure was:
recompile
fix many of the hundreds of errors [in many places, with the same error occurring over and over again]
and
"wire up" calls from the new game engine to the appropriate calls in the old code
"wire up" function calls from the old code into the new game engine
deal with other oddities (ex. in the old game engine, the 2d game would "swizzle" textures itself; in the new version, the engine did it (on specific platforms))
and, while I don't recall this clearly, it was probably mixed in with a bunch of #ifdeffing out portions of code so the thing would actually compile, and possibly creating function stubs to be filled in later.
As I recall, it was three or four days until I had something that compiled. (But, it did help when we ported other games from the old version to the new one!)
The magnitude of the task will come down to what the code you are getting is like. If it has generic 3D calls that you can intercept -- add a thunking layer to -- then you are in business. It depends on the level of abstraction in the code. If it is well-behaved and has things like "RenderModel" and "RenderWorld" calls, you can replace those functions, and even the structures that they work with. If drawing is occurring all over the place, and calls are more like "Draw Polygon" and "Draw Line" or "Draw using this highly optimised data structure", then you are likely in for a long slog.
You shouldn't need a Wii dev kit. Sometimes it is nice to verify that the code you are given does indeed compile in the original environment (and matches the shipping code!), but sometimes you can just take it on faith and make it work in its new environment.
Lastly, I don't think the Wii uses OpenGL, and I really don't know where to point you for further help.
What you may want to do is to start with designing the architecture of the game, write up a detailed specification for what the new game is like.
Once you have this, since you will be rewriting the code, you may find that some of the business logic that doesn't deal with the console can be ported over. But, anything dealing with I/O, user interaction or graphics/sounds will be rewritten, so you might as well do that from scratch.
A specification is very important, to make certain that you know how the current game is working so that the new port will give the same user experience, if that is what is desired.
You may want to keep the same bugs, if that is part of the experience, as, if I know that in the Wii I can jump down and bounce off the wall to safely land, then if I can't do that in the new version then that may be bothersome.
Well porting a PS1 game to an iPhone would be quite a task they work in very different ways. I'm sure its doable but it will be a LOT of work to replace all the fixed point maths and lack of Z-Buffer based rendering to a real graphics chip.
Wii would be a lot easier. The Wii API is very similar to OpenGL. However the Wii has some very nice fixed function features that just are not available on any other GL based platform. Should be doable, though ...
I'm not really sure I can say anything more than that. Have signed far too many NDAs over the years to be 100% sure of what I can and cannot say ;)
Still if you want to hire someone to do some porting work and are prepared to supply the required hardware then I might be free ;)
Speed and learnability do not directly fight each other, but it seems easy enough to design such a GUI that lacks either (or both) of them. GUI designers seem to prefer 'easy to learn' most of the time even when 'fast to apply' would be wiser.
There's only few UI concepts or programs that are weighted towards maximizing the peak efficiency of whatever you are doing with the program. Most of them haven't gotten common.
Normal people prefer gedit instead of vim. For normal people there are already good-enough GUIs because there was tons of research on them two decades ago.
I'd like to get some advices on doing UIs that do the tradeoffs from 'easy to learn' rather than from 'fast to apply'.
We have a product in our lineup that has won numerous awards based largely on its ability to provide more power with an easier interface than any of our competitors. I designed the interface a few years after holding a position in one of Bell Labs' human interface research groups so I had a pretty clear idea of what constituted "success" when I approached it. I have four pieces of design advice for creating easy but powerful interfaces.
First, select a metaphor that makes sense in their environment and do your best to stick to it. This doesn't have to be a physical metaphor although that can help if working with people who are not tech savvy. This was popular in the early days of Windows but its value remains. We used a "folder and page" metaphor that permitted us to organize a wide range of tasks while not crimping power users' style.
Second, offer a consistent layout relationship between data display and tasks. In our interface, each "page" displays a set of action buttons in the exact same position and, wherever possible, uses the same actual buttons. Thus, once one page is learned, the user has a head start on learning the rest. One of these buttons, always placed in a distinctive position, is a "Help" button...which brings me to point #3. The more general rule is: find ways of leveraging learning in one area to assist in learning others.
Third, offer context-sensitive help and make sure that it addresses the user's primary question (which is usually "what do I do now"?) How often have you seen technical help that simply shows you the Inheritance tree, constructor syntax and an alphabetical list of methods? That isn't help, it is abuse. We focused all of our help on walking people through sample tasks. In particularly tough areas, we also offered multimedia tutorials.
Fourth, offer users the ability to customize the interface. Our users often had no use for specific "pages" (analysis types) in their work. Thus, we made it very simple to turn them off so that the user would see an interface that was no more complicated than it had to be. Our app was usually installed by a power user and then used by multiple staff members so this was more of a win for us because we could usually count on the power user to understand what to shut off. However, I think it is good advice in general.
Good luck!
Autocad has a console mode. As you do things using the mouse and toolbars, the text-equivalent of those commands is written to the console. You can type commands directly in there. This provides a great way to learn the power-user names for commands (they are very short, like unix commands) which aids greatly the process of moving from beginner to productive power-user. Generally speaking, one primary focus has to be in minimising movement between the mouse and keyboard, so put lots of functionality into the mouse, or into the keyboard, because when you have to move your hands like that, there is a real delay in trying to find the right place to put them.
Beyond avoiding an angry fruit salad, just try to make it as intuitive as possible. Typically, programs with a very frustrating UI share one common problem, the developers didn't define a clear scope of what the program would actually do prior to marrying a UI design.
Its not so much a question of 'easy' , some people jump right into the UI and begin writing stuff to back the interface, rather than writing the core of a planned program and then planning an interface to use it.
This goes for web apps, desktop apps .. or even command line programs. A good design means writing the user interface after (and only after) you are sure that 'scope creep' is no longer a possibility.
Sure, you need some interface to test your program, but be prepared to trash it and do something better prior to releasing the program. Otherwise, there's a good chance that the UI is only going to make sense to you.
Rant (or, Stuff I think you should keep in mind):
Speed and learnability do directly fight each other. A menu item tells you what it does so that you don't have to remember. But it's much slower than a keyboard shortcut that you have to memorize to benefit from. The general technique for resolving this conflict seems to be allowing more than one way of doing things. While one way of doing something usually cannot be both fast and easy to learn, you can often provide two ways to accomplish the same task: one that's fast, and one that's obvious.
There are different kinds of people. The learning gap is a result of interest, motivation, intellectual capacity, etc. There is a class of person that will never bother to even learn which menu provides the action they want, and they'll scrub the menubar every time. There is also a (minority) class of person that thinks vim (or emacs) is the best thing since sliced bread. Most people probably fall somewhere in between these extremes.
My answer to the actual question:
I think you are asking how to strive for a fast UI. Your question wasn't particularly clear (to me).
First of all, be consistent. This helps both speed and learnability. Self consistency is the most important, but consistency with your environment may also be important.
For real speed, require as little attention and motion as possible. Keyboard shortcuts are fast because experienced users know where they are (they don't have to look), and their hands are already on the keyboard. Especially avoid forcing the user to change their position in front of the computer (e.g., moving one hand between the mouse and keyboard).
The keyboard is almost always faster than the mouse.
Customization (especially the ability to write custom scripts) will let power users make the interface work the way that is fastest for their specific habits.
Make it possible to get by without the most powerful features. All you need to know in order to survive in vim is "i, ESC, :wq, :q!". With that, you can use vi about the same way a lot of people use notepad. but once you start learning "h,j,k,l,w,b,e,d,c" (and so on) you get much more efficient. So there is a steep learning curve, but you can get by until you surmount it.
Keep in mind that if you focus on interface efficiency, you will probably limit your user base. Vim is popular among programmers, but lots of programmers use other tools, and it's virtually unknown among non-programmers. Most people want easy, not fast. Some want a balance. A very few just want fast.
I would like to point you towards Kathy Sierra's old blog for thoughts on 'easy to learn' and 'fast to apply' — I don't necessarily agree there needs to be a tradeoff between the two.
Three posts to get you started:
How much control should users have? This post ponders on whether 'fast to apply' is the ideal we should strive for.
The hi-res user experience talks about what you say about "normal people" vs. others. It's not so much that there are different kinds of people, but there are different levels of learning/expertise/involvement. Some are satisfied with less, some need more. How you get from less to more is arguably pretty much the same for everyone.
Finally, Featuritis vs. the Happy User Peak talks about the scope creep pointed out by #tinkertim.
Have you seen Gimp shortcuts?
Use nice visual controls and show keyboard shortcuts for them while hovering control - that will help to learn fast mode. If your software copy some behavior of other programs - copy shortcuts mapping from them (such as Copy/Paste/New Tab/Close Window/etc), but allow to dynamically re-map them as shown in Gimp. For reaped operations you could implement Action recoder. But it depends on type the software.
The main thing to be careful of is putting UI elements where they are most commonly located for other applications in that environment. For example, if you're going to make use of a menu system, people are accustomed to it being along top of the window by default for a desktop application. If you're in a web browser a menu system on a webpage seems out of place because it's not a consistent feature. If you're going to have an options/preferences configuration window, people are used to finding it under the Tools menu option, occasionally under the Edit menu. The main thing with keeping a UI "easy to learn" is that your UI elements shouldn't break the mold too much of how they're used in other applications.
If you haven't had the opportunity to see Mark Miller's presentation on The Science of Great User Experience, I'd recommend you watch the DNR TV episodes Part 1 and Part 2.
While I've been writing my own UI I've understood couple of things myself.
I imitated vim, but at the same time realized why it's so fast to use for text editing. It is because it acknowledges a thing: People prefer doing one thing at a time (inserting text, navigating around, selecting text), but they may switch the task often.
This means that you can pack different activities into different modes if you keep the mode switching schemes simple. It gives space for more commands. The user also gets better chances at learning the full interface because they are sensibly grouped already.
Vim is practically stuffed full of commands, every letter in the keyboard does something in vim, depending on the mode. Still I can remember most of them. And it's all because of modes.
I know bunch of projects that sneer at mode-dependent behavior. Main argument is the uncertainty of which mode you are in. In vim I'm never uncertain about the mode where I am in. Therefore I say the interface design is a failure if a trained user fails to recognize in which mode the interface is operating at the moment.