GZDoom Builder 2.3

[Enjay]

Comments about left & right

I agree that having the texture tree on the right is odd and that it is unlike familiar layouts in other programs. Even Windows Explorer, a layout that most Windows users are likely to be very familiar with, has its tree on the left as do many other programs (SLADE, Noesis, Wally, Winzip, Paint Shop Pro, TextPad in fact virtually any program that allows you to explore files). However, because selecting a texture is a slowish task that feels a bit specific to GZDB, it's not too obtrusive. I'd definitely prefer it the other way around, but I'm not that bothered about it.

The "OK" button being on the right, however, is, IMO, a complete pain in the ass. It's out of step with every other program I use on a regular basis. I have clicked the wrong one many times. It's a significant annoyance. I'm aware that, under Windows, a handful of programs do this (especially those ported from other platforms) and that some operating environments do this but it's massively out of step with most Windows programs and the OS. As well as being intensely annoying, as a result of feeling non-standard, it also makes GZDB feel a bit weird and unprofessional/less polished (even though putting things that way around was clearly a conscious decision).

Menu trees (for texture exploration etc) being on the right is a bit odd but not too upsetting. It would be nicer for them to be on the left though.
"OK" buttons being on the right is a complete pain, creates mistakes, adds to the frustration of using and learning GZDB and, at a fundamental level, makes me feel unhappy/uncomfortable when I use the program.

Unfortunately, these things do have a feel of Microsoft Changes™ about them. You know, move stuff around between versions and confuse the hell out of the user just for the sake of making changes. I get that the "OK" button was moved so that the ""OK/Accept" button is now always the rightmost button on the most of controls" for standardisation within the program but, dear lord, there's the irony: they were moved to make them standard within the program thereby making the whole program feel non-standard in the windows environment.

[Nash]

Going to have to second with the RTL stuff... unfortunately I, too, have accidentally (more often than I'd like) clicked "Cancel" and therefore undoing a few minutes' worth of work because I instinctively clicked the button on the left instead of right... :(

[Enjay]

Interestingly, I just read this:

http://uxmovement.com/buttons/why-ok-bu ... the-right/

That explains why OK buttons are best on the right and... it's bullshit. Why, because they quickly slide over platform constancy like it doesn't matter and then give some, admittedly good, arguments about visual weight etc. But why do I say it's bullshit? Because you can't just skim over platform constancy like it doesn't matter. It does matter, it matters a lot - because of user familiarity and conditioning. If every other program you use, and have used for many years, has the OK on the left, putting it on the right will get people clicking the wrong one - guaranteed. Visual weight is almost irrelevant in this case because people don't read the buttons. Why would they need to? OK is on the left and cancel is on the right. No need to read, just see the button in the periphery of your vision and click it. It's automatic. Even if you do read it, muscle memory and force of habit are so strong that by the time you realise what the buttons say, you're already clicking the wrong one.

[Gez]

Interestingly, I just read this:

http://uxmovement.com/buttons/why-ok-bu ... the-right/

This guy has no credibility when it comes to talking about how most computer users behave:

This means that most users won’t blindly click the primary action button without also looking at the secondary action button next to it.

Yeah, maybe the first time...

[GooberMan]

While we're on the subject of buttons not being right, the numpad enter key not working exactly like the main enter key drives me bonkers regularly.

[Kappes Buur]

I'm sure that somebody may find this of interest:

• while not specifically mentioned in the changelog, changing the texture group panel
  from left to right occurred a long time ago in r1813.

I'm always amazed how the slightest variance in a program can result in such indignant remarks.
I could understand it somewhat if one had to pay for a program, but since this is freeware in its
strictest sense it is what it is.

MaxED must have had a reason for the change, even it was just for his own convenience.

[Enjay]

MaxED must have had a reason for the change, even it was just for his own convenience.

Reason or not, free or not, that doesn't mean that the change can't be a pain in the ass for other users, just as it doesn't mean it can't be the best change evar!

In the case of the "OK" button, yes it is a slight change but if it is regularly frustrating users and even cancelling work, it's not an insignificant one.

No one should be bitching and whining at MaxEd (I hope that I haven't come across as indignant). I'm sure we all appreciate his work. However, I also think it's right that perceived shortcomings and problems with GZDB get pointed out and MaxEd can choose to act on or ignore the comments as he sees fit for his program.

[ZZYZX]

• while not specifically mentioned in the changelog, changing the texture group panel
  from left to right occurred a long time ago in r1813.

Why did it occur though? Did MaxED just feel better when the texture group filter is on the right, and it was enough to forget that his product is used by at least 100 other people? Same for the buttons.
I can understand if he just did it, but made it an option. See the difference? Having an option that switches from "liked by author" mode into "liked by users" mode. It's something that makes software better than Skype v6.22.

I'm always amazed how the slightest variance in a program can result in such indignant remarks.
I could understand it somewhat if one had to pay for a program, but since this is freeware in its
strictest sense it is what it is.

You'll probably be very surprised, but in fact something being freeware (and done voluntarily by single author who's also a member of the same community) implies that it's developer is closer to the users and thus doesn't have huge hierarchy above him and isn't forced to do what his PM or BA says, and instead can listen to the users and learn what they actually want from the program. I doubt anyone asked for these particular interface changes, or that there was any significant percent of such people, even if there were some.

[MaxED]

While we're on the subject of buttons not being right, the numpad enter key not working exactly like the main enter key drives me bonkers regularly.

Any more details on this?.. They both work the same way on my side, at least in Edit forms...

[MaxED]

Why aren't the toolbars moving anyway?

Because it's almost impossible to implement because of dynamic nature of the toolbars. Many toolbars are populated dynamically, based on current editing mode and loaded plugins, so it's impossible to determine their widths (and position them properly) during the loadtime.

I don't like my screen flashing red every few seconds while actively working with sectors.

Highlight in Sectors mode can be toggled the same way as in Visual mode.

...or enter a less-used mode (for which there's no key binding)

What stops you from adding a key bindnig for such mode?

Also, your inability to adopt to changes amuses me. Your posts just scream of "WHY ARE YOU CHANGING STUFF TO FIT YOUR WORKFLOW??? CHANGE IT TO FIT MINE!!!"

[ZZYZX]

Also, your inability to adopt to changes amuses me.

I'm able to adopt changes if they bring any significant improvement to me and aren't just "change for change". And even if they improve your workflow, to me it's still "change for change", since my workflow doesn't have anything to do with yours (that, and the menu panel flickering when changing modes just looks horrible).

Your posts just scream of "WHY ARE YOU CHANGING STUFF TO FIT YOUR WORKFLOW??? CHANGE IT TO FIT MINE!!!"

Totally right with the first part, totally wrong with the last one. Seems like you just can't think outside of your existing way of dealing with things.
I did scream "WHY ARE YOU CHANGING STUFF TO FIT YOUR WORKFLOW???".
However.
I never asked you to "CHANGE IT TO FIT MINE!!!" (that is, "force everyone to my preferred interface instead of forcing it to your preferred interface").
I asked you to enable the users (e.g. me) to choose their preferred interface on their own, or at least explain why it can't be done.

And even though (as a random programmer slightly related to C# who hasn't seen the DB2 sources) I don't think that it's that hard to make a dynamic detachable toolbox, but at least there's a valid answer that removes ambiguity: "this won't ever be done because it's not possible".

Edit: not meaning the sector highlighting here already, thank you for pointing out that there's a way to fix it. (just saw jmickle's post)

[jmickle]

you can. maxed told you how in his post.

[Kappes Buur]

However.

What is that supposed to accomplish?

If you had followed MaxED's development of GZDoom Builder, then you would have realized that he is extremely meticulous about it.

If you do not like something in the program, then Netiquette would dictate that you ask nicely and not come on like a faller with an axe
to take down a tree.

On the other hand, you always have the option to change the source to own liking and submit the change.

[MaxED]

Oh well, way too many people complained about this here and at the Doomworld, so... (r2226):

---

[ZZYZX]

What is that supposed to accomplish?

This:

Oh well, way too many people complained about this here and at the Doomworld, so... (r2226)

Also, awesome, TY MaxED. The most annoying change went away now