NCC GUI/handling

mixmaster · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

I am really seriously concerned about the NCC/GUI development. I think it is highly underestimated how important design and handling of the client is in regards of user adoption.

Of course I don't see all the small but important steps that are happening without showing big impact on the design/handling. But I am afraid the state of the client will have a negative effect on NEM's user adoption.

So… Will this change in the near future or what are the plans? (I really don't want to offend anybody, it is just my honest opinion.)

patmast3r · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

I am really seriously concerned about the NCC/GUI development. I think it is highly underestimated how important design and handling of the client is in regards of user adoption.

Of course I don't see all the small but important steps that are happening without showing big impact on the design/handling. But I am afraid the state of the client will have a negative effect on NEM's user adoption.

So... Will this change in the near future or what are the plans? (I really don't want to offend anybody, it is just my honest opinion.)

It's in no way underestimated. It's just a...complicated topic.
I'm confident that this will get better after launch with less stress being put on the devs. I aggree that this should have happend already though.

Rest assured though that everyone is very much aware of the state of the GUI.

mixmaster · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

patmast3r · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

I just went through all NCC issues on github.

These are the ones I see as a must before launch:
https://github.com/NewEconomyMovement/NemCommunityClient/issues/247
...

I'll go out on a limb and say that's not going to happen.

Most of them are mere improvements and shouldn't keep us from launching.
Some I wouldn't even agree with but that's something the devs will have to talk about.
One might not even be easily possible.
There are defnitely some among those that are somewhat critical but not "postpone launch" critical.

mixmaster · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

A lot could be called "mere improvements" but would make the software look pretty immature to the public, because they are relatively easy to fix (think about how long NEM was in development before launch).
Examples: usage of labels and address book, displaying multisig details in transaction list, missing symbol for "must" textboxes (this is maybe 20 minutes work? probably less), not closing popup windows after confirmation, basic information on features which are not understandable for newbies (remote harvesting).

And there are safety-critical issues like: hint on password strength, new account is set by entering the new password only once, losing control of primary account by converting to multisig without warning, illegal sender address …

I can not agree on "most shouldn't keep us from launching".

gimre · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

@mixmaster, thing is, we're definitely in lack of manpower…

mixmaster · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

I know, I didn't mean to blame anybody. You guys did and still are doing a really great job on NIS (which is kind of invisible for many, but not for me, because I really try to follow how you improve the software).

But that is the situation how I see it. And we should face it and find the best possible solution. The client is that piece that the public will look at after launch. The technique behind is just amazing, but thats not what people will see. Thats why I think this is so serious.

makoto · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

I know, I didn't mean to blame anybody. You guys did and still are doing a really great job on NIS (which is kind of invisible for many, but not for me, because I really try to follow how you improve the software).

But that is the situation how I see it. And we should face it and find the best possible solution. The client is that piece that the public will look at after launch. The technique behind is just amazing, but thats not what people will see. Thats why I think this is so serious.

We are considering various possibilities for revamping NCC. It will be several months before there are major improvements, though. However, in the short term, we can try to improve error messages.

patmast3r · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

I know, I didn't mean to blame anybody. You guys did and still are doing a really great job on NIS (which is kind of invisible for many, but not for me, because I really try to follow how you improve the software).

But that is the situation how I see it. And we should face it and find the best possible solution. The client is that piece that the public will look at after launch. The technique behind is just amazing, but thats not what people will see. Thats why I think this is so serious.

It's not that I don't aggree (I've called the GUI almost everything from "abysmal" to "a bad LSD trip" - obviously i was overstating things but you get the idea) I just don't think it's possible at this point.
I've been pushing for improvements for months now but you have to face facts. Not enough people (in fact less that NEM started out with) + an already late launch + everyone getting sick of the crybabies (not talking about you) == launch with suboptimal GUI.

mixmaster · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

Well… Nothing really new^^

Does a prioritization of the funds exist? Especially regarding to
- mobile client
- NCC GUI
- Marketing

makoto · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

Well... Nothing really new^^

Does a prioritization of the funds exist? Especially regarding to
- mobile client
- NCC GUI
- Marketing

I think we will see a mobile client before an improved desktop NCC.

Jaguar0625 · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

@mixmaster, thing is, we're definitely in lack of manpower...

This is very true.

Not enough people (in fact less that NEM started out with) + an already late launch + everyone getting sick of the crybabies (not talking about you) == launch with suboptimal GUI.

As is this.

Jaguar0625 · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

We were hopeful when we open sourced NCC that some people would either contribute to it (with help from the dev team) or build their own alternative clients.

A handful of people expressed interest, but, unfortunately, none really followed through (as evidenced by the commit history in github). We're always open to help and are hopeful that we'll get more contributors at some point. If anyone reading this is interested, please let us know!

The other thing is that we've really been spending a lot more time getting NIS right than NCC. In my opinion (I know other people disagree), I think it's more important to have the "foundation" (NIS) correct and solid at launch than the house (NCC). There has also been encouraging progress on the mobile app behind the scenes.

rockethead · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

We were hopeful when we open sourced NCC that some people would either contribute to it (with help from the dev team) or build their own alternative clients.

A handful of people expressed interest, but, unfortunately, none really followed through (as evidenced by the commit history in github). We're always open to help and are hopeful that we'll get more contributors at some point. If anyone reading this is interested, please let us know!

The other thing is that we've really been spending a lot more time getting NIS right than NCC. In my opinion (I know other people disagree), I think it's more important to have the "foundation" (NIS) correct and solid at launch than the house (NCC). There has also been encouraging progress on the mobile app behind the scenes.

From a performance and integrity standpoint, I agree the NIS should have a higher priority. From a user's standpoint, it is the NCC. In my opinion, NEM should not be promoted until the NCC is in order.We are launching nevertheless for those impatient ones. They should not complain a bit. I maintain that if everything must be in order before launch then it has to be fair that time is given to make sure that the NCC is in order. Now that time is not given, the current users who can't wait for it to be delayed any longer should not blame the devs for not making the NCC any better.

In any case, NCC is not a life and death situation. Any change to the UI/UX is only the look and feel and does not require a fork. If anyone were to be unhappy about it, then he/she can re-jig it to his/her content. No drama. Like it or not, there will be many armchair critiques anyway.

ShawnLeary · September 3, 2015, 2:14pm

Well... Nothing really new^^

Does a prioritization of the funds exist? Especially regarding to
- mobile client
- NCC GUI
- Marketing

I think we will see a mobile client before an improved desktop NCC.

Now we are talking! :)

patmast3r · September 3, 2015, 2:15pm

We were hopeful when we open sourced NCC that some people would either contribute to it (with help from the dev team) or build their own alternative clients.

A handful of people expressed interest, but, unfortunately, none really followed through (as evidenced by the commit history in github). We're always open to help and are hopeful that we'll get more contributors at some point. If anyone reading this is interested, please let us know!

The other thing is that we've really been spending a lot more time getting NIS right than NCC. In my opinion (I know other people disagree), I think it's more important to have the "foundation" (NIS) correct and solid at launch than the house (NCC). There has also been encouraging progress on the mobile app behind the scenes.

From a performance and integrity standpoint, I agree the NIS should have a higher priority. From a user's standpoint, it is the NCC. In my opinion, NEM should not be promoted until the NCC is in order.We are launching nevertheless for those impatient ones. They should not complain a bit. I maintain that if everything must be in order before launch then it has to be fair that time is given to make sure that the NCC is in order. Now that time is not given, the current users who can't wait for it to be delayed any longer should not blame the devs for not making the NCC any better.

In any case, NCC is not a life and death situation. Any change to the UI/UX is only the look and feel and does not require a fork. If anyone were to be unhappy about it, then he/she can re-jig it to his/her content. No drama. Like it or not, there will be many armchair critiques anyway.

A huge problem I see is that we have been saying that we won't launch until everything is ready - meaning until the foundation is ready and solid. People will however look at the client and notice that it isn't ready.
So we're gonna take a lot of shit for that i think. We don't have to care about it - just brace youselves :)

garp · February 3, 2016, 6:21pm

When you want to add an existing account into a wallet, you need to:

Provide the private key of the existing account
choose a label, which can be new and arbitrarly
Provide the password of the (new) wallet into which you want to add the existing account. So this password is unrelated to the existing account you want to add and unrelated to the (old or previous) wallet of the existing account you want to add.

This means you only need to know the private key of the existing account you want to add.
And I assume adding an existing account to a wallet is possible, regardless of the balance of the account. So it can be 0 or not. Correct?

If this is correct, the warning in the REMOVE ACCOUNT dialog is incorrect:

And I would like to suggest the following change request:
“Please make sure that your account has no XEM left before you remove it. Or make sure you have the private key of the account which will allow you to add the account to another wallet. Without the private key your XEM’s would be lost forever.”

mixmaster · February 4, 2016, 12:25pm

garp:

Provide the password of the (new) wallet into which you want to add the existing account. So this password is unrelated to the existing account you want to add and unrelated to the (old or previous) wallet of the existing account you want to add.[/quote]
No, you are supposed to enter the password of the currently opened wallet. Without entering that password, you cannot add an account to that wallet.

[quote=“garp, post:17, topic:1058, full:true”]If this is correct, the warning in the REMOVE ACCOUNT dialog is incorrect:

And I would like to suggest the following change request:“Please make sure that your account has no XEM left before you remove it. Or make sure you have the private key of the account which will allow you to add the account to another wallet. Without the private key your XEM’s would be lost forever.”

The warning is a bit unprecise, that is true. As you say, you don’t lose any XEM “forever” if you have a backup of the private key. I think your warning text is a bit long, but it is more correct.