Originally Posted by Goncyn
I think the important thing to shoot for in a project like this is striking a balance between having an overwhelming number of options and having too few options to allow adequate customization. Most of us can probably agree that PitBull configuration window is out of control. There are just too many options; it becomes very "fiddly" to work on anything because you are clicking through various parts of the tree, changing tabs, trying to remember where that option you just changed two minutes ago is hiding... it's a mess. ag_UF, on the other hand, doesn't quite offer enough options.
It's definitely possible to offer a large number of options (thought perhaps not quite so many as PitBull) while still allowing the user to manage them without going crazy. You'll need to devote some time toward carefully considering how to arrange the options interface, how to group choices, etc.
Good luck, I'm curious to see how this project goes!  |
I think that notion is misplaced. I don't pretend to speak for or assume what the various people who develop layouts for oUF, but if there's one thing about oUF it's that there are very few ways to adjust or customize it as an end user. Those comfortable with code can and do edit luas to our desire, but the vast majority of people wouldn't know how to do any customizing outside of an in-game menu.
While I am anticipating this project's release, I don't think customization options should be left out just because of some notion that it would be too confusing or too much for the end user, as that is already how oUF is. Unless the author is trying to target a completely new audience for oUF, simply having an in-game menu will make it incredibly more user-friendly than oUF has been previously.