forked from drewhannay/chess
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
User Reports
13 lines (7 loc) · 4.09 KB
/
User Reports
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Andrew - I had John Charles try to make a special variant. He made two custom pieces, had the White team’s objective be to capture all of Custom1, and had the Black team’s objective to be to protect Custom2. He also had Captured pieces drop. He mentioned that on the Piece creation screen, it was somewhat frustrating to only be able to see the most recent piece. That is, after having made a custom piece, he could not go back and see it or edit it.
He also said that it would be better if the pieces, when captured, did not immediately have to be dropped, rather, they should be stored in the captured piece board, and when the player decides, he may use one of his turns to drop a piece. Finally, the placing of pieces on the board wasn’t entirely intuitive. He tried clicking the preview images first, then clicking the board, expecting the one he most recently clicked to be the color that would be placed. It is explained well in the help menu, but may be confusing if people just assume they can just click. Deleting was even less intuitive.
John - Bryce did some testing for us and found that having clicking to place different piece colors was confusing and that there wasn’t much direction in making new variants. Once he viewed the help documentation he was much more pleased. He also requested setting the dark image before the light image for new pieces for convenience sake. He did succeed in showing a flaw in how pieces were created such that all new piece types had the same image.
Alisa - Holly Meath did some testing for us - she tried playing against the AI and everything seemed to go smoothly until the end, when she forced a stalemate. It displayed “Draw” - which she thought might be misleading since she didn’t request a draw - and it displayed incorrect results, indicating that black had won even though it declared the game a draw. This was fixed immediately.
Tim did some testing for us also. He found errors with placing multiple objective pieces, and noted that the “new game” button on the results page does not actually bring you to the new game menu, but to the home screen. We were able to correct this error as well. He found, like other testers, that placing black pieces and removing them wasn’t intuitive and had to be explained, but he agreed that help text explaining how this works should fix the issue.
Lily played several times (also noting the confusion in placing pieces, although once how this worked was explained to her, she liked it - it just needed clarification). She noticed a pinning problem we have since fixed, and said the piece movement creation was confusing, as was the promotion screen (since that, however, we have added labels to explain what the two boxes mean).
Overall I have noticed during user testing that users were most confused by the system of placing pieces, sometimes trying clicking on the image of the piece in order to change colors. Once they were informed that right-clicking changed the color, they were able to easily place pieces and no longer were confused about this aspect of variant creation - this is why rather than change our method of implementing color change, we informed the user as to how it works. It allows for users to quickly place all pieces of the same color, without requiring them to click on the piece again everytime they wish to change colors. Other than this, and other than the browsing for images (several users, including Bryce, selected the dark image first, then the light image, because that’s how the names alphabetically show up assuming you name image files with “b” and “w” at either the end or start, or a “d” or “l”. We have since changed the order this is listed), everyone seemed to find most of the system fairly intuitive, and were able to help him find errors. Since most of the people who tested for us were CS people, this in some ways illustrates the Bazaar model because as users they had more knowledge of the code base than non-CS people would have. Although they did not contribute to the coding, they knew the sorts of boundary conditions to test that could potentially break our program (and sometimes it did).