Topic: [XCR] Crypti | Dapps | Sidechains | Dapp Store | OPEN SOURCE | 100% own code | DPoS - page 78. (Read 804672 times)

Some news about Cryptsy.
After last stable versions, we contacted Cryptsy devs again, waiting for their answers.
I hope on next week we will get answer and help to fix Crypti Wallet on Cryptsy.

I think we will add themes support, you will make your personal, maybe not in 0.2.1, because still a lot of work here, but in next versions
But i agreed with some points in your review.

I am replying without a quote so we aren't copying the images 100 times.

Keep in mind, these are my personal thoughts because I want to discuss it and you guys know I am always open to ideas and changes if they make sense.

I do like the more subdued colors seeing them side by side, as I always thought the original green seemed bright. So that one I think might be worth a look.

The drop shadow on the sidebar avatar image box, I think could be changed to be more level / flat (like you have it), but I have seen many design it with the heavy box there and don't think it's bad in the current form either.

As for the large fonts and types, I definitely would side with the current version and not the changes you made. I like the original look much better in the comparison screenshots.

I also actually like the blue header, lol, so I'm not feeling you on that one. Maybe it would look better in the little bit lighter blue you used?

As far as the colored headers with the icons, seeing them side by side, I am kind of 50/50 on them. If you add the colored headers you kind of have to remove the blue header up top. I'm not sold that either one is better or worse than the other.

Either way, thank you for taking the time to care and post some feedback. I can't promise that any of the changes will be made but I can promise it will be an item for the meeting. Also, as Max said, we now discussed the option of allowing community submitted themes that people can choose, so that is a win.

Visual Comparison of Issues

Login Page :

The background is virtually a redesigned Android Lollipop Wallpaper (https://www.google.com/search?site=imghp&tbm=isch&q=android+lollipop+wallpaper) and a low-res one too .

This is the actual background right here. Its resolution is 1600x900. My screen has a resolution of 1920x1080 and I can already see artifacts on the contrasting parts of the background, and 1920x1080 is pretty much the standard these days as resolution goes. There's quite a number of people these days with 2560x1440 resolution monitors and even some with 4K monitors. The background would look terrible on any of these monitors.




Visual Comparison :

Okay so here is my comparison of some of the bigger issues that I've found in the current UI and how I've fixed them in my version of the UI :




And yes also as a extra note, I don't fancy the bright blue header all that much, hence the removal of it in my UI.

Passion_ltc

What you've just said to me and the rest of the community is that the Crypti Team is not willing to change the UI, despite valid reasons put forward by the community.

Secondly, I'm not sure why you mention this, but you say that you had a professional UI/UX designer, the strange thing is that you mention this even though we all knew this fact beforehand. The way I see it is that you guys are basically siding with what your designer has put forward instead of listening to the communities concerns, the people who are actually going to be using the Crypti Client. You're basically telling us : "you guys are not professional designers what do you know?"

Thirdly you mention : "we are going to stick to our version". Here you seem to believe that I was suggesting that you have to implement to my version of the UI to fix the issues I announced (if this was an error in communication, then I take full responsibility for that), but my analysis was never meant to "promote" my version of the UI (although I personally feel my version of the UI does look better than the current one). All I did with by providing screenshots of my the UI, was provide a solution to the issues with the current UI that I pointed out. Also it should be noted that I'm not looking for any reward or bounty whatsoever from this, even if you guys did end up choosing my UI, because at the end of the day I , just like everyone else posting here complaining about issues with the current UI, want a client that I'm proud to use, when it comes out of BETA.

Make no mistake the issues that are in the current UI are very real. My solution was just intended to provide an example of a solution to the current issues with the current UI and how that solution may look. You are basically overlooking every legitimate issue I put forward.

@GreXX

When the preview images were posted, most were presented by using an export of Perspesctive Mockups : http://perspectivemockups.com/ (a Photoshop Plugin). Your designer basically just dropped the actual high-res screenshots into this to create the "3D Effect", which some people liked for some reason. The problem with this is that I could barely see some part of the design, parts of the design which had glaring issues which I was able to pick up on the web wallet. The actual unedited screenshots that you guys released without the "3D effect" were of the modals and other smaller components. Also I wanted to reserve my judgement till the point where I could actually use the UI to make an accurate review of it.

If you guys give me around 30 mins, I will give you screenshots of all the issues I have with the current UI and comparisons on how to rectify it.

I'm not sure why you think you've lost me. The colors Wulfcastle uses are basically the color scheme already used in the Crypti Palette (and homepage). He just placed them on the section header blocks on the home page. So if you are suggesting that you think the header blocks look better with a solid color, then what you want isn't a color change, it's a style change for those header blocks. Hence why I asked for clarification on "you might want to reconsider the colors". It seemed as though you meant more in general, the colors of the website, since Wulf used the same color palette we already have been using.

It's just an observation. When it was shown all I saw anyone say was "holy $h!t, it looks amazing".

Can you clarify which colors you don't like and would like to see changed?

@wulf & Supporters - The site looked exactly as it does now in the previews and no one said a word. Why not? Besides that point, I don't see where any of the proposed changes made any improvements at all. The homepage design simply added colors to the boxes, which I like the subtle color more. As for the login page, i'm not surprised that you aren't happy with it yet, it looks hideous. I am not that fond of the background used on the official version either, but the solid green is bad. I'm all for ideas and I would love to see more ideas / different ideas. I don't think the ones proposed above make very much of a difference and I personally feel like the full color headers on the homepage are too much and add nothing for me. I just wish you guys would have been more involved and providing feedback during the preview periods. We could have been discussing this for a while. Everyone was all hugs and candy when it was first shown.

@Wulf

Can you pinpoint where you think the font sizes are "off" or "too big", I'm not seeing it at all.

Also, the box shadows in material design are used to show differentiation between the planes that elements or "materials" are on because 2 items can never occupy the same point in space at the same time. Can you show examples where you think it is an issue?

You mention the design morphing from material design to gradient designs and being inconsistent. Where?

You say we shouldn't use Roboto only but should mix and match fonts? Really? So you don't like material design in other words? Google themselves use 1 font consistently in app design and otherwise. Where would you change the fonts to improve the image of the site? Can you show an example where you think a secondary font would improve the aesthetic?

Also, the image below is an example of the google material design reference table & our table for the Crypti Wallet. Do you still think the tables don't follow material design? (If you want to say the header portion is ugly, that's a whole different story and one we can discuss).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9py5mrpy13akop/tables.png?dl=0

Keep in mind, this is also constructive criticism and an attempt at clarification on your points. I had no hand in the design or implementation of the wallet, these are my observations after reading your comments so we can discuss it fully.

It seems the Crypti images used on the test site are a bit blurry when zoomed/amplified. I checked out the testnet website and they do not adjust to being amplified by the zoom option on chrome. I don't know much about images but I have seem other logos/images which adjust to being zoomed.

Hello Wulfcastle, thank you very much for your constructive criticism.

We had a longer talk regarding your suggestions within the Foundation. While your input is appreciated, we are going to stick to our version. The current design (which is still work-in-progress and an early beta release), went though multiple iterations by the foundation and a professional UI/UX designer.

However, we decided that we will build a theme switcher after we released the Dapp Store. It will be possible to copy custom css files into a specific directory in the Crypti folder. With the theme switcher on the settings page within the Crypti client you will be able to select one of those css files as your design. With this option everyone will be able to change the design to his preference.

I hope that is a fine middle way, we went a long path with the current design and have our vision of Crypti. We don't want to switch to many things of our vision right now.


Thank you.

If someone wants to have some testnet XCR, PM me.

It's just testnet, and there is old fees.
On mainnet still current fees.

In the testnet, 'Register as delegate' option is showing Registration fee: 10,000 XCR.

And second passphrase fee as 100 XCR.

Ofcourse no one is going to use these options in testnet but shouldn't they show the latest agreed fees just to avoid confusion?

thank you guys
my delegate "China" got 18.89% Approval now

just need more 4%
anyone can give a help?

No, you can test the user interface. Next week you will be able to test the client version, e.g. backend, installation process etc., as well.

Are we supposed to test only web version?

My UI Review of 0.3.0

Okay so most of you may know how vocal I am about UI, when it comes to Crypti. So I'm going to give a quick review/overview (not very in-depth) on the UI.

I have some very mixed feelings about the current UI. There are some areas where it looks terrific, but there are also some areas where it looks downright tacky. One of my favourite things about the UI is the fact that it is wholly based on Google's Material Design concept, which is a design style that I love. However in some areas the design style of the Crypti client has adhered to the Material Design Guidlelines strictly while in other areas it hasn't adhered to them at all.

The current UI doesn't feel well refined at all, nor does it feel consistent. Like I said there are some areas that you guys have nailed, like the Material Designed Modals, but other areas such as color palette, font choices, box shadows etc which ruin all the good work that has been done.

This is a quick overview of all the good and bad from the current UI. :

---

The Good :

• Basic Material Design Guidelines are in Place
• Modals Look Terrific
• Design is fairly responsive
• Icons look great, and are relevant too.
• Animations are okay, could do with a bit more polishing, but still good enough

The Bad :

• Font sizes off in many cases. In most cases the font size used is too large
• Very generic color palette
• Overuse of box-shadows (looks quite bad in some areas)
• Major inconsistencies in design, (at some points the design looks morphing between the flattish Material Design Guidelines and the gradient based design styles of yesteryear)
• Roboto, is the only font used. Roboto is a good typeface, but it shouldn't be used for everything here.
• Login page looks really bad, the background is literally a wallpaper shipped with Android Lollipop, with a very low-resolution
• Tables don't adhere to Material Design Guidelines at all. In fact the tables look like generic Bootstrap 3 ones.

---

My Solution:

Well now I can't criticize any of this if I can't come up with a solution to the design problems myself. So I've tinkered around with the .CSS of the UI, and I've made a number of changes. I've mostly tried to recitify the issues I outlined above as well as try and improve on the design in any way I could.

Since I didn't have access to the app.css file locally, I had to make all of these changes through the browser, and I created a dump file with my new .CSS edits, which you guys can view here : https://github.com/Wulfcastle/UI/blob/master/unpacked.css, however I made a few small edits (mainly to the Dashboard) after that which are in the screenshots below, however I couldn't save the edits as Chrome crashed. And again, remember this was a mere two hour hack-job, once we get our hand on the actual BETA client I'll try to tinker more with the CSS and UI.

You can can take the dump file of my .CSS edits and try and view it in your own browser to see the difference, but I haven't gotten it to work on my end, presumably due the way that Node.js applications handle the CSS rendering in the browser. So once we get to BETA test the actual client I'll distribute this my version of the UI for you guys to check.

Screenshots of my edited UI :

Homepage with New Color Palette (I've had to remove the icons from the tabs/headers as the icons had a white background)






Standard Homepage











New Login Page - Still not too proud of




So let me know your feedback, I hope this was some good feedback to the team, and perhaps if the community agrees, maybe we could include some of my edits in the Client UI

So just to wrap up, I apologize if I've rambled a lot during this post, I've been extremely busy of late (hence the lesser activity on here), and this was just something I thought I had to share. To the team and community please take my views as constructive criticism (not as bashing or anything like that), the current UI is good, but it can be so much better.

Thanks for the update

Keep it up... we are closer and closer... imagine this thing in 18 months!