rec.autos.simulators

My question:

Does anybody have a problem with/thoughts on my growing GPaL from it's
current 640 x 480 to 800 x 600 screen size?

Doing so will allow me to maintain the design concept of "everything we need
on one screen" and avoid the use of tab controls which consume additional
resources and increase download and program load times.

One *exciting* thing that I'm adding...

A simple dropdown for "Communication Settings"!

Yippee! No more online races tainted by drivers who don't have the correct
comm settings! You know...the guys with the great pings but lousy
connections that ruin it for the rest of us! Now they'll be able to make a
single simple selection from GPaL and "Bingo! Good-bye hopping Lotus". What
a treat!

The Communications Settings dropdown will work the same way the Graphic
Settings dropdown works. You'll be able to define your own collection of
settings and select any one at any time from the dropdown. A few standard
sets will be included, including the accepted 84/3 core settings. Neat?

If you haven't seen the Sneak Preview take a look... www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

Thanks to all those who have completed the GPL driver survey!
(www.RaceLive.com/GPaL/survey001.htm) The data really helps and the survey
is quick and easy (so far, the average GPLer takes 2:03 to complete a lap of
the survey...but that includes the time you took to add all those nice
compliments and suggestions. :)) The survey indicates that only 2.4% of GPL
drivers have 640 x 480 desktops, by the way.

Take the survey and get on the mailing list for instant notification of when
GPaL is ready for downloading!

Thanks for you enthusiasm and help!

Jack Rambo

--
Ian Parker

ICQ   21772592

It might also be regarded by many as the de-facto standard for win95/98, and
also the internet.

Phillip McNelley

Yes Jack, as long as it doesn't delay MY GETTING IT!!!
LOL

Jack,

Please do.

Jeff

Later,
John

Thanks,
David Radecki

Yes, and I in fact mentioned it in my post. The design concept behind GPaL
is to have all the frequently adjusted settings, as well as some less
accessible INI file settings, all on one fast screen to give us the
opportunity to confirm and adjust all appropriate GPL settings quickly and
easily...without having to pick through the GPL menus or monkey with INI
files.

Adding tabs flies in the face of that design concept. But if necessary, it
may be something that I'll have to implement...almost certainly as GPaL's
feature set grows with subsequent versions. And, of course, neatness,
logical layout, usability, they're all design considerations. One solution
is to increase the size of the application to 800 x 600, but I feel badly
for the small percentage of GPL drivers (2.4% at last count) who run with a
640 x 480 desktop (Note: Windows desktop NOT racing resolution) and would be
unable to use the larger GPaL. In it's initial release GPaL will have a
non-sizable interface. Other marginal disadvantages that tabs present are
increased download and load times. And we're all looking for something that
will put us on the track with a minimum of fuss!

So I just have to wrestle with the alternatives, weigh everyone's feedback,
and do what I think will best serve the largest number of users. We'll see
soon enough!

Thanks for your feedback, Dave!

Jack Rambo

www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

Mark

Download times are pretty irrelavent unless you are looking at something
thats 30 megs.  I think people would be more than willing to spend the time
to download even 5 megs if it indeed worked and was what they needed/wanted.
Increased load times by using the tab control? Nope,s orry I have never seen
that happen in any of the professional programs I've worked on...not even in
thrown together apps I've spit on with VB5.

GPaL, on the other hand, is intended for continuous and repeated use by more
experienced racers who want to quickly confirm their settings, instantly
make whatever changes are necessary, and be on the track racing. My
challenge is to offer quick access to a multiplicity of settings without
making it overwhelming for the novice user.

of software that does

Well, sure, at least to the extent that the controls will fit on a single
screen. Commercial contact management software is good example. Though I
haven't followed the genre for a while, I recall that extremely successful
ACT! packed as much as possible onto each of it's screens while some of the
less successful alternatives forced the user to jump from tab to tab for the
same information. Symantec realized that the regular user wanted as much
info available as was reasonable, without the tabbing requirement, and the
app's popularity reflected that.

Another example that may be somewhat more familiar to the GPL crowd, aside
from GPL itself, is the Windows Display Properties dialog box. Haven't you
ever found yourself wondering..."Man, I wish I could just get to the
settings I want rather than having to jump between all these tabs and dialog
boxes!" ? To the novice user, sure, it reduces the intimidation level. But
to the experienced user, it just adds to the frustration of it all.

If I can reasonably provide the same functionality without the overhead of
another control, I'll do it. I'd rather not lose even the most minute
percentage of users who think that 1.5 MB of download is OK but 1.8 MB is
not worth it, just for example. And though your experience may differ,
there's generally always an incremental performance hit with the addition of
more controls.

And stop spitting on those VB5 apps! :)

Thanks for your thoughts!

Jack

www.RaceLive.com/GPaL

While I agree that the tunneling dialog box is bad UI design, having too much
info on one screen can also be a headache.  I think that tabbed pages, grouping
similar areas of functionality, is the way to go.  I would think that the extra
load time is pretty minimal. But heck, considering all the cool stuff you're
doing, who cares?

That's great, Jack!

Thank YOU, Jack.

Dave Ewing

Logical segregration makes it easier for ANYONE.

 repeated use by more

Its not that difficult, or that timeconsuming to check the application if
you are using something similiar to tabs.  An experienced user knows,
because of the logical segregation, knows where all the settings are and can
easily go there.  He doesn't really have to hunt through commands that
aren't really applicable to what he's looking for.

Thats one piece of software...of which I'm not all that impressed with.
Probably because I helped write a system that replaced a couple thousand
user install base of ACT!. :?

Not really no.  I know exactly where everything is.  Sometimes I wish I
could restructure it differently, but nonetheless there is a fine balance
between presenting too much information that doesn't all belong together and
causing problems because you buried the information too deeply.

On one hand you don't mind losing a few users because of your switch to
800x600, but now you are concerned with losing a few because its .3megs
larger download?  What about annoying the novices that can't handle all the
information in the 800x600?   I'm pretty sure that most of the experienced
users, the ones you seem to want to target and which also decreases your
user base, won't mind the difference of .3 meg download; especially if the
tool is usable and well designed.  Its the novices, the ones that may be
frightened off by all the settings on one page, that would be more inclined
to avoid a download because of .3 meg difference.

Nothing wrong with VB5...it has its place and time like all languages. :)