Who else is clicking "click to start" like me? It turns out you have to choose one of the buttons. I thought they are there to allow me to enable/disable the sound, but they also both act as start buttons.
Didn't know a simple interface with a sound switch and a game start button can be designed this badly.
Button may be a verb, but it doesn't have to. Generally, buttons represent one of three things:
1. an action – this is usually a verb in the imperative mood (e.g. Reply, Save, Add to basket)
2. a status – those omit the verb and only specify the new state of an object, which might be a lot of things, like a noun (Spam), an adjective (Favourite) or maybe an adverb (In progress, Later)
3. a navigation item – on the Web, this is better represented as a link, so let's not go into this here
I would argue that "with/without sound" is a clear example of a status here.
It's still way clearer to not omit the verb. "Report spam" vs just "Spam".
Also links are not buttons. There's nothing to get into here. It's straight up wrong from every perspective to think of a link as a button even from an accessibility standpoint.
Or have the "click to start" text cliclable and start the game with sound. Anyone who wants it muted will make sure to first click the mute symbol and then the ambiguity resolves itself anyway.
MathDoku does that and I hate it, because sometimes cookies expire and it plays loud music in the middle of the night when I start it. What's wrong with
I think most people would agree your solution is preferable, but the spirit of this subthread was "what's the smallest change that would improve things" rather than "how could it be redesigned from scratch?"
I would also argue the MathDoku problem is different. That sounds like a mode confusion type issue, where the user expects a certain level of automation but it has been disabled by the system without adequate feedback.
What's wrong with "start with sound" and "start without sound"? That's a guaranteed single click, whereas with a checkbox you need either one or two clicks.
Who else is missing the forest for the trees? It turns out you have to focus on the merit of the contribution instead of inconsequential UI design optimization.
Didn’t know a simple demo (with disclaimers) from someone who is clearly doing something novel could be commented on this badly.
I'd argue that if it confuses the user it's not inconsequential. And also, something can be both innovative and at the same time have room for improvement. Companies are literally chasing down user feedback.
A user's feedback is one of the best things that can ever happen to your program, the worst is to never ever get used by anyone, and the second worse is to have the users walk away with no idea why.
I certainly was confused and had a hard time starting it. If a significant amount of people can't even figure out how to start the game, the problem isn't inconsequential.
I agree with you, but this is distracting from the merits of the demo. Also, this is currently #2 on the front page so clearly many people are able to navigate the demo UI, even if it is suboptimal.
I decided to leave only a secondary comment at the bottom of the thread for the same reason as yours and still got 14 ups (i.e. thanks) in a short time before this branch bubbled up. People definitely get confused and that's worth talking about before the merits of the demo, cause you have to run it somehow. I almost left too thinking it's broken, hugged or something. It is distracting and we'll live through it :)
I tapped "click to start" on my phone a few times, saw nothing happened and assumed it didn't work on mobile and tapped back to come read the comments. I am neuroatypical, though, maybe I don't count as human.
Didn't know a simple interface with a sound switch and a game start button can be designed this badly.