Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reconsider hiding relevant quests on enabling overlay #4818

Closed
matkoniecz opened this issue Feb 15, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

Reconsider hiding relevant quests on enabling overlay #4818

matkoniecz opened this issue Feb 15, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@matkoniecz
Copy link
Member

For start, overlay work really well especially for lit quest - and shop overlay is really great way to add missing shops. But there are some details that may be worth changing.

One of results of enabling overlay is hiding equivalent quests. I would propose to reconsider this and to remove this behaviour.

  • this makes more important questions where data is missing or old more prominent
  • in areas with high quest density tapping way specifically may be hard where other quests applying to this way or nearby objects are shown, showing quest labels reduces this problem
  • tapping very short way segments is annoying or nearly impossible while quest icon does have a reasonable minimum size. It gets worse with ways going under other ways or over them. Showing quest icons solves it at least for ways detectable as needing survey
  • quest interface for some quests does not need extra "tap on 'select' button" step
  • it is less confusing - disappearance of say surface quests on enabling surface overlay is a bit confusing

In fact, I would consider doing the exact opposite and enable relevant quest even if disabled in settings.

I already tested version where quests are not disabled and I consider it as superior in usability.

@rhhsm
Copy link

rhhsm commented Feb 19, 2023

I like it that by using an overlay, I have access to two quests for each element instead of just one. Ideally, all quests for an element should be accessible (#124), but 2 is better than 1.

@matkoniecz
Copy link
Member Author

matkoniecz commented Mar 1, 2023

clearly this idea is not really being liked

@matkoniecz matkoniecz closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Mar 1, 2023
@rhhsm
Copy link

rhhsm commented Mar 1, 2023

Once the issue of #124 will be resolved, I do like this proposal.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants