Mod Browsing Overhaul Discussion

[jmharris]

5 minutes ago, DefenestratedKoala said:

Go to any game, choose mods, then sort by date published. It's very obvious on Skyrim, Kingdom Come Deliverance 2, and Starfield.

Ok thanks, I can see that. The mod tile now shows the latest known value, but the search index clearly hasn't been updated promptly as is expected. (One could argue whether the mod tile should show the search index value or the latest value.. )

My expectation is that this will be a high priority to resolve ASAP.

[HollownessDevoured]

8 minutes ago, jmharris said:

I accept that you feel a compromise was not all considered. That generally isn't what I see from the discussions my colleagues have and the work they do. I get that might not assuage your feeling here, but perhaps it's something.

We are trying (really!) to be clear on our mission here- from post 1 in this thread: "Improved Accessibility", "We believe modding should be for everyone", "Visually accessible colours"- so your requests are consistent with our goals.

Clearly we aren't meeting your expectations here. We'll keep trying.

As said here, mfPixel said that accessibility was chosen for colour theme, and when I confronted why... one accessibility group to see better was priority... over another group that it causes discomfort/pain for—it wasn't addressed. They had a year to mull that over, and as you mentioned that in this post only the accessibility group to see better was priority is still only considered... and not the group that the high contrast causes discomfort/pain for. So IMHO this still means it is still not in consideration... even a year later.

[DuncanWasHere]

I'm not convinced that Nexus staff actually believe in the efficacy of this redesign, nor am I hopeful that the overwhelmingly negative reception to it will result in a decent compromise for us. Because obviously it's outrageously bad to the point of being comical, and I'll give the staff the benefit of the doubt that they aren't genuinely all on a different wavelength from the rest of the population, it's just their job to defend the brand image. So based on the time spans surrounding this project, it reeks of corporate mismanagement and sunk-cost fallacy to me. So, I get it, it's being forced through to production because it *has* to be, even though no one is really happy about it, or maybe it actually is more economical for the company despite the visceral reaction it triggers in active users, because somehow all the BF Skinner magic works out.

For the record, I feel bad for the staff for having to deal with this mess. I know it's soul-sucking either way.

[zloybelka]

40 minutes ago, DefenestratedKoala said:

It even randomly sorts new mods... I like to browse by latest, but it's literally putting it in a random order. Worst I saw was "2 hours ago" next to "1 week ago" next to "3 days ago" next to "1 hour ago". This is a bad change. Please give us options.

Haha, thought so too once, on the new user profiles, BUT that's just the NEW COOL UPDATE "DATE" indicator. So very cool and convenient (not).

[DefenestratedKoala]

8 minutes ago, jmharris said:

Ok thanks, I can see that. The mod tile now shows the latest known value, but the search index clearly hasn't been updated promptly as is expected. (One could argue whether the mod tile should show the search index value or the latest value.. )

My expectation is that this will be a high priority to resolve ASAP.

Cool. Thank you for addressing this. My general expectation was to have something like the old "latest" page which would show the latest released/brand new mods in order of the newness of the actual mod page itself.

Beyond that, I do still find this design a bit cumbersome and awkward on desktop.

[DefenestratedKoala]

2 minutes ago, zloybelka said:

Haha, thought so too once, on the new user profiles, BUT that's just the NEW COOL UPDATE "DATE" indicator. So very cool and convenient (not).

That's a separate filter though "last updated". If I see a "last updated" and a "date published", I'm going to expect the "date published" to go off of the mod itself and not latest activity on it. All in all, very confusing when compared to the old system.

[jmharris]

1 minute ago, DuncanWasHere said:

the overwhelmingly negative reception to it

There certainly are some negative (and rude!) reactions to it, but feedback over all channels has not been negative overall. I know we can all place our own weight on which channels of communication are more important, and I know some people will flat out not believe me- but it actually is the case.

Of course that doesn't mean we aren't going to be improving things where needed. 

[Kirkor88]

With each passing year this site is more and more hostile towards users.

UI is bad, and you should feel bad. You don't need to be UI expert to see that, unless you are stuck up your own arse creator of this abomination.

[zloybelka]

32 minutes ago, m661 said:

Might I suggest that the team takes a look at Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG2.1)
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/quickref/?versions=2.1&showtechniques=141#principle1

Oh look, the guidelines page is all black font on white background, not vise versa as the NEW COOL NEXUS COLORS! Just remembered this discussion from a year ago, and here we are again.

[zloybelka]

31 minutes ago, jmharris said:

easier and more enjoyable for everyone

Erm, obviously not.