The DAG . . .
Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:08 pm
There were quite a few critical comments about the DAG today so I have just been having a look at it. I think the first "Select an Army" page is fine - my only quibble here is whether the text about the army would be better aligned to the left hand side rather than centred. Having it centred at the moment makes it a little bit untidy on occasions but this is just a minor point really.
There are many more issues on the second page where you actually pick your army. A number of people have mentioned the absence of unit images which is fair enough, although it doesn't trouble me particularly. There are other things that do though. I think the page might be better if it was set on a plain dark background in order to highlight the various text colours used. I find the current background picture a bit intrusive, to be honest. Next is the fact that the alignment of the headings is out of kilter with what comes below and that makes everything look a bit scruffy. Perhaps "Total" would be better than "Tcost" at the end of the line of headings? The figures in the Points class box are also out of alignment with the figures in the "Points Used" and "Points Remaining" boxes. "Poor" has been omitted from the "Experience" column throughout by the looks of it, which can be a bit confusing when making a selection. And most grievous of all armoured is spelled "armored" throughout, which I presume is the American spelling?
So there are quite a few things here that might improve the DAG. At the moment it is OK but it ought to be made good in due course.
There are many more issues on the second page where you actually pick your army. A number of people have mentioned the absence of unit images which is fair enough, although it doesn't trouble me particularly. There are other things that do though. I think the page might be better if it was set on a plain dark background in order to highlight the various text colours used. I find the current background picture a bit intrusive, to be honest. Next is the fact that the alignment of the headings is out of kilter with what comes below and that makes everything look a bit scruffy. Perhaps "Total" would be better than "Tcost" at the end of the line of headings? The figures in the Points class box are also out of alignment with the figures in the "Points Used" and "Points Remaining" boxes. "Poor" has been omitted from the "Experience" column throughout by the looks of it, which can be a bit confusing when making a selection. And most grievous of all armoured is spelled "armored" throughout, which I presume is the American spelling?
So there are quite a few things here that might improve the DAG. At the moment it is OK but it ought to be made good in due course.
