MasterEric 6 years{"ops":[{"insert":"I have been using this site for several months now, for all my deckbrewing needs. In this time, I have found it to be an incredibly smooth experience in general, and think the site has great potential to be an incredibly useful tool. I especially appreciate the EDHREC integration in particular, and am a big fan of the site's modern look and feel.\n\nHowever, in my experience brewing decks, I have found several frustrations, and have some suggestions for fixing them:\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Problem: "},{"insert":"The most prevalent and frustrating issues I have are with the site's \"multiple printing\" system, which I have to actively fight with every deck I brew. When adding a card to a decklist, the one chosen by default appears to be either random, or most expensive first. If I don't specifically choose some random recent set to categorize my Mountains to, it'll use the European Land Program #13 printing and spike the listed deck price by $200. If I don't specifically fix it, that Ponder in my list will use the $13 printing instead of the $2 one. Worst of all, I have to do this for EACH card in the list if I import it."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Solution: "},{"insert":"Add an option to the account preferences that allows you to choose how a default printing is selected for the \"Add\" menu and for card importing, selecting between Newest, Oldest, Owned, or Cheapest."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Add a set of buttons under Foiling and Edition, in the \">\" expanding menu that appears when you hover over a card. The \"Select Cheapest Printing\" button selects the cheapest available printing for your chosen card, according to the card pricing site you currently have selected in the left toolbar. The \"Select Owned Printing\" button selects one of the printings you have in your collection (I'm not sure how this would handle owning multiple printings)."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Add a button to the Settings menu allowing you to \"Select Cheapest Printing\" and \"Select Owned Printing\" on all cards in the deck. "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Problem: "},{"insert":"Card color tagging is cool, but the execution is currently quite clunky. I currently use it with the defaults (tagging Owned/Unowned/Getting cards) but there are no features to allow me to automatically use it for that. I understand that the system is designed to be use-case-neutral, but there could be more convenience functions, especially "},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Solution: "},{"insert":"Add the ability to set color tags by dragging cards when the View is set to Color Tag. Currently cards can only be dragged in the Custom view."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Add buttons to the Card Color Tags section of the settings menu. Each tag should have buttons to \"Set All Owned Cards\" and \"Set All Unowned Cards\" (based on your collection), \"Set All Mainboard Cards\" and \"Set All Sideboard Cards\", and some option to use a dropdown to set all cards of one tag to another (for example, set all cards with the Unowned tag to the Getting tag, or from the Getting tag to the Owned tag)."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Add an option in the \"+\" Collection menu on the side to add cards to your collection that match a specified color tag."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":" \n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Problem: "},{"insert":"The deck description system needs work. Currently, the description is so far down the page that nobody seems to notice it exists, and although the guides look nice when completed, they can get quite long. It is also quite slow to utilize formatting compared to sites like TappedOut, since every function requires using the formatting bar, and the formatting bar doesn't scroll with the page. Adding a link to a card is very slow, and requires scrolling all the way to the top to type into the little box."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Solution: "},{"insert":"Add a snippet of the deck description to the right side of the deck header, where there is currently just a bunch of blank space with blurry card art. At the end of the snippet, add a \"More\" link, which will scroll the page down to where the description actually is. This will lead players to easily realize the deck has more information, and quickly be able to access it."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Make the formatting bar freeze to the top of the text box when scrolling. As you scroll, the formatting box should remain at the top, allowing you to access functions without having to move back to the top of the page, where you can't see the text you're currently modifying."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Implement a markdown-like system, or a hotkey system, allowing keyboard-only/inline formatting of text. For example, typing [Hello](http://www.google.com) should create a link to Google, and [[Hermit Druid]] should create a link to the card, or adding a keyboard shortcut for those features."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Add the ability to create expanding accordion boxes in a deck description. This simple system, which is currently utilized by TappedOut, allows users to easily view a relevant section while keeping the page from getting too long."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"As I've seen mentioned, add the ability to embed YouTube videos into the deck description."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Problem: "},{"insert":"Deck browsing is currently very limited in capabilities. There is a counter for views, and a system for deck voting, but these are, at best, a tool for deck authors currently, and there is no option to see the decks other players like."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Solution: "},{"insert":"Add options to sort decks in the \"All Decks\" menu by \"Number of Views\", \"Score\" (upvotes - downvotes), and \"Price\" (based on your currently selected card pricing site in your preferences)."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Add simple buttons to quickly and easily view popular decks from the past day, past week, past month, past 3 months, past 6 months, or the past year. (Please add 3 months and 6 months, sites only ever end up going month -> year and that's too big of a jump)"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Add an featured list, above the recent decks on the home page, which displays \"hot\" decks, or most popular decks of the week."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Problem: "},{"insert":"As a PC power user, I am quite fast with the keyboard and shortcuts. Currently, the interface has a heavy focus on mouse-based browsing, which is relatively slow, since I have to shift my right hand betwen the mouse and keyboard over and over."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Solution: "},{"insert":"Adding keyboard shortcuts, like pressing \"A\" to open the \"Add Card\" menu and focus on the text field, would allow users to work on decks more efficiently. Maybe enhanced \"TAB\" integration to allow you to move cards between categories somehow?"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Problem: "},{"insert":"The \"Add Card\" system, while nice, is limited and slow, especially if you're not looking for a specific card. I often find myself moving to Scryfall to look for something, then moving back to add a card in Archidekt."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Solution: "},{"insert":"Add integration with Scryfall's APIs into Archidekt's card search."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Problem: "},{"insert":"I mainly build commander, and when I'm typing a card name, the autocomplete suggestions are often cards that I cannot use in my deck, due to color identity. This slows me down, as I often have to type much more of the card name to add it to my deck."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"attributes":{"bold":true},"insert":"Solution: "},{"insert":"Filter auto-completion to the color identity of the current Commander, if one is selected. This feature isn't necessary if Scryfall integration is added, I'll just type \"id<=rb\" before each Rakdos search."},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nSorry, not sorry for the essay. Again, the site has many amazing features; it's only in beta, and it's already far better than any other site I have used, especially in the area of user experience. I recommend it to others too! However, there are still lingering frustrations and user experience problems that could be heavily improved upon.\n"}]}
1
michael(Alpha User)
6 years{"ops":[{"insert":"Wowza, thank you so much for taking the time to write all of this out! We really appreciate the time you've taken in an effort to make the site better. I'll do my best to address your concerns and chew on your solutions.\n\nWhen adding a card to a decklist, the one chosen by default appears to be either random, or most expensive first"},{"attributes":{"blockquote":true},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nCurrently it's (supposed to) adds them based on the release date which is pulled from Scryfall. Based on your example, it'd seem that's not working in the intended way. We've been backlogging API tests recently so I'll add a ticket to make sure that get's tested. Though you're totally right it'd be absolutely better if that could be a preference. I also really like the idea of having the ability to quickly make the current card you're viewing the cheapest one available. I've had this idea for a while that'd be a financial optimization button that'd just make every card the cheapest printing so users could know what's the cheapest possible price they could build a deck for. The only issue I could see with your suggestion is -- we've been trying to de-clutter everything in that menu and adding more and more buttons there probably isn't the best spot for them. It's such a balance that we've been trying to strike, that being between "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"all the features"},{"insert":" and having the site be simple and intuitive to use. Honestly that's been so much more difficult that most of the programming so far lol.\n\nCard color tagging is cool, but the execution is currently quite clunky"},{"attributes":{"blockquote":true},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nI could agree with that. A lot of the features we've implemented have been- unfinished isn't the right phrase- but bare bones? There was a time during development where we tried to add as many features as possible to see what (at the time it was just our playgroup) users would enjoy using and assist in brewing. This is how color tagging came to be. We did this with the full intention of doubling back around to brush up and fully fill out all of the features. All that said, there's a ton that we'd like to do with color tagging. Stuff like allowing you to set color tags across your whole account & collection, etc. One that I'd never really thought of was allowing for drag and drop in color tag sorting method (love hearing new ideas like this). I'll throw that in the backlog so when we do get around to improving how color tags work we can look into that as well. Same with more fine and bulk controls for updating color tags.\n\nThe deck description system needs work"},{"attributes":{"blockquote":true},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nThis is one that we've heard in the past. Frankly I'm glad we keep getting feedback on it because we wouldn't really know what to do with it otherwise. Neither of us (there's two devs who built Archidekt) really write too many deck primers. Honestly I'd never noticed how crappy of a user experience it is when you're writing a giant primer. I just wrote in a dummy primer that took up about two screen lengths and I could "},{"attributes":{"italic":true},"insert":"totally"},{"insert":" see how that'd be really frustrating to use. I think the best solution would be to set a max height and let the text area scroll, as a quick fix anyway. As for hotkeys, a few of them work Ctrl+I (italics), Ctrl+B (bold), etc work. Obviously not the best solution as not everything works out of the box or as clearly as something like markdown would. Here's the thing with markdown, I'd prefer it. But I'm someone who writes markdown daily. If we did implement it it'd need to be as an option that would need to be opt in for comments, deck descriptions, etc, not to be a real PITA for less experienced users. That creates a whole slew of other problems due to the fact that the current system wasn't built by us. The current system we use for rich text editing is a plugin which saves and displays the data in it's own proprietary format. Great for the guise of simplicity, but not great when all you want to do is display some text. So if we start allowing markdown as a format it'd be different than what we currently have, and therefor would need to be displayed differently than the current system. The long and the short of it is that we've pigeon holed ourselves into the current system we have. Don't get me wrong, there's a ticket in our backlog to add markdown support, just not sure how quickly we'll get to it given the situation we've gotten ourselves into. \n\nAlso you can alread embed youtube videos, there's a button on the bar.\n\nDeck browsing is currently very limited in capabilities"},{"attributes":{"blockquote":true},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nYou'll be happy to hear we have sorting by upvotes coming in the next update for the site. As for sorting based on most upvoted in a time frame, I'm pretty sure we're not storing that data. Having read what you suggest, I actually feel like that was a pretty huge oversight on our part. I'll add a ticket that we should probably start storing that data if we plan to have a \"search engine esq\" deck search. One of our goals as a website is to try to cultivate a brewing mtg community. Obviously being able to find decks is sort of critical in order to do that. Similarly, you nailed it on the head with featured decklists. We have a few ideas on how we'd like to make the homepage better, and having specifically cultivated decks for users is one of those thoughts.\n\nAs a PC power user, I am quite fast with the keyboard and shortcuts. Currently, the interface has a heavy focus on mouse-based browsing"},{"attributes":{"blockquote":true},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nYou're quite right, and that's somewhat intentional. About half of the people using the site daily are mobile users, which obviously means they can't use stuff like keyboard shortcuts. You're also correct that keyboard shortcuts should be a thing. The problem we've come to every time we talk about adding them, we've always come up with something that'd be more beneficial for more users. Not that a lot of users wouldn't use keyboard shortcuts, but we definitely try to choose features we work on based on how many people (we see from analytics, forum, social media) would benefit from the adding of any feature. That's not to say we're gonna hang power users out to dry -- power users are one of the most important groups of people to us as they are the ones who really help build new data for us to use, etc. We want to do this, we just need to find the time to do so. \n\nThe \"Add Card\" system, while nice, is limited and slow"},{"attributes":{"blockquote":true},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nWe use Scryfall for all of our (card) data, and I can honestly say I've never once thought about using their API for our search. Not sure we'd ever want to offload that much traffic their way as it'd just slow down searches. That said adding their advanced syntax would be super beneficial. This is similar to the above post though, in that new features for the most amount of users. Search syntax just doesn't come close. With that said, I think this would be more important to us than hotkeys as having to bounce between 2 tabs is such a bad user experience and literally the reason we built Archidekt in the first place that I think this would be higher on our radar. \n\nthe autocomplete suggestions are often cards that I cannot use in my deck"},{"attributes":{"blockquote":true},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"\nAgain this isn't something we've ever thought about. But probably wouldn't be too terribly hard to implement, I'll toss this into the backlog as something we should definitely consider in the future.\n\nWhew! That was a task to go through everything, thank you "},{"attributes":{"italic":true,"bold":true},"insert":"so much"},{"insert":" for taking the time to write all of that out. It really means the world to us knowing that there are people out there who care enough about the site to take as much time and thought as you have to put pen to paper (or in this case fingers to keyboard) and get your thoughts out. If you ever have any more suggestions, comments, anything, feel free to hit us up. If you have responses to anything I've written out I'd be happy to hear them out as well. We really are thankful for users like yourself. Thank you.\n\nCheers,\nMichael\n"}]}
0