Positive Feedback about 2.0 launch

[EstefanTT]

I think what people mean when they say (without diplomacy) "the GUI sucks, Poloniex is way better" is that Poloniex is very well done, practical and simple and we should inspire us from it.
 
There is a lot of "traders" who loves Poloniex mainly because of the UI. We should consider to have at least the same options they have on their basic exchange page. There is certainly a way to do it better but it's the best I've seen so far so why not copy the good things they have ?

[xeroc]

The positive feedback is that the back-end works great and is very fast.

That solid foundation is critical to build on. Everything else is largely cosmetic.

I see it the same .. comparing current and 5 days ols version lets you assume how the wallet can improve given a 2 weeks period.

[topcandle]

I love how a "Positive feedback" thread instantly becomes a "lets bash on the GUI" thread...

While I certainly would have made the market interface look different had I had any real say over the design, it really isn't as bad as everyone's saying imo.

Compared to 1.0 it has all the same features (minus market history but that's a backend issue, and shorting which has changed into borrowing). While I realize there's a lot of confusion over how markets work, I get the impression no one's really even tried to use it, place an order, see it fill, etc...

It is also 10,000x faster and more responsive, and has much more reliable live updates.

I agree poloniex is fairly clean and nice, but isn't perfect either. Try resizing it for example. Maybe we should've just made something like that but tbh I bet the feedback would've been just as negative..

If only you would give us some constructive feedback instead of just "it sucks, Poloniex is way better", then we could actually iterate towards something better.

My 0.02 bitUSD..

I agree.  Its working fairly well in terms of the back-end.  And my trades and market transactions are oging through.  Its solid.  We can build on this and move forward.

[Thom]

@svk - welcome to gui development! I appreciate the position you're in when it comes to the web gui, it's hard to see your personal investment of time and energy not received with totally positive reviews. It's also difficult b/c gui design is highly subjective, and who is to be the judge of it's effectiveness?

The answer to that question has 2 primary answers: Stan / Dan / investotors and the final judge is all users as a collective known as "the market".

If the point of this thread is only for affirmation I say it isn't a very useful feedback tool. Jakub and others have posted excellent and adequately detailed information that offers constructive feedback from which to improve the UX and UI design. There is no shortage of work to do to improve the UI design; like any software it can always be better. That is the real fuel of constructive feedback.

That said I think for the time constraints the CNX team was under and the talent at hand, both the backend and gui are fantastic accomplishments. Take that as the positive feedback it is intended to be, put that feather in your cap and hang that plaque on the wall and move on to the next great iteration of the design.

I am aware the current design is not actually finished, not so much from a coding standpoint but more from the lack of documentation and tutorials. And that is also a disincentive for the devs, b/c why put all that effort into the existing gui if it os going to be changed significantly? That's where product release cycles come into play, so there are specific schedules and milestones that define the goals to be achieved.

That's what a roadmap is all about. At this stage CNX should publish s comprehensive roadmap of future development which should include refinements to both the frond end and back end as well as work on other projects (i.e. Muse, Identibit), to properly set expectations.

[Empirical1.2]

The positive feedback is that the back-end works great and is very fast.

That solid foundation is critical to build on. Everything else is largely cosmetic.

[svk]

I love how a "Positive feedback" thread instantly becomes a "lets bash on the GUI" thread...

While I certainly would have made the market interface look different had I had any real say over the design, it really isn't as bad as everyone's saying imo.

Compared to 1.0 it has all the same features (minus market history but that's a backend issue, and shorting which has changed into borrowing). While I realize there's a lot of confusion over how markets work, I get the impression no one's really even tried to use it, place an order, see it fill, etc...

It is also 10,000x faster and more responsive, and has much more reliable live updates.

I agree poloniex is fairly clean and nice, but isn't perfect either. Try resizing it for example. Maybe we should've just made something like that but tbh I bet the feedback would've been just as negative..

If only you would give us some constructive feedback instead of just "it sucks, Poloniex is way better", then we could actually iterate towards something better.

My 0.02 bitUSD..

[Pheonike]

The price of BTS has not reached zero yet   

[jakub]

I've always been very critical about the 0.x GUI. Now I think the new 2.0 GUI is great but it's unfinished, it's still work-in-progress and that's why people may have mixed feelings about it. So I'd say the GUI has an enormous potential if a bit more work is put into it.

The old GUI was a dead end, it was slow and unresponsive and you couldn't do much to radically improve it. The new GUI is the opposite, it just feels very live and truly connected to the underlying blockchain. I'd say it's 80% complete but the missing 20% make the biggest difference in the eyes of the user.

It's biggest weakness is the market page. Right now it's quite mediocre (when compared to established exchanges like Poloniex) both in terms of composition (i.e. the arrangement of different elements on the screen) and styling (i.e. colors, font sizing etc). And this is a shame as the market page is the most crucial element of the GUI and it has the power to determine BitShares future. It has to be attractive for traders (who bring liquidity which is crucial for normal users). So the market page should be upgraded ASAP either to be a straight copy of Poloniex or by making use of javascript tabs to display all the information the traders need and arrange it in a very logical way.

As a long term goal, I think the best option would be to have two incarnations of the GUI:
(1) a BTS wallet with an integrated exchange (and this should be the basis for a hosted wallet provider service)
(2) an exchange with an integrated BTS wallet (and this should be the basis for exchanges like Open Ledger)

When we discussed blockchain security, I appreciated BM's approach stating that we should always look at the weakest element when discussing security. For me the same applies here: UI has always been the weakest element in BitShares business strategy. The new GUI is a very good step forward but is still our weakest point, even after the 2.0 upgrade. The good news is that this is relatively easily fixable as for the first time in BitShares history we have a solid technological foundation for the GUI. Let's just do it

[luckybit]

That is normal practice in the crypto world. Before any major release or upgrade value usually spikes, then a large sell of ensues after the release.  I wouldn't let the market be the judge of the new release as this is very common.

There are plenty of positives from bitshares 1.x to bitshares 2.0, specifically in the back end. More privacy, more efficiency, referral system to grow via magnified network effects, and a better multi signature implementation than any other coin.

I think the GUI is the main thing that is making this 2.0 release somewhat lackluster, which is unfortunate given all of the improvements under the hood. I think spending a few more months in beta could of gone a long way towards making this release a home run.

UX is the problem. For example if in the GUI there were numbers on the dashboard always visible which always track the deflation rate (burn rate), then we don't need to keep checking the forum to find that information. Additionally the participant might want to know what percentage of a DAC they own at any given time, which is also a number which should always be on display.  Certain numbers encourage people to trade, certain signals and signs get people in the mood.

It could take a few weeks but I think UX can improve dramatically and quickly. It just requires we put more of the philosophy expoused by Bytemaster into the design of the interface, and let people see what they need to see when trading, rather than how it looks now which is more like a wallet.

Trust me, it's not bad, it's better than the original Bitshares release, it's actually decent. But it is missing some things which would make it much better. People who want to buy a token like Muse or Peertracks, might want to know what the current burn rate or deflation rate is on that, reflected in the exchange interface, so they can make an informed decision.

This is like having information on cash flow in trading stocks, it is essential. Without it people will not trade. Under the hood Bitshares is fantastic, and the interface while decent, doesn't live up to what is going on under the hood. Any other crypto and we wouldn't be complaining but because Bitshares can do so much, but it's so hard to make use of that power.

The interface needs accessibility functions, a help box, high contrast mode, and more graphics with the Bitshares 2 logo. It's actually too minimalistic in some ways.  On the other hand its nice and fast, smooth, fantastic compared to most websites. It's almost as good as Gemini and very similar but people complain about Gemini too and it launched at around the same time.

See Gemini:


See what Gemini has that Bitshares 2.0 lacks?


Bitshares 2 needs QR codes. How can someone send Bitcoins to the generated Bitcoin or other address from their tablet or smart phone if they don't have a QR code? Of course there are more little details like this but they add up and become critical.


Some other aspects of the trading engine are new to me and there has to be videos to explain. For example what is: Borrow BTC or Borrow USD? These are concepts which have to be explained.

The good news is it is in a browser, so nothing stops Bytemaster from embedding the explanation Youtube videos into the wallet. I would suggest that video is embedded for people who would like Bytemaster himself to explain the concept. Anything else should perhaps be searchable, if it's possible.

[CoinHoarder]

That is normal practice in the crypto world. Before any major release or upgrade value usually spikes, then a large sell of ensues after the release.  I wouldn't let the market be the judge of the new release as this is very common.

There are plenty of positives from bitshares 1.x to bitshares 2.0, specifically in the back end. More privacy, more efficiency, referral system to grow via magnified network effects, and a better multi signature implementation than any other coin.

I think the GUI is the main thing that is making this 2.0 release somewhat lackluster, which is unfortunate given all of the improvements under the hood. I think spending a few more months in beta could of gone a long way towards making this release a home run as far as the GUI is concerned. I also think Bitshares 2.0 is more confusing than Bitshares 1.x so it will take the public a while to come up to speed as to the magnitude of the technological developments.

[godzirra]

Not sure exactly how Bytemaster worded it, but there were a few moments for comments regarding what people liked about the new changes, but time is always very limited in the mumble sessions. We have had plenty of the negative so far, and the share price has kind of put a temporary damper on things. 

Let's see some things that we thought were more positive. And get some momentum back.